Is it possible to be...Too Perfect for admission to med school?

[Angie_MD]

(Deleted)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TxC]

I doubt it, also it's not easy to be too good.

But honestly, just be yourself. That's the best advice I've ever gotten. Be genuine and show your enthusiasm and passion.

 

[CLE216]

I suspect some of the people who have ridiculously high stats are basically robots.

Admissions people realize that most people with average stats that apply to med school (3.7, 31/32) are fully capable of completing medical school. So then they look for people who will be the best leaders, best at bed-side manner, etc.

Honestly, I have never really understood the thirst for getting into a top med school. Sure it comes with more prestige I guess, but you all have to pass the same tests.

 

[claduva94]

There is no such thing as a perfect applicant. What happens in admissions is in a black box so we can only speculate. It depends on school list and other things. So no. You cannot be too perfect. People just happen to meet specific missions.

 

[gyngyn]

Even strong candidates can have fatally flawed strategy.

 

[mimelim]

You know I've been reading a lot on SDN and I come across a lot of strong sounding applicants that of course anyone would think "WOW they are definitely going to get into medical school " how ever these people don't seem to happy about their outcomes of being rejected over and over again.... So this leaves me to only think that although getting into med school is highly competitive I feel as though maybe they are looking for more realistic applicants without the super robot-like human that has all the perfect stats and Unlimited volunteer, ECs and research experience plus a banging a** personal statement! Not only this but I read the Princeton review on how to write a great personal statement and they have a couple of banging a** previous med school applicants that applied to atleast 20 schools and hadn't gotten any acceptances but I saw mediocre applicants get accepted to atleast 3 of their school choices, what does everyone else think of this?

People with the best applications who apply appropriately get in and get in where they want. The people that didn't get in had something wrong. They may not be admitting it to the public, but there is a reason. I would caution that from the vantage point, the concept of a 'good', 'great', 'mediocre' or 'stellar' applicant is going to be severely limited.

 

[Hospitalized]

You definitely do not want to be a "super robot" when you're going to medical school. Got a 4.0? Great. 38+ MCAT? Exceptional. But what OTHER reasons are there that we should accept you? This is what adcom's want -- The GPA and MCAT are there to set a standard and nothing more. They want someone who has a desire for medicine, experience and exposure. Knowing what you're getting into a huge benefit. Medical school is an enormous commitment, and schools want someone who can not only complete the coursework, but also bring another perspective to their program. Think of your application as a cohesive presentation of who you are -- Grades, MCAT, life experiences, volunteering, family situations, jobs that you've learned from -- anything. Being a doctor is a constant learning process -- prove to admission committees that you have learned from your past. In addition, you must show that you have a future desire to learn and the willingness to put the work in to do so.

 

[hydroxyurea]

Life is a balance. Like mimelim said, these people may have a killer application, but if a committee "sees past" activites pursued purely for entrance into med school, or if activities, while impressive, just don't make the person a great fit for the school's mission or the field of medicine.

Maybe this is them...

 

[aegistitan]

Honestly, I have never really understood the thirst for getting into a top med school. Sure it comes with more prestige I guess, but you all have to pass the same tests.

Those top schools feed into the more competitive residencies. Attending a top medical school allows you to keep your chances of being able to specialize into anything high.

 

[DermViser]

Honestly, I have never really understood the thirst for getting into a top med school. Sure it comes with more prestige I guess, but you all have to pass the same tests.

By the time you get to the point of applying to the residency match, you will very much see why top tier medical schools are wanted by medical students.

 

[DokterMom]

You know I've been reading a lot on SDN and I come across a lot of strong sounding applicants that of course anyone would think "WOW they are definitely going to get into medical school " how ever these people don't seem to happy about their outcomes of being rejected over and over again.... So this leaves me to only think that although getting into med school is highly competitive I feel as though maybe they are looking for more realistic applicants without the super robot-like human that has all the perfect stats and Unlimited volunteer, ECs and research experience plus a banging a** personal statement! Not only this but I read the Princeton review on how to write a great personal statement and they have a couple of banging a** previous med school applicants that applied to atleast 20 schools and hadn't gotten any acceptances but I saw mediocre applicants get accepted to atleast 3 of their school choices, what does everyone else think of this?

Those "super but unsuccessful" applicants probably aim too high, and potentially also too low, missing a broad swath of the 'sweet spot' schools. Just as Harvard won't go for a "robot" with ordinary ECs, a low tier school won't waste their time interviewing a candidate with Harvard-worthy numbers.

There's nothing wrong with aiming high (if you can afford it), provided that your 'safety' schools are picked strategically. In other words, not so low-tier that they don't waste their time on you.

 

[Goro]

No.

 

[bangadees7]

Even strong candidates can have fatally flawed strategy.

Now I'm curious -- would you mind giving an example??

 

[gyngyn]

Now I'm curious -- could you give an example??

Applying to a single school.
Applying to a small number of schools with thousands of equally highly qualified candidates.
Only applying to schools whose median stats are much lower.
Applying to schools that don't accept many of applicant type (OOS, International..)
Writing short, poorly thought out answers to secondary prompts (expecting stats to carry the day).
Arriving late, dressed strangely with rehearsed answers...

 

[EMDO2018]

You know I've been reading a lot on SDN and I come across a lot of strong sounding applicants that of course anyone would think "WOW they are definitely going to get into medical school " how ever these people don't seem to happy about their outcomes of being rejected over and over again.... So this leaves me to only think that although getting into med school is highly competitive I feel as though maybe they are looking for more realistic applicants without the super robot-like human that has all the perfect stats and Unlimited volunteer, ECs and research experience plus a banging a** personal statement! Not only this but I read the Princeton review on how to write a great personal statement and they have a couple of banging a** previous med school applicants that applied to atleast 20 schools and hadn't gotten any acceptances but I saw mediocre applicants get accepted to atleast 3 of their school choices, what does everyone else think of this?

Most people who think they are too good, are actually delusional and subpar in some area.

 

[Snoopy2006]

There is no such thing as being too ideal of a candidate. What's being described is not a "perfect" application, it's a numbers-only application. A truly perfect application will have high numbers and experiences that show legitimate curiosity and commitment to the field.

The "perfect" SDN applications are (most likely) conveniently leaving out red flags or significant flaws in their application. Also, some students vastly overrate their competitiveness and strictly limit themselves to top-tier schools or to a narrow geographic region. There are just a ton of factors in play.

DV beat me to it, but people also shouldn't delude themselves into thinking all medical schools are equivalent. You'll see the differences come early M4 year when applying.

 

[MrChance2]

Being super qualified for medical is just that. It helps. The "perfect" applicants that post on anonymous internet forums about being rejected after a "perfect" application are probably only perfect in their own minds, not in admissions minds or reality. It is possible to have a perfect stats + volunteer hours and such and have unaddressed Aspbergersesque symptoms or a variety of other personality traits that lead to rejection. Many people I've met in medical school would be considered pretty amazing in some regard by general society and become somewhat average in medical school so some people thing the "perfect" bar is lower than it is.

 

[Afford]

There are some really qualified people here. I remember reading some of these people's MDApps and it's like acceptances or interviews to most of the top 10 and scholarships at a decent amount. They probably have the charisma to back up their stats/ECs.

 

[Angie_MD]

I am not saying that these stellar applicants aren't getting any acceptances I'm just starting a convo on whether it is necessary to be that perfect of a candidate in order to get into medical school period, just wanted to see everyone's perspective

 

[Ismet]

I am not saying that these stellar applicants aren't getting any acceptances I'm just starting a convo on whether it is necessary to be that perfect of a candidate in order to get into medical school period, just wanted to see everyone's perspective

Obviously the answer to that is no...

 

[Angie_MD]

Obviously the answer to that is no...

Well I know that, just wanted to know what everyone else thought

 

[DarknightX]

You know I've been reading a lot on SDN and I come across a lot of strong sounding applicants that of course anyone would think "WOW they are definitely going to get into medical school " how ever these people don't seem to happy about their outcomes of being rejected over and over again.... So this leaves me to only think that although getting into med school is highly competitive I feel as though maybe they are looking for more realistic applicants without the super robot-like human that has all the perfect stats and Unlimited volunteer, ECs and research experience plus a banging a** personal statement! Not only this but I read the Princeton review on how to write a great personal statement and they have a couple of banging a** previous med school applicants that applied to atleast 20 schools and hadn't gotten any acceptances but I saw mediocre applicants get accepted to atleast 3 of their school choices, what does everyone else think of this?

No. Schools want to take the applicants that best fit their program. Every program wants the best applicants possible.

 

[zaben]

I think that people with the best stats also end up having some of the best ECs.....good grades opens up doors to good research opportunities etc. I think that stats and ECs are pretty well correlated from what I have seen. At least I don't think there is any reason to believe people with 4.0/40 mcats have any worse ECs than 3.5/31 applicants. As for personality....I have yet to meet a single person at an interview that I would brand as "a robot" so I don't know where this idea comes from. Every single person at every interview I have seen is a very outgoing and involved person who seems very passionate about what they do.

 

[claduva94]

I think that people with the best stats also end up having some of the best ECs.....good grades opens up doors to good research opportunities etc. I think that stats and ECs are pretty well correlated from what I have seen. At least I don't think there is any reason to believe people with 4.0/40 mcats have any worse ECs than 3.5/31 applicants.

That is a big generalization. I would say the correlation between stats and ECs is low at best. I think the reasoning is that 4.0/40 students spend so much time studying that they don't volunteer or pursue their hobbies. Now this is hardly always true, but I'd say there are plenty of people in all categories. Plenty of 4.040 applicants have minimal ECs while others have amazing ECs. The same holds true for those with a 3.5/31.

 

[freemontie]

Lemme get this straight- wrap my head around it so to speak: if your stats are "banging ass" that means people will think you are a robot and not accept you. Do I have that right? If so, worst hypothesis I have ever heard. Make a list of all the confounding variables possible. It could easily be 100+ long.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

So far, I've been to really early interviews and got 1st round II's. I thought every other candidate on each interview day was a strong applicant with better-than-average social skills. I really think schools send out their earliest II's to the candidates they believe are the best. I haven't met anyone yet who made me think, "How the hell did you get an interview?" besides myself, of course.

I also think there is some validity to the "If your stats are too high for a school, they won't interview you right away or at all" statement. I haven't heard anything back from the "lower-ranked" schools I applied to, but I interviewed at my top choice (state school of almost the same caliber as an elite school) already.

Obviously, everyone has a different experience. But I don't think anyone can ever be "too perfect for admission."

 

[Angie_MD]

I think we can go back to a statement that was made earlier about people having other qualities other than just science and math grades, I think about the new MCAT that's going to include some humanities, it's been made clear that medical schools are looking for more well rounded students as well. Of course banging ass stats will get an applicant in! We all know this But I've noticed some not over the most average stats who have gotten into med school period. This is not a hypothesis this is just a "wonder what everyone else thinks" question. I'm loving this thread because everyone has valid points!

 

[DermViser]

I think we can go back to a statement that was made earlier about people having other qualities other than just science and math grades, I think about the new MCAT that's going to include some humanities, it's been made clear that medical schools are looking for more well rounded students as well. Of course banging ass stats will get an applicant in! We all know this But I've noticed some not over the most average stats who have gotten into med school period. This is not a hypothesis this is just a "wonder what everyone else thinks" question. I'm loving this thread because everyone has valid points!

Yes, bc the best way to do that is thru a multiple choice exam, bc it's not like med schools aren't getting well rounded applicants now. If you believe any reasoning the AAMC gives, the road will be tough for u.

 

[mcloaf]

There are no overqualified applicants that aren't getting into med school unless they're applying with very poor judgment. I only know personally one applicant who I would consider in the total rockstar category (though some of them post on SDN), and he had his pick of pretty much all the top 10 schools and is now on a full ride at one of them.

 

[Law2Doc]

We've had people on SDN who had great numerical stats and were convinced they belong at a top ten school, only applied to top ten schools, and probably acted too much like they were interviewing the school and not vice versa. Unfortunately they learned in an application cycle or two that "good fit" actually matters to these places, they are looking for people with more than just the good scores, and a 4.0/40 really only gets you into an interview with these places, it doesn't mean that the every guy/gal with closer to a 3.7/37 doesn't blow you out of the water on interview day. So a few years back we had someone on SDN with incredible numbers, usual premed ECs and a lot of arrogance that they "belonged" at Harvard. They got none of the top dozen schools. A year later they changed their approach and had much better luck at the schools ranked in the 25-35 range per US news. So be cognizant that there's a good fit aspect here and just because you ace every test doesn't mean the program you like will like you back.

 

[2.18281828459045]

Even strong candidates can have fatally flawed strategy.

Can you give an example of a "fatally flawed strategy"?

 

[claduva94]

Can you give an example of a "fatally flawed strategy"?

See the post right above you. It is easy to overreach and as a result have to reapply. Overestimating qualifications is lethal in this process.

 

[DermViser]

We've had people on SDN who had great numerical stats and were convinced they belong at a top ten school, only applied to top ten schools, and probably acted too much like they were interviewing the school and not vice versa. Unfortunately they learned in an application cycle or two that "good fit" actually matters to these places, they are looking for people with more than just the good scores, and a 4.0/40 really only gets you into an interview with these places, it doesn't mean that the every guy/gal with closer to a 3.7/37 doesn't blow you out of the water on interview day. So a few years back we had someone on SDN with incredible numbers, usual premed ECs and a lot of arrogance that they "belonged" at Harvard. They got none of the top dozen schools. A year later they changed their approach and had much better luck at the schools ranked in the 25-35 range per US news. So be cognizant that there's a good fit aspect here and just because you ace every test doesn't mean the program you like will like you back.

To think if he had the common sense to keep his hubris in check the first time, he likely would have gotten an acceptance to a top 10 med school.

 

[Law2Doc]

To think if he had the common sense to keep his hubris in check the first time, he likely would have gotten an acceptance to a top 10 med school.

Perhaps. Still hard to say because "good fit" means more than just saying the right things and not coming off as arrogant. I think it took a cycle of not being successful to make her a better fit for anyplace, actually.

 

[DermViser]

Perhaps. Still hard to say because "good fit" means more than just saying the right things and not coming off as arrogant. I think it took a cycle of not being successful to make her a better fit for anyplace, actually.

I don't think it's saying the right buzzwords and not being arrogant, but also having the right attitude and genuine enthusiasm. Admissions officers want people who are enthusiastic to go to their school, not people who feel they've done enough to "guarantee" them a spot. But was it more a shakedown to reality as the person realized that they aren't entitled to a medical school spot?

 

[Goro]

Ahh, reading comprehension woes again. No one has said that. What has been said is that there are hyperachieving people who get rejected because they're robots, not the other way around.

What does happen is what the wise gyngyn pointed out: Only applying to schools whose median stats are much lower. A school like Drexel apparently will not interview a Harvard-caliber candidate because they feel that the yield for investment of resources is low for these kind of candidates.

Lemme get this straight- wrap my head around it so to speak: if your stats are "banging ass" that means people will think you are a robot and not accept you. Do I have that right? If so, worst hypothesis I have ever heard. Make a list of all the confounding variables possible. It could easily be 100+ long.

 

[Strudel19]

What exactly is a robot? Someone with a high GPA that did well on the MCAT and volunteered and did research? I personally know a handful of people with great personalities that barely studied in undergrad and got A's and haphazardly studied for the MCAT for three weeks and scored a 35+. In any case, I feel like people have this notion that the new psychology and sociology sections are going to be an insurmountable hurdle for these people. These students probably won't have to study much for this section and could very well perform better than those who aren't robotic and therefore look less robotic on paper.

These robots probably understand psychology and sociology very well. They don't apply those principles to their daily lives, and it's probably painfully obvious based on the enthusiam, passion and demeanor that you're talking about.

 

[Strudel19]

While I'm thinking about it, the purpose of the new MCAT isn't to weed out "robots". It seems to me that the purpose of the test is to complement an almost reinvented method of practicing medicine that encourages understanding the identity of patients like never before.

 

[Gauss44]

You know I've been reading a lot on SDN and I come across a lot of strong sounding applicants that of course anyone would think "WOW they are definitely going to get into medical school " how ever these people don't seem to happy about their outcomes of being rejected over and over again.... So this leaves me to only think that although getting into med school is highly competitive I feel as though maybe they are looking for more realistic applicants without the super robot-like human that has all the perfect stats and Unlimited volunteer, ECs and research experience plus a banging a** personal statement! Not only this but I read the Princeton review on how to write a great personal statement and they have a couple of banging a** previous med school applicants that applied to atleast 20 schools and hadn't gotten any acceptances but I saw mediocre applicants get accepted to atleast 3 of their school choices, what does everyone else think of this?

Regarding the part in bold, you're NOT GETTING THE FULL STORY about an applicant from what you read on here. Box-checking only goes so far.

I will also boldly and frankly mention that I found your post to be unpleasant to read. I found the descriptions "super robot like" and "a-banging" to be unnecessary, negative, distasteful, and weird. Some people/ADCOMs will think that the words you use represent what you are like as a person. Of slightly less importance, your whole post comes across as shallow, which in my book is the opposite of a strong independent thinker, which is what some ADCOMs are looking for. Be aware of these factors.

 

[EliottReid]

I'm wondering what a robot is? People who talk with a monoton voice? I don't know but people who have great grades and great MCAT score shouldn't be called robots for that. Anybody can be a robot or socially awkward and grades don't have anything to do with it. A great GPA doesn't Also mean that you are not good in psychology or sociology, that you're not a tv show addict or you study 24h/day and can't spend 10h doing research. 4 hour volunteering, and even have a part time job!

 

[Mad Jack]

Your app can't be too perfect for admission. If you have a "perfect" app and fail to be admitted, there was probably a red flag somewhere that you are either unaware of (such as in your LoRs) or you are oblivious to (such as something that comes off as arrogant to others but you fail to see as such in your PS). If you have a perfect app and get interviewed and then not accepted, the likely culprit is poor interpersonal skills or an inability to come off as genuine.

 

[freemontie]

Ahh, reading comprehension woes again. No one has said that. What has been said is that there are hyperachieving people who get rejected because they're robots, not the other way around.

What does happen is what the wise gyngyn pointed out: Only applying to schools whose median stats are much lower. A school like Drexel apparently will not interview a Harvard-caliber candidate because they feel that the yield for investment of resources is low for these kind of candidates.

She said that. I was obviously responding to her, not anybody else. I haven't even read the other responses. I don't know what gyn said.

 

[Angie_MD]

Regarding the part in bold, you're NOT GETTING THE FULL STORY about an applicant from what you read on here. Box-checking only goes so far.

I will also boldly and frankly mention that I found your post to be unpleasant to read. I found it the descriptions "super robot like" and "a-banging" to be unnecessary, negative, distasteful, and weird. Some people/ADCOMs will think that the words you use represent what you are like as a person. Of slightly less importance, your whole post comes across as shallow, which in my book is the opposite of a strong independent thinker, which is what some ADCOMs are looking for. Be aware of these factors.

I'm glad you feel that way about my post which is just that, a post,which absolutely DOES NOT represent me as a person, clearly It seems as though I am NOT the only so called judgemental person here. Maybe try to read between the lines, I meant robotic in a way that means a person who does passed his/her fullest potential and still are able to continue without wearing themselves out, who are able to achieve great stats, I don't get why this thread has turned into a sudden bash a thon? It was a question that was meant for people to give their thoughts and ideas on a certain topic.

 

[Angie_MD]

What I did do was change my statements in my earlier post in the beg to help those who didn't really get what I was saying. I am not bashing anyone on here that was not my intentions on this thread. I apologize if I have offended anyone on here but I hope that this helps Others to feel better about there lower end stats for the future. this thread is ( CLOSED)

 

[milski]

this thread is ( CLOSED)

That's not how it works...

 

[Goro]

It has nothing to do with GPA and MCAT, or any other intellectual ability, it's a personality trait.

Have you ever met someone with ZERO personality? Someone who just couldn't crack a smile? Someone who has absolutely no passion, no drive? That's is we're talking about. These are a tiny subset of the very bright, high achievers we're discussing.

Capeesh?

What exactly is a robot? Someone with a high GPA that did well on the MCAT and volunteered and did research? I personally know a handful of people with great personalities that barely studied in undergrad and got A's and haphazardly studied for the MCAT for three weeks and scored a 35+. In any case, I feel like people have this notion that the new psychology and sociology sections are going to be an insurmountable hurdle for these people. These students probably won't have to study much for this section and could very well perform better than those who aren't robotic and therefore look less robotic on paper.

These robots probably understand psychology and sociology very well. They don't apply those principles to their daily lives, and it's probably painfully obvious based on the enthusiam, passion and demeanor that you're talking about.

 

[Law2Doc]

It has nothing to do with GPA and MCAT, or any other intellectual ability, it's a personality trait.

Have you ever met someone with ZERO personality? Someone who just couldn't crack a smile? Someone who has absolutely no passion, no drive? That's is we're talking about. These are a tiny subset of the very bright, high achievers we're discussing.

Capeesh?

Bear in mind that there are tons of people that won't get admitted to their top choices that aren't even at this robotic extreme. In a competitive process if you come off as a little stiff and are being compared with similarly scoring people who can come off as gregarious and enthusiastic, you are sunk. "Good fit" matters and that's something that's judged more in person than on paper. High stat people sometimes want to believe their job is done once they "rock" the MCAT but it's a Multifaceted process and frankly once you get past certain hurdles, how places like you personally matters as much or more than your stats. Top places want people who wow them in person, not just on paper.

 

[Goro]

Once again, my learned colleague nails it. This illustrates the importance of the interview...basically, when you go interview, being likable is important.

Bear in mind that there are tons of people that won't get admitted to their top choices that aren't even at this robotic extreme. In a competitive process if you come off as a little stiff and are being compared with similarly scoring people who can come off as gregarious and enthusiastic, you are sunk. "Good fit" matters and that's something that's judged more in person than on paper. High stat people sometimes want to believe their job is done once they "rock" the MCAT but it's a Multifaceted process and frankly once you get past certain hurdles, how places like you personally matters as much or more than your stats. Top places want people who wow them in person, not just on paper.

 

[W19]

I think we can go back to a statement that was made earlier about people having other qualities other than just science and math grades, I think about the new MCAT that's going to include some humanities, it's been made clear that medical schools are looking for more well rounded students as well. Of course banging ass stats will get an applicant in! We all know this But I've noticed some not over the most average stats who have gotten into med school period. This is not a hypothesis this is just a "wonder what everyone else thinks" question. I'm loving this thread because everyone has valid points!

That will make no difference at all... Getting into med school is a game you have to know how to play. The only thing that might not be totally under one's control is the MCAT... Getting a solid GPA (3.5+) is not hard. Having an 100 hours shadowing is doable... Getting 300+ healthcare related experience and ECs is attainable. Having a some research related BS if you go to a state university is not impossible... Now you have to have that magic 30+ MCAT for MD and 26 for DO... Then write a good PS and secondaries, apply early and strategically, and avoid making a fool out of yourself during interview...

 

[Law2Doc]

... and avoid making a fool out of yourself during interview...

Nope, this is where your post flew off the rails. The standard is much much higher than "avoid making a fool out if yourself"... This is a very competitive process. There will be people with good stats who are also really good at interviewing. If the best you can accomplish by comparison is not making a fool if yourself you won't get in. You have to be good at this very real and very scrutinized part of the application process. one of the biggest mistakes in this process is looking at the interview as a mere formality. In fact it's usually the most important part of the process if you make it that far. Practice for it and don't try to marginalize it by thinking "I just have to not make a fool of myself" or "this is just to weed out the crazies". If your interview is lukewarm, average, there's going to be someone more polished who will use this opportunity to vault past you. Every top program passes on quite a few higher stat people in favor of people with solid stats who shine on interview day. none of those Rejected higher stat people necessarily made a fool if themselves in the interview.