Are Med Admissions Random or Inexplicable?

[Bangersandmash]

You are right, to be absolutely fair, one test one day.

You are the slimiest of all devil's advocates! We should definitely make sure that all the test takers have pencils sharpened to the same length then. And chairs at the same height. Thousands of perfect little robots prepared to take the only thing that matters for their careers.

I don't get what you are saying... On a scale of 45, 2 questions = 1 point. On a scale of 1000, 2 questions = 50 points. You are only getting an inflated score, that's why I said making the MCAT out of 1000 wouldn't solve the problem. At the end of the day, they are all the same lol

I think he would add more questions to the test. But at the end of the day, he is being ridiculous.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

I completely agree with you, but that makes this whole thread quite misleading, especially coming from a school admin. Still, if you look at the chart, the chances aren't 100% to be accepted even with superior stats. At the end of the day, you're going to hear about the slightly below average people who didn't get in ANYWHERE while others did. That takes away some legitimacy to the points we agree on.



I get what you're saying Lizzy, but unfortunately, your explanation is the very essence of the randomness we as applicants see. Why do you want someone from a different area suddenly after you've already selected three dozen from the same area? Fairness (and hence least random) perceptions would mean you take an equal number of people from each region.

I'm glad to know every school has specific, non-random criteria for the applicants they admit. Unfortunately, the applicant who just applied to 20 schools doesn't have insight into the minds of the ADcom at each school. He or she also doesn't understand why 18 schools rejected her, while the 2 schools that accepted her were of higher rank.



Agreed.

You are never going to know why one or two schools made an offer while 18 others did not. Has every person you find sexually attractive been equally attracted to you? If not, is mutual attraction "random" or is it logical but just beyond what we can understand?

What I was trying to say about selecting students from different areas goes to geographic diversity. Let's say we are making 100 offers. We start at the top with the most qualified applicants who interviewed most successfully. Working our way down, we have admitted 36 applicants from Ohio. Thus far we have not encountered a single applicant from Maine. With one offer left to make we have two applicants who have the same stats, same interview scores, same undergrad school & major. One is from Ohio and one is from Maine. Do you fault us for choosing the applicant from Maine?

 

[Yadster101]

Hey Lizzy I completely agree with your argument. But don't you think medschools should acknowledge that all of these things are hard to fit into 4 years (more like 3 years if you apply summer after junior year)? How do medschools view someone that took a year off but has all/most of these components? Say someone took a year off to volunteer/research/etc... Would it be looked down upon compared to someone who was able to accomplish everything without taking time off?

 

[LizzyM]

Hey Lizzy I completely agree with your argument. But don't you think medschools should acknowledge that all of these things are hard to fit into 4 years (more like 3 years if you apply summer after junior year)? How do medschools view someone that took a year off but has all/most of these components? Say someone took a year off to volunteer/research/etc... Would it be looked down upon compared to someone who was able to accomplish everything without taking time off?

I've not seen criticism of a year off for a significant research or service experience. I have seen criticism of applicants who do nothing of substance until January of junior year with an application submitted 6 months later.

 

[pmarank]

I've not seen criticism of a year off for a significant research or service experience. I have seen criticism of applicants who do nothing of substance until January of junior year with an application submitted 6 months later.

But would the applicant that took a year seem inconsistent if they were to take a year off for research and drop everything they did for the past 4 years? For example the applicant likely wont be able to continue being a part of pre-med clubs and hold on campus jobs anymore during a gap year...Obviously it makes sense to end these things during a gap year but would these things still hold weight during the application even though the applicant didn't engage in them during the gap year? --sorry if that didn't sound very eloquent..I am very sweepy

 

[LizzyM]

But would the applicant that took a year seem inconsistent if they were to take a year off for research and drop everything they did for the past 4 years? For example the applicant likely wont be able to continue being a part of pre-med clubs and hold on campus jobs anymore during a gap year...Obviously it makes sense to end these things during a gap year but would these things still hold weight during the application even though the applicant didn't engage in them during the gap year? --sorry if that didn't sound very eloquent..I am very sweepy

Everything you wish to include among your experiences goes on your application. So if you were involved in a service organization for four years of college and you graduate 2 weeks before you submit your application, then you list that with an end date. If the following month you take a job in a research lab 500 miles away, you might list that, too. You can also add text in the experience section explaning that you dropped an activity because of a conflict with another activity (about 80% of the applicants who join crew as freshmen seem to drop it in favor of other activities). Campus activities quite naturally end when you are no longer a student on campus and that is to be expected.

Certainly, students who spend a semester abroad have a gap in activities that are geographically restricted (obviously you aren't volunteering at the local soup kitchen in Newark while you are in Europe).

 

[impact2d]

Random isn't the right word, but unpredictable most certainly is. I have most of what LizzyM said.Above matriculant average MCAT, 99th percentile GPA, great ECs, I'll admit I'm light on research, outstanding LOR from Medical Director at hospital-it actually shocked me when I read a copy he mailed to me, and highly above average community service and work experience. Except for a few schools IIs were very unpredictable from what I expected.

My opinion is that there are too many qualified applicants, and schools can't interview them all. One adcom member actually told me that sometimes they are looking to fill specific roles in the class as well.

The list LizzyM gave is the starting point, but there are intangibles also. At some point it comes down to the ever variable human element and "fit". That is why I can be rejected pre II from an unranked school and and given a priority interview at 2 top ranked schools OOS and ignored at all but one of my state schools.

Some schools probably find synergy with my work experience, my personal story, my clinical experience, and ECs while others may be selecting for a different type of person or already admitted someone like me and passed on me in the interest of diversity.

Sent from my ADR6400L using SDN Mobile

 

[lazymd]

semantics

 

[mmmmd]

I've not seen criticism of a year off for a significant research or service experience. I have seen criticism of applicants who do nothing of substance until January of junior year with an application submitted 6 months later.

What if the first medically-oriented experiences of substance occur in junior year? How would admissions perceive not a shortage of substance, but lack of medically-oriented substance while exploring various fields prior to committing to medicine?

 

[Spinach Dip]

My vote is for C: Incomprehensible.

 

[syoung]

Thanks LizzyM for all this great info. Wish I had it when I was 18... Or even 1-2 years prior to applying!

 

[CholeCystems]

Something I didn't really know before applying this year was what seems to be (from what I've gathered on SDN) is the emphasis on GPA over institution attended. Obviously a 3.6 from an Ivy is more impressive than a 3.5 from a CC. But it appears it is better to attend a lower ranked school than say a mid or upper tier college if you want to graduate with a 3.7+. I'm sure med schools have a good feeling for what schools have grade inflation/deflation but perhaps a 3.2 student at UC Berkeley could've gotten a 3.8 at a Cal State school in the same major but because of this low GPA they are screened out at most schools.

Also maybe someone got stuck with the brand new O-chem professor sophomore year and they would've done much better if they got the professor who has been teaching for 20 years and has tenure. Or if you got the hard Pchem professor and learned more but got a B versus if you got the easier professor and learned less but received an A. Obviously I don't expect med schools to know if you got a B with Prof X is the same as an A from prof Y, just another example of randomness in this whole process.

I know the MCAT is the standardized test to help differentiate between different GPA's and the hundreds of colleges in the US but as others have touched on earlier in the thread a lot of it is luck/randomness that you took the test on your specific day with the specific material along with everyone else that took your test on that day to determine that test's curve. A 29 could be a 32 with the same test-taking skill but you just didn't get the right test day.

Lastly, it seems some people suggest reading schools' mission statements to see which ones resonate with your goals but it seems most of them are pretty generic with the exception of Loma Linda and HBC's. And yes there are research heavy schools and those looking for community service but the mission statement themselves all seem similar. I based my list of schools more off of where my GPA/MCAT was competitive (LizzyM) and what public schools were OOS friendly more than mission statements.

 

[syoung]

Education. Medicine. Patients. Healing. Research. Service. Welcome to the Hexa-vision of the medical school of syoung.

 

[911 Turbo]

Also maybe someone got stuck with the brand new O-chem professor sophomore year and they would've done much better if they got the professor who has been teaching for 20 years and has tenure. Or if you got the hard Pchem professor and learned more but got a B versus if you got the easier professor and learned less but received an A. Obviously I don't expect med schools to know if you got a B with Prof X is the same as an A from prof Y, just another example of randomness in this whole process.

I know the MCAT is the standardized test to help differentiate between different GPA's and the hundreds of colleges in the US but as others have touched on earlier in the thread a lot of it is luck/randomness that you took the test on your specific day with the specific material along with everyone else that took your test on that day to determine that test's curve. A 29 could be a 32 with the same test-taking skill but you just didn't get the right test day.

Exactly. Anyone care to respond to this?

 

[Narmerguy]

I completely agree with you, but that makes this whole thread quite misleading, especially coming from a school admin. Still, if you look at the chart, the chances aren't 100% to be accepted even with superior stats. At the end of the day, you're going to hear about the slightly below average people who didn't get in ANYWHERE while others did. That takes away some legitimacy to the points we agree on.



I get what you're saying Lizzy, but unfortunately, your explanation is the very essence of the randomness we as applicants see. Why do you want someone from a different area suddenly after you've already selected three dozen from the same area? Fairness (and hence least random) perceptions would mean you take an equal number of people from each region.

I'm glad to know every school has specific, non-random criteria for the applicants they admit. Unfortunately, the applicant who just applied to 20 schools doesn't have insight into the minds of the ADcom at each school. He or she also doesn't understand why 18 schools rejected her, while the 2 schools that accepted her were of higher rank.



Agreed.

Ugh, I'm not sure why so many people love to refer to the system as random. It may be the case that it's just easier to just think of elements of the process as random. Indeed there are many "seemingly" random processes in our lives. However, don't make the mistake of claiming that the underlying processes actually are random! There are obviously a system of weights and preferences used to evaluate applicants and one's inability to comprehend all these weights and values hardly negates their existence.

 

[Narmerguy]

Something I didn't really know before applying this year was what seems to be (from what I've gathered on SDN) is the emphasis on GPA over institution attended. Obviously a 3.6 from an Ivy is more impressive than a 3.5 from a CC. But it appears it is better to attend a lower ranked school than say a mid or upper tier college if you want to graduate with a 3.7+. I'm sure med schools have a good feeling for what schools have grade inflation/deflation but perhaps a 3.2 student at UC Berkeley could've gotten a 3.8 at a Cal State school in the same major but because of this low GPA they are screened out at most schools.

Also maybe someone got stuck with the brand new O-chem professor sophomore year and they would've done much better if they got the professor who has been teaching for 20 years and has tenure. Or if you got the hard Pchem professor and learned more but got a B versus if you got the easier professor and learned less but received an A. Obviously I don't expect med schools to know if you got a B with Prof X is the same as an A from prof Y, just another example of randomness in this whole process.

I know the MCAT is the standardized test to help differentiate between different GPA's and the hundreds of colleges in the US but as others have touched on earlier in the thread a lot of it is luck/randomness that you took the test on your specific day with the specific material along with everyone else that took your test on that day to determine that test's curve. A 29 could be a 32 with the same test-taking skill but you just didn't get the right test day.

Lastly, it seems some people suggest reading schools' mission statements to see which ones resonate with your goals but it seems most of them are pretty generic with the exception of Loma Linda and HBC's. And yes there are research heavy schools and those looking for community service but the mission statement themselves all seem similar. I based my list of schools more off of where my GPA/MCAT was competitive (LizzyM) and what public schools were OOS friendly more than mission statements.

Exactly. Anyone care to respond to this?

Don't make the mistake of confusing randomness in your daily life with randomness in the process. For example, even if we all just rolled a dice to determine our GPA, and rolled another dice to determine our MCAT--two obviously random actions--a medical school's acceptance procedures would not be random by choosing the highest GPA and MCAT among these applicants. There is a clear and consistent logic to the acceptance protocols in such a scenario, and you could not claim that the acceptance process is random.

You could claim that getting a GPA or a good MCAT is a random process, though I think most people would agree that in the real world this is only relevant within small margins (difference between 29 and 32 is typically a substantial # of questions whereas difference between 39 and 42 is not). Ditto for GPA. Difference between a 33 and 32 will probably matter less. This is likely why we don't often see big differences between applicants with 3.9's and 4.0's. But even if we did!, that would be consistent and reproducible, and not random. Perhaps a poor reflection of the nature by which applicant's GPAs and MCAT scores are determined, but not a random evaluation. Thankfully medical schools do not seem to use GPA and MCAT scores that way.

 

[911 Turbo]

Don't make the mistake of confusing randomness in your daily life with randomness in the process. For example, even if we all just rolled a dice to determine our GPA, and rolled another dice to determine our MCAT--two obviously random actions--a medical school's acceptance procedures would not be random by choosing the highest GPA and MCAT among these applicants. There is a clear and consistent logic to the acceptance protocols in such a scenario, and you could not claim that the acceptance process is random.

You could claim that getting a GPA or a good MCAT is a random process, though I think most people would agree that in the real world this is only relevant within small margins (difference between 29 and 32 is typically a substantial # of questions whereas difference between 39 and 42 is not). Ditto for GPA. Difference between a 33 and 32 will probably matter less. This is likely why we don't often see big differences between applicants with 3.9's and 4.0's. But even if we did!, that would be consistent and reproducible, and not random. Perhaps a poor reflection of the nature by which applicant's GPAs and MCAT scores are determined, but not a random evaluation. Thankfully medical schools do not seem to use GPA and MCAT scores that way.

Yes but shouldn't medical schools account for the fact that our dice rolls were random to begin with? Your second paragraph sort of touches on this... but it doesnt explain what medical schools do. By the way, what is the question difference between a 29 and 32?

 

[Narmerguy]

Yes but shouldn't medical schools account for the fact that our dice rolls were random to begin with? Your second paragraph sort of touches on this... but it doesnt explain what medical schools do. By the way, what is the question difference between a 29 and 32?

I think they do the best they can without injecting new biases into the system. This is a good thing, because for the most part what we will be evaluated on is within our control. The difference between me getting a 3.6 GPA and a 3.8 GPA, averaged over the course of ~30-40 classes, is unlikely to be the result of luck of the draw with a bad professor. For example, I had a particularly bad semester that was 0.35 GPA points lower than my typical semesters, and on the average it probably only dropped my cumulative GPA <0.05 points. It's difficult to simply be unlucky over the course of four years, so it requires very little for the medical schools to account for that kind of random variability.

For the MCAT, the precise difference between a 29 and a 32 depends on how you got it (15V, 8P, 9P vs 11V, 11B, 10P). Just as a reference, on the AAMC #11 the difference between an 8 and an 11 on the BS section was between 9-14 questions. That's a substantial swing.

There are plenty of these sorts of things for medical schools to account for. Was it someone's fault if they grew up in a poor family that required them to work 40 hours a week and couldn't study as much or spend money on MCAT prep materials? Their fault they could only afford a cheap in-state school? These are, in my opinion, much more significant "random" processes that applicants bring with them to the medical school game, and schools develop a consistent way of being able to evaluate them.

All this is besides the point. Medical schools certainly should try to be as reasonable and accommodating as possible in considering some of the randomness that goes into everyone's daily lives. But whether or not they do does not change that they use a system of weights, values, and preferences to select applicants. This is not random, no matter how frustrating, secretive, or unfair it seems.

 

[ZtetNb]

The process overall may not be inexplicable or "random" per say, but it is oftentimes arbitrary.

 

[mmmmd]

free will for all parties involved vs randomness (which is essentially the same as being arbitrary in the context of admissions decision-making).

i think there's a theoretical flowchart that exists for each individual in the admissions decision process. This may change slightly depending on the randomness of life (weather that day, this individual's love life, butterflies being exterminated by ecological catastrophes..). put all the individual flow charts of the school together on average and you've got a theoretical flow chart for each school in the admissions decision process. put all of those together on average and you've got a theoretical flow chart for getting into med school.

it's not arbitrary or random if there's a flow chart that explains how the input (you, your application, what people say about you, what your actions say about you, etc) is translated into the output (the admissions decision).

 

[1289]

this thread gives me a headache. i don't envy the work of adcoms

 

[Robin des Bois]

One shouldn't deny that there's a factor of luck involved.
I think by random, LizzyM meant that the adcoms pick candidates like the lottery. But that's not the case. It's only that your chances of getting in are not only determined by your app elements, but by the app elements of others.
Also, each school has different forumlas. That's because schools are aware that there is none perfect selection formula, ao they do their best to have to more qualified candidates possible, and to give more chances to qualified candidates of getting into medicine

 

[LizzyM]

What if the first medically-oriented experiences of substance occur in junior year? How would admissions perceive not a shortage of substance, but lack of medically-oriented substance while exploring various fields prior to committing to medicine?

I hear this all the time from adcom members and interviewers. There is great concern about whether the applicant is making an informed decision about a career in medicine. Keep in mind that there is no written rule that the experience section can't include experiences prior to college so if you had clinical experiences earlier in life, include them. However, if you have HS experiences and none in college, you might be criticized for failing to make a mature decision based on experiences in adulthood.

It looks as if at least half of all matriculants in recent years have had 5 or more years since the typical age for HS graduation before matriculating to medical school...
https://www.aamc.org/download/159350/data/table6.pdf

This might be something to reflect on.

 

[Midifelder10]

Something I didn't really know before applying this year was what seems to be (from what I've gathered on SDN) is the emphasis on GPA over institution attended. Obviously a 3.6 from an Ivy is more impressive than a 3.5 from a CC. But it appears it is better to attend a lower ranked school than say a mid or upper tier college if you want to graduate with a 3.7+. I'm sure med schools have a good feeling for what schools have grade inflation/deflation but perhaps a 3.2 student at UC Berkeley could've gotten a 3.8 at a Cal State school in the same major but because of this low GPA they are screened out at most schools.

Also maybe someone got stuck with the brand new O-chem professor sophomore year and they would've done much better if they got the professor who has been teaching for 20 years and has tenure. Or if you got the hard Pchem professor and learned more but got a B versus if you got the easier professor and learned less but received an A. Obviously I don't expect med schools to know if you got a B with Prof X is the same as an A from prof Y, just another example of randomness in this whole process.

I know the MCAT is the standardized test to help differentiate between different GPA's and the hundreds of colleges in the US but as others have touched on earlier in the thread a lot of it is luck/randomness that you took the test on your specific day with the specific material along with everyone else that took your test on that day to determine that test's curve. A 29 could be a 32 with the same test-taking skill but you just didn't get the right test day.

Lastly, it seems some people suggest reading schools' mission statements to see which ones resonate with your goals but it seems most of them are pretty generic with the exception of Loma Linda and HBC's. And yes there are research heavy schools and those looking for community service but the mission statement themselves all seem similar. I based my list of schools more off of where my GPA/MCAT was competitive (LizzyM) and what public schools were OOS friendly more than mission statements.

That is the biggest problem and the most unfair aspect of admissions. Within the same universities different dept. curves are at C+ or B-, there is no standardization. GPA should be out of the equation, out the window, only MCAT and MCAT should decide it.

 

[Midifelder10]

You are the slimiest of all devil's advocates! We should definitely make sure that all the test takers have pencils sharpened to the same length then. And chairs at the same height. Thousands of perfect little robots prepared to take the only thing that matters for their careers.



I think he would add more questions to the test. But at the end of the day, he is being ridiculous.

Fair not ridiculous. Just like Olympics when the shot is fired everyone runs.

 

[Midifelder10]

I hear this all the time from adcom members and interviewers. There is great concern about whether the applicant is making an informed decision about a career in medicine. Keep in mind that there is no written rule that the experience section can't include experiences prior to college so if you had clinical experiences earlier in life, include them. However, if you have HS experiences and none in college, you might be criticized for failing to make a mature decision based on experiences in adulthood.

It looks as if at least half of all matriculants in recent years have had 5 or more years since the typical age for HS graduation before matriculating to medical school...
https://www.aamc.org/download/159350/data/table6.pdf

This might be something to reflect on.

How can anyone judge if someone is making a informed decision? It is impossible to judge that fairly.Fact that they have applied means they know what they are doing. Anytime subjective opinions are involved there would be confusion and randomness maybe biases too.

 

[Bangersandmash]

You are never going to know why one or two schools made an offer while 18 others did not. Has every person you find sexually attractive been equally attracted to you? If not, is mutual attraction "random" or is it logical but just beyond what we can understand?

What I was trying to say about selecting students from different areas goes to geographic diversity. Let's say we are making 100 offers. We start at the top with the most qualified applicants who interviewed most successfully. Working our way down, we have admitted 36 applicants from Ohio. Thus far we have not encountered a single applicant from Maine. With one offer left to make we have two applicants who have the same stats, same interview scores, same undergrad school & major. One is from Ohio and one is from Maine. Do you fault us for choosing the applicant from Maine?

Do I fault you? No. Is it necessarily right? No. Will the 37th person who got rejected feel slighted? Yes. It's not random anymore, but it's certainly unpredictable as others have said.

And yes, every person I've found sexually attracted was equally attracted to me. I just look that good.

Ugh, I'm not sure why so many people love to refer to the system as random. It may be the case that it's just easier to just think of elements of the process as random. Indeed there are many "seemingly" random processes in our lives. However, don't make the mistake of claiming that the underlying processes actually are random! There are obviously a system of weights and preferences used to evaluate applicants and one's inability to comprehend all these weights and values hardly negates their existence.

Everyone has already touched on it, but now we are just arguing semantics. Ok, the process isn't "random" in the definition of the word, but it is certainly not equal, fair for all and predictable. It is highly variable in many aspects and nothing will be guaranteed because every school is looking for something specific.

And so we have come full circle to the worries many applicants have. A rose by any other name...

 

[LizzyM]

That is the biggest problem and the most unfair aspect of admissions. Within the same universities different dept. curves are at C+ or B-, there is no standardization. GPA should be out of the equation, out the window, only MCAT and MCAT should decide it.

MCAT measures just one day in the life (or in some cases, 3 days ). The gpa is considered a better measure of one's work ethic over the long haul setting aside the fact that prepping for the MCAT requires considerable work.

The gpa is not taken in a vacuum. The school(s), the major, the course load, the courses taken, the number of pass/fails and withdrawals are all examined. Maybe that's why things seem random... how could someone with a 3.70 be selected over someone with a 3.85 with the same MCAT?

Also, letters of recommendation from professors or from a committee can put professors' and schools' grading schemes in context. Some professors will describe in detail their grading standards and the applicant's performance on exams/papers/quizes that puts the grade in a context. This tends to be the norm at schools with huge impersonal classes. Schools with small classes tend to generate letters that focus less on how the grade was earned and more on the student's attributes (contributions to class discussion, critical thinking skills, writing skills). Either way, the LORs can be useful in interpreting the gpa.

 

[BabyDoc86]

This definitely needs to be stickied.

 

[Midifelder10]

MCAT measures just one day in the life (or in some cases, 3 days ). The gpa is considered a better measure of one's work ethic over the long haul setting aside the fact that prepping for the MCAT requires considerable work.

The gpa is not taken in a vacuum. The school(s), the major, the course load, the courses taken, the number of pass/fails and withdrawals are all examined. Maybe that's why things seem random... how could someone with a 3.70 be selected over someone with a 3.85 with the same MCAT?

Also, letters of recommendation from professors or from a committee can put professors' and schools' grading schemes in context. Some professors will describe in detail their grading standards and the applicant's performance on exams/papers/quizes that puts the grade in a context. This tends to be the norm at schools with huge impersonal classes. Schools with small classes tend to generate letters that focus less on how the grade was earned and more on the student's attributes (contributions to class discussion, critical thinking skills, writing skills). Either way, the LORs can be useful in interpreting the gpa.

In ideal world what you say is correct but the world is far from ideal. A 3.2 is just not as impressive as 3.8 irrespective of the Univ involved. Taking fluids, thermal and Pchem in same semester is insane but that is what you end up doing sometimes. There is no sympathy no consideration but you just are not going to cut it. Then people who are less informed make a ridiculous statement that you did not work hard in undergraduate. How do you know, I could barely keep my head over water and was living from test to test. GPA means nothing absolutely nothing.

 

[LizzyM]

How can anyone judge if someone is making a informed decision? It is impossible to judge that fairly.Fact that they have applied means they know what they are doing. Anytime subjective opinions are involved there would be confusion and randomness maybe biases too.

It is obvious that you've never reviewed applications or interviewed medical school applicants. Many have made very mature decisions to seek a career in medicine but some have seriously warpped ideas about what is involved in the practice of medicine or what to expect from patients.

In ideal world what you say is correct but the world is far from ideal. A 3.2 is just not as impressive as 3.8 irrespective of the Univ involved. Taking fluids, thermal and Pchem in same semester is insane but that is what you end up doing sometimes. There is no sympathy no consideration but you just are not going to cut it. Then people who are less informed make a ridiculous statement that you did not work hard in undergraduate. How do you know, I could barely keep my head over water and was living from test to test. GPA means nothing absolutely nothing.

Again, LORs are your friend. That said, making good choices about a major is also important. Last time I looked fluids, thermal and Pchem are not required for admission to medical school. On the other hand, I've seen 3.95 gpa from engineering students and from students at schools with grade deflation so you are up against that, too.

 

[Bangersandmash]

In ideal world what you say is correct but the world is far from ideal. A 3.2 is just not as impressive as 3.8 irrespective of the Univ involved. Taking fluids, thermal and Pchem in same semester is insane but that is what you end up doing sometimes. There is no sympathy no consideration but you just are not going to cut it. Then people who are less informed make a ridiculous statement that you did not work hard in undergraduate. How do you know, I could barely keep my head over water and was living from test to test. GPA means nothing absolutely nothing.

Not to poop in your bed or anything man, but I know a few chemical engineers with 3.7+ GPAs. If you really want to do medicine but can't pull the 3.5+ in engineering, decide what interests you more.

 

[zwander]

I can't agree with you LizzyM. I've spoken with adcoms who have admitted that they receive many more qualified applicants than their class size allows. To think that in any given application cycle, there are only a few hundred or so applicants qualified enough to accept (and the adcoms are able to find all of them) is both delusional and in some ways pompous.

 

[ilikevegetables]

I can't agree with you LizzyM. I've spoken with adcoms who have admitted that they receive many more qualified applicants than their class size allows. To think that in any given application cycle, there are only a few hundred or so applicants qualified enough to accept (and the adcoms are able to find all of them) is both delusional and in some ways pompous.

This is not at all the argument she is making.

Clearly, when there are 5,000 applications for 100-200 seats, it will not be possible to accept every qualified candidate. However, it is quite clear when you look at average gpa and MCAT for applicants and matriculants and you look at the gradient of proportion of admitted applicants by race, gpa and MCAT that there is no randomness at all but very deliberate choices and it holds true that among the things you have power over, earning an excellent gpa and scoring very well on the MCAT are the two greatest predictors of success as a medical school applicant.

Consider too, that sometimes there are deliberate choices that might seem random. All other things being equal, we might take someone from a geographic area we don't see often over someone from the same area as three dozen more highly rated applicants who we've already admitted. At a different school, the tables might be turned and the reverse decision might be made.

If this were a random process, we could just pick your names out of a hat. It would certainly save time.

 

[Midifelder10]

It is obvious that you've never reviewed applications or interviewed medical school applicants. Many have made very mature decisions to seek a career in medicine but some have seriously warpped ideas about what is involved in the practice of medicine or what to expect from patients.



Again, LORs are your friend. That said, making good choices about a major is also important. Last time I looked fluids, thermal and Pchem are not required for admission to medical school. On the other hand, I've seen 3.95 gpa from engineering students and from students at schools with grade deflation so you are up against that, too.

Once again my knowledge base is not even fraction of what you have but LOR's dont give you the .5 gpa boost you need.

The key as you said it is making a good safe major choice. I made a mistake and I am living with it. It was my fault and I take the responsibility, hopefully things will pan out if not we will see.

 

[Midifelder10]

Not to poop in your bed or anything man, but I know a few chemical engineers with 3.7+ GPAs. If you really want to do medicine but can't pull the 3.5+ in engineering, decide what interests you more.

3.7+ chem e in my college is rare. Of course some kids do it but the point is the kids who don't are not bad either. Lumping them with a easy major is not fair but that is the baggage you carry for rest of your life.

 

[jcaptian]

I think in the end the process, as a whole, is not random. There is a certain standard of academic, ECs, and LOR excellence all schools seek. A person with a strong application should get in somewhere during a given cycle.

However, if we take a small chuck of the schools, say the number of schools most apply to, the process lends itself to be variable. At the COM/SOM level, schools are looking for very specific attributes along with the previously mentioned excellence. Makes sense, there are a lot of other kids with similar and even better stats than you. You need attributes outside of numbers to differentiate between applicants. This is where variability comes in...each school looks for different "attributes". So if you apply to 10 schools, all of which are looking for traits outside numbers you don't have, there is a chance you won't get accepted. Tough luck...perhaps the 11 school you thought about applying to but didn't was looking for you specifically. That's why we take our best educated guess based on numbers and missions as to where we should apply. However, we'll never know what a specific adcoms is looking for for a given class besides the cliche numbers and general excellence. We just have to trust that despite the many of other kids with similar/better stats, one school will see the potential in us.

 

[Narmerguy]

Everyone has already touched on it, but now we are just arguing semantics. Ok, the process isn't "random" in the definition of the word, but it is certainly not equal, fair for all and predictable. It is highly variable in many aspects and nothing will be guaranteed because every school is looking for something specific.

And so we have come full circle to the worries many applicants have. A rose by any other name...

What you're asking for is a definition of random that can seemingly be applied to anything in human existence. There's no sense in that. Of course nothing can be perfectly "fair for all" when people have to make choices that may involve human error. That doesn't make the whole thing random, at least if the term is to have any meaning.

I would also argue that it is fairly predictable on the aggregate, and gets difficult at the fringes. Is that surprising? Biology is the same way, weird stuff happens when you zero in on small cases, and it's not really random, but perhaps you don't understand it. That's ok, you can either learn more to predict it better of just stay mystified and call it "random".

Once again, whether or not you can predict it is not an indication of whether or not it can be be predicted. If LizzyM decided to divulge the entire procedure by which her school ranks/values candidates, suddenly it would no longer seem random and unpredictable. In fact, you'd be able to predict extremely well what the outcome would be for the students that she sees. Has the underlying process changed at all? No. Simply how much information you know about it. You can't argue that just because you're not privy to this sort of critical information that the entire process must be inherently arbitrary, unfair, or random.

 

[occams_razor]

Something I didn't really know before applying this year was what seems to be (from what I've gathered on SDN) is the emphasis on GPA over institution attended. Obviously a 3.6 from an Ivy is more impressive than a 3.5 from a CC. But it appears it is better to attend a lower ranked school than say a mid or upper tier college if you want to graduate with a 3.7+. I'm sure med schools have a good feeling for what schools have grade inflation/deflation but perhaps a 3.2 student at UC Berkeley could've gotten a 3.8 at a Cal State school in the same major but because of this low GPA they are screened out at most schools.

Also maybe someone got stuck with the brand new O-chem professor sophomore year and they would've done much better if they got the professor who has been teaching for 20 years and has tenure. Or if you got the hard Pchem professor and learned more but got a B versus if you got the easier professor and learned less but received an A. Obviously I don't expect med schools to know if you got a B with Prof X is the same as an A from prof Y, just another example of randomness in this whole process.

I know the MCAT is the standardized test to help differentiate between different GPA's and the hundreds of colleges in the US but as others have touched on earlier in the thread a lot of it is luck/randomness that you took the test on your specific day with the specific material along with everyone else that took your test on that day to determine that test's curve. A 29 could be a 32 with the same test-taking skill but you just didn't get the right test day.

Lastly, it seems some people suggest reading schools' mission statements to see which ones resonate with your goals but it seems most of them are pretty generic with the exception of Loma Linda and HBC's. And yes there are research heavy schools and those looking for community service but the mission statement themselves all seem similar. I based my list of schools more off of where my GPA/MCAT was competitive (LizzyM) and what public schools were OOS friendly more than mission statements.

on SDN you see a lot of people saying it doesn't matter at all where you go to school, I've seen people say do your pre-reqs at a community college and get a 4.0 because it doesn't matter.
I used to believe this as well but based on what I've seen recently IRL I have to disagree with this. Where you went to undergrad, the prestige of that school, it is a factor. Don't make the mistake of thinking it can make up for poor grades or a poor MCAT score, but to say it is completely irrelevant is wrong IMO.

I was just talking to an old high school friend who went to Vassar and has 2 acceptances already this cycle, he told me his GPA is 3.4 and MCAT is 32, he's not URM and based on what he said he's got good but pretty average ECs. Nobody can ever know for sure but I tend to think he had some leeway with his 3.4 GPA because he went to a highly ranked school. He even outright said to me he thinks his lower GPA was forgiven because of his school.

Also, in this thread (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=813897) LizzyM herself said that her adcom "actually has a list of about 400 schools and some measures of their rank".
I also recently read a book by Dr Suzanne Miller and she said prestige of undergrad does matter somewhat.. So clearly it is considered but it's one of many things.

 

[LongJourney12]

I think many of the people who think that the process is random are not properly defining the word. If you look up the definition, randomness denotes a process that is done without "purpose, direction or rule" (Merriam Webster). Clearly, this process does not fit that definition. Medical Schools have their distinct purposes and apply a particular method in selecting it's students, hence the process is not random. It is up to the applicant to access their reasons for applying to medical school and research schools that are specific to their medical interest/goals and apply broadly. Of course, even after doing this, you cannot expect to get into every single one of those schools because at the time your application is reviewed, there may have been someone who expressed similar interests, or from the same geographical area as you etc who was accepted before you. Therefore, apply early. There is nothing random in this, because again, it is done with for a particular purpose (diversity etc). Another problem is that we are basing this aspect of randomness purely on a few factors of an individual's application--their MCAT and GPA. There is no way for you to know every single aspect of a person's application--their personal history, individuals with whom that person worked and most importantly how cogently this person expressed their reason for studying medicine. So, basically the process may seem random, but if you really think about it, it is just complicated. There are so many variables that are at play that make it seem like there is no purpose in the selection of accepted students.

 

[Bangersandmash]

What you're asking for is a definition of random that can seemingly be applied to anything in human existence. There's no sense in that. Of course nothing can be perfectly "fair for all" when people have to make choices that may involve human error. That doesn't make the whole thing random, at least if the term is to have any meaning.

I would also argue that it is fairly predictable on the aggregate, and gets difficult at the fringes. Is that surprising? Biology is the same way, weird stuff happens when you zero in on small cases, and it's not really random, but perhaps you don't understand it. That's ok, you can either learn more to predict it better of just stay mystified and call it "random".

Once again, whether or not you can predict it is not an indication of whether or not it can be be predicted. If LizzyM decided to divulge the entire procedure by which her school ranks/values candidates, suddenly it would no longer seem random and unpredictable. In fact, you'd be able to predict extremely well what the outcome would be for the students that she sees. Has the underlying process changed at all? No. Simply how much information you know about it. You can't argue that just because you're not privy to this sort of critical information that the entire process must be inherently arbitrary, unfair, or random.

Except that LizzyM herself admitted implicitly that the process is unfair. Take geographic distribution for example. Why did her school suddenly decide that the 37th applicant from a region is too much? They just accepted 36 students from one area and screwed over one because they decided to stop taking from that area. How is that not arbitrary, even though they had the intention of taking someone from a different geographic area?

I'm not asking for a definition of random. I'm not equating fairness with randomness. And I don't think my full understanding of each school's requirements and application weights would make me change my opinion. Even if LizzyM disclosed her school's selection procedure, you don't think there is at least ONE applicant who was left out simply because they didn't have a seat? If a school gets 5000 applicants and takes 150, their selection criteria would have to be EXTREMELY deep in terms of priorities in order to narrow down 150 students without turning away someone they feel fits their school.

At the end of the day, arguing semantics doesn't change what I thought the essence of this post was about: the seeming variability in the medical school application process. No matter what you call it (fair/unfair, random/planned, variable/invariable), there is a general feeling of "Why me?" when you don't get in somewhere and someone with lower stats does. I'm not saying this is wrong, unavoidable or unwarranted, but it's a dread that infects many pre-meds and I don't think this thread allays their fears, considering it has been pretty much said that ALL variables and intangibles can't be accounted for.

 

[Freesia88]

Not to belittle the committment required to get into medical school, but I often wonder at the "Why me? " or "Why not me?" question.

Does everybody who applies with competitive stats deserve to get in?

 

[Kmd001]

I

 

[Narmerguy]

Except that LizzyM herself admitted implicitly that the process is unfair. Take geographic distribution for example. Why did her school suddenly decide that the 37th applicant from a region is too much? They just accepted 36 students from one area and screwed over one because they decided to stop taking from that area. How is that not arbitrary, even though they had the intention of taking someone from a different geographic area?

I'm not asking for a definition of random. I'm not equating fairness with randomness. And I don't think my full understanding of each school's requirements and application weights would make me change my opinion. Even if LizzyM disclosed her school's selection procedure, you don't think there is at least ONE applicant who was left out simply because they didn't have a seat? If a school gets 5000 applicants and takes 150, their selection criteria would have to be EXTREMELY deep in terms of priorities in order to narrow down 150 students without turning away someone they feel fits their school.

At the end of the day, arguing semantics doesn't change what I thought the essence of this post was about: the seeming variability in the medical school application process. No matter what you call it (fair/unfair, random/planned, variable/invariable), there is a general feeling of "Why me?" when you don't get in somewhere and someone with lower stats does. I'm not saying this is wrong, unavoidable or unwarranted, but it's a dread that infects many pre-meds and I don't think this thread allays their fears, considering it has been pretty much said that ALL variables and intangibles can't be accounted for.

Call this what it is then. This is not semantics, this is clarity. Claiming that something is random and saying that something is confusing or unfair are different things. Racial segregation was unfair, but it was hardly random. One can argue that affirmative action is unfair, but it is hardly random. Perhaps choosing someone from a rare geographic region is unfair, but again, as you say, it's not random. That is a huge point, so be clear on that when you are responding to others.

You aren't saying that it's wrong, that it's unfair, or even unpredictable--so what are you saying? Getting rejected sucks, I know. I've been rejected from things that made me want to cry it hurt so bad to keep getting told "no". No one is denying that. But I think it's time to realize this is the real world. Don't start feeling sorry for yourself or wronged because you didn't do what others were willing to do. So you can't be born from Montana or some small village in Tanzania. You can control literally every other aspect of your application, and with a few small exceptions, your effort, your interests, your intellect, and your personality will determine your success in this process. Why did 36 people from your same region get accepted over you in the first place? What did they do differently, and could you have done something better that would have put you in front of them? Most likely, the answer will be yes.

I think too many people here have no idea the caliber of applicants out there. You say "why me" if you get rejected, I say "why me" if I get accepted! So what if there are more than 150 qualified fits? No one deserves a spot. No one is entitled to a spot. Medical schools want the 150 best fits. There are thousands of people with better stats than you and I, with more charming personalities, with better research experiences, with deeper commitments to service, with better leadership talent, the list goes on. You want to know why you didn't get in, pick something someone else did better than you and there's your answer. Whatever you do, don't complain because you had a better MCAT and GPA than someone else, because that's simply not how the selection process works and there's no mystery about that.

So if you hate the process, and you hate the rules of the game, that's your choice. You can also choose to come back and change it, as I one day hope to. But you controlled your destiny when you went to class everyday, when you studied for the MCAT alone in your room, when you chose what things mattered to you and what things didn't, and when you showed up to the interview and sold your story. Don't blame the school because others did it better.

 

[Bangersandmash]

Call this what it is then. This is not semantics, this is clarity. Claiming that something is random and saying that something is confusing or unfair are different things. Racial segregation was unfair, but it was hardly random. One can argue that affirmative action is unfair, but it is hardly random. Perhaps choosing someone from a rare geographic region is unfair, but again, as you say, it's not random. That is a huge point, so be clear on that when you are responding to others.

You aren't saying that it's wrong, that it's unfair, or even unpredictable--so what are you saying? Getting rejected sucks, I know. I've been rejected from things that made me want to cry it hurt so bad to keep getting told "no". No one is denying that. But I think it's time to realize this is the real world. Don't start feeling sorry for yourself or wronged because you didn't do what others were willing to do. So you can't be born from Montana or some small village in Tanzania. You can control literally every other aspect of your application, and with a few small exceptions, your effort, your interests, your intellect, and your personality will determine your success in this process. Why did 36 people from your same region get accepted over you in the first place? What did they do differently, and could you have done something better that would have put you in front of them? Most likely, the answer will be yes.

I think too many people here have no idea the caliber of applicants out there. You say "why me" if you get rejected, I say "why me" if I get accepted! So what if there are more than 150 qualified fits? No one deserves a spot. No one is entitled to a spot. Medical schools want the 150 best fits. There are thousands of people with better stats than you and I, with more charming personalities, with better research experiences, with deeper commitments to service, with better leadership talent, the list goes on. You want to know why you didn't get in, pick something someone else did better than you and there's your answer. Whatever you do, don't complain because you had a better MCAT and GPA than someone else, because that's simply not how the selection process works and there's no mystery about that.

So if you hate the process, and you hate the rules of the game, that's your choice. You can also choose to come back and change it, as I one day hope to. But you controlled your destiny when you went to class everyday, when you studied for the MCAT alone in your room, when you chose what things mattered to you and what things didn't, and when you showed up to the interview and sold your story. Don't blame the school because others did it better.

I don't know if this was directed at me or at pre-meds in general, but you're still missing what I took to be the essence of the title and the post. I ask why to everything - acceptances and rejections. I don't compare myself to others, I compare my performances to my abilities.

Putting literal definitions aside, people take the "randomness/variability" of med school as a general concept that they worry about when applying. LizzyM was trying to address this with her post and give some hope to pre-meds that it isn't "random" in that schools have procedures and if you excel and do what you're supposed to do in undergrad, you will get in.

People questioned her (myself included) and still worry about the mixed bag that is medical school applications. In essence, while her initial post was meant to assuage fears of the unpredictable, I think this thread has just confirmed that there is that dreaded variability a lot of pre-meds fear and they don't really have a grasp on what schools are looking for beyond the everyday pre-med activities (whether it be geography, a non-trad experience, stellar LORs etc).

THAT is what pre-meds are worried about. This thread merely points out every school has a method. Great. People still have questions and wonder about the process when you go beyond the tangible things.

 

[Josh7]

Thanks for all this information Lizzy, you come through again!

Does having too much of one of those ever hurt an applicant? I fear that my extracurriculars are too much on the academic side (research, TA, honors society etc) and nothing on the "fun" side.

For example, I am going to have a ton of research ECs but right now I'm not 100% positive that I want to apply to MD/PhD programs. Would strong research experience look bad for non PhD applications?

 

[LizzyM]

Thanks for all this information Lizzy, you come through again!

Does having too much of one of those ever hurt an applicant? I fear that my extracurriculars are too much on the academic side (research, TA, honors society etc) and nothing on the "fun" side.

For example, I am going to have a ton of research ECs but right now I'm not 100% positive that I want to apply to MD/PhD programs. Would strong research experience look bad for non PhD applications?

Not at the top schools; they will welcome it. You should have at least one fun thing going on, though, too.

 

[JoshuaGuit]

Well, I certainly hope it isn't random. If it is, I think I'm screwed!

I guess I don't really understand the point of your thread, Lizzy. I guess I'm going to argue that it doesn't matter whether the process is random, standardized, or whatever.

In the end, it doesn't really matter who is admitted to medical school as long as they can learn the material and treat the patient correctly. Sick patients will always be diagnosed on a clinical scale, and diseases will always be cured on a research level. The admissions committee isn't there to make people happy, but rather in a more abstract view, they are there to maintain the societal need for new physicians as old ones retire.

Despite what our mothers tell us, we are not unique. Observing as a larger being than humans, medical students and physicians are helping to serve a public need and nothing beyond that. If there is a threshold quantity of people willing to fulfill this need, life can flourish. When I die later in life, no one will really care how happy I was or how "fulfilled" I felt by life outside of my immediate family. What would matter to the world as a whole was what minute effect I had on the world, which was most probably negligible in the grand scheme of development.

 

[Bangersandmash]

Well, I certainly hope it isn't random. If it is, I think I'm screwed!

I guess I don't really understand the point of your thread, Lizzy. I guess I'm going to argue that it doesn't matter whether the process is random, standardized, or whatever.

In the end, it doesn't really matter who is admitted to medical school as long as they can learn the material and treat the patient correctly. Sick patients will always be diagnosed on a clinical scale, and diseases will always be cured on a research level. The admissions committee isn't there to make people happy, but rather in a more abstract view, they are there to maintain the societal need for new physicians as old ones retire.

Despite what our mothers tell us, we are not unique. Observing as a larger being than humans, medical students and physicians are helping to serve a public need and nothing beyond that. If there is a threshold quantity of people willing to fulfill this need, life can flourish. When I die later in life, no one will really care how happy I was or how "fulfilled" I felt by life outside of my immediate family. What would matter to the world as a whole was what minute effect I had on the world, which was most probably negligible in the grand scheme of development.

Every person has at least a few thousand base pairs of DNA that is unique to their own person. Listen to your mother.

 

[Josh7]

Not at the top schools; they will welcome it. You should have at least one fun thing going on, though, too.

Well I enjoy running and playing chess but those sorts of clubs require enormous time dedications

I'll look into it for next semester.

Thanks again!