Some interesting conflicts between what SDN vs Med Schools say is important

[efle]

Hello everybody, it's been a while since I stirred up a good ruckus so I thought I'd share this...

(for non crap quality see https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf page 7)

What's up with the points of disagreement between what med schools say is important vs SDN? For example...

• The SDN consensus is usually that med schools don't care where you went to undergrad, they just care that you got a solid GPA...but for private schools selectivity of undergrad is rated highest importance up there with GPA and MCAT
• I believe I've seen a few adcoms on here state that it's the exception rather than the norm for letters of rec and personal statements to really much help or hinder an applicant. Isn't this at odds with the "highest importance" rating, since other things up there (like again GPA or MCAT) do very much help and hinder applicants?
• People frequently say that legacy goes a long way (often as a comparison to URM) towards lowering the thresholds required of applicants. Are the med schools straight up lying in the survey saying that legacy is of low importance?

If anyone else notices differences between the Hivemind and the survey results, please share.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted407021]

I saw this as well, in my MCAT manual thing. I guessed the importance placed on UG institution by private med schools may be skewed in that direction by schools with an attached uni giving a small leg up to their own UG students. Just my hypothesis. It will be interesting to see what adcoms think.

 

[efle]

I guessed the importance placed on UG institution by private med schools may be skewed in that direction by schools with an attached uni giving a small leg up to their own UG students. Just my hypothesis.

I don't follow - don't most public schools have an associated undergrad as well, and admit as many applicants from their undergrad as private schools typically do?

 

[NickNaylor]

Perhaps it's just my institution in particular, but I can say with confidence the following based on being on the committee over the past year:

1) After the interview, a person's school seldom if ever came up. Most of the time, institutions are grouped very broadly into tiers, essentially, "top tier" and "everything else." The only times in which the undergrad mattered was in interpreting a GPA that wasn't particularly strong.

2) I'm not sure where you've seen people say LORs aren't important. They are incredibly important. A single bad ("bad" being not very enthusiastic and/or supportive, not necessarily outright negative) letter can knock someone's score down significantly, and two bad letters means there's almost no chance you'll get an acceptance.

3) Legacies at my institution matter only insofar as receiving an interview. In that part of the process, those factors definitely matter. However, they absolutely do not matter in terms of whether or not people will get an acceptance. A weak applicant will not get an acceptance under any circumstance. It wouldn't matter if the applicant was the child of the university president.

Your second and third points really don't reflect what I've seen from the "hivemind," as you say. If anything, I see that 1) LORs are extremely important and that even a lukewarm letter can be a huge weight on your app and 2) connections/legacies/etc. can help get interviews but will not get you an acceptance if you do not otherwise earn it.

 

[deleted407021]

I don't follow - don't most public schools have an associated undergrad as well, and admit as many applicants from their undergrad as private schools typically do?

It's just an idea. That category of "UG institution is important" is so vague as to almost be useless and I just came up with that hypothesis.

 

[efle]

Perhaps it's just my institution in particular, but I can say with confidence the following based on being on the committee over the past year:

1) After the interview, a person's school seldom if ever came up. Most of the time, institutions are grouped very broadly into tiers, essentially, "top tier" and "everything else." The only times in which the undergrad mattered was in interpreting a GPA that wasn't particularly strong.

2) I'm not sure where you've seen people say LORs aren't important. They are incredibly important. A single bad ("bad" being not very enthusiastic and/or supportive, not necessarily outright negative) letter can knock someone's score down significantly, and two bad letters means there's almost no chance you'll get an acceptance.

3) Legacies at my institution matter only insofar as receiving an interview. In that part of the process, those factors definitely matter. However, they absolutely do not matter in terms of whether or not people will get an acceptance. A weak applicant will not get an acceptance under any circumstance. It wouldn't matter if the applicant was the child of the university president.

Your second and third points really don't reflect what I've seen from the "hivemind," as you say. If anything, I see that 1) LORs are extremely important and that even a lukewarm letter can be a huge weight on your app and 2) connections/legacies/etc. can help get interviews but will not get you an acceptance if you do not otherwise earn it.

First off thanks for the insights!

1) Are you at a private med school? Do you think undergrad is a bigger part in who gets interviewed much like GPA/MCAT?

2) I think it was mimelim who said the majority of letters are the expected decent quality that don't change much in either direction. He did say that bad letters can really kill you though, I phrased that poorly.

3) Interesting, if legacy really doesn't give a "boost" past interview, it seems Goro's favorite "why aren't y'all pissed about legacies" comeback in URM discussions is quite weak! But this is good to know, glad it is different from undergrad admissions in that way.

 

[efle]

It's just an idea. That category of "UG institution is important" is so vague as to almost be useless and I just came up with that hypothesis.

Haha, and yet "selectivity of undergraduate institution" is probably one of the less vague bullet points on the chart

 

[NickNaylor]

1) Yes, I am. I have no idea how applicants are selected for interviews. I'm sure things like numbers and undergrad play more importance at that point in the process than they do later on.

2) Well most letters are the same in that they are generally "good." However, extremely good (and, on the other end, bad) letters are harder to come by and can certainly have a big impact on an application.

 

[WingedOx]

First off thanks for the insights!

1) Are you at a private med school? Do you think undergrad is a bigger part in who gets interviewed much like GPA/MCAT?

2) I think it was mimelim who said the majority of letters are the expected decent quality that don't change much in either direction. He did say that bad letters can really kill you though, I phrased that poorly.

3) Interesting, if legacy really doesn't give a "boost" past interview, it seems Goro's favorite "why aren't y'all pissed about legacies" comeback in URM discussions is quite weak! But this is good to know, glad it is different from undergrad admissions in that way.

1. Nick is at UofChicago, IIRC. Needless to say there probably aren't a whole lot of kids coming out of DeKalb or Normal who are scoring MCATs high enough to get a look from them regardless of their GPA. They're already hitting the far right side of the bell curve.

2. Agree with miemlim.

3. Honestly I'm rather "meh" on the legacy thing. I was a legacy at a certain med school that wasn't the one I attended and got in, but I was also something like 4-5 points above their average MCAT and 0.1 over their average GPA. At a place like Jefferson where I came from where it seems like luck of the draw for who gets interviewed and who doesn't, no doubt it'll help you get a look. There are only so many paintings that can be sold off to build expensive buildings.

 

[efle]

1. Nick is at UofChicago, IIRC. Needless to say there probably aren't a whole lot of kids coming out of DeKalb or Normal who are scoring MCATs high enough to get a look from them regardless of their GPA. They're already hitting the far right side of the bell curve.

2. Agree with miemlim.

3. Honestly I'm rather "meh" on the legacy thing. I was a legacy at a certain med school that wasn't the one I attended and got in, but I was also something like 4-5 points above their average MCAT and 0.1 over their average GPA. At a place like Jefferson where I came from where it seems like luck of the draw for who gets interviewed and who doesn't, no doubt it'll help you get a look. There are only so many paintings that can be sold off to build expensive buildings.

1. Interesting that whoever got surveyed at private schools on average said they cared a lot about selective undergrads, but at an extremely selective med school connected to an extremely selective undergrad this isn't the case.

3. I wonder how much of a school's income comes from donations from legacy families

 

[Lucca]

Hello everybody, it's been a while since I stirred up a good ruckus so I thought I'd share this...

(for non crap quality see https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf page 7)

What's up with the points of disagreement between what med schools say is important vs SDN? For example...

• The SDN consensus is usually that med schools don't care where you went to undergrad, they just care that you got a solid GPA...but for private schools selectivity of undergrad is rated highest importance up there with GPA and MCAT
• I believe I've seen a few adcoms on here state that it's the exception rather than the norm for letters of rec and personal statements to really much help or hinder an applicant. Isn't this at odds with the "highest importance" rating, since other things up there (like again GPA or MCAT) do very much help and hinder applicants?
• People frequently say that legacy goes a long way (often as a comparison to URM) towards lowering the thresholds required of applicants. Are the med schools straight up lying in the survey saying that legacy is of low importance?

If anyone else notices differences between the Hivemind and the survey results, please share.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I think it would be even better if we could take some data from the Top 10 UG applicants and see acceptance rates compared to lower tier UG applicants at both public and private institutions and see if the real data backs up what the survey results presented here say. I don't know how we could get such data, however.

I would also like to throw-back to every URM thread ever and point at the Medium importance column where race and ethnicity is listed right next to Socioeconomic status.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I think it would be even better if we could take some data from the Top 10 UG applicants and see acceptance rates compared to lower tier UG applicants at both public and private institutions and see if the real data backs up what the survey results presented here say. I don't know how we could get such data, however.

I would also like to throw-back to every URM thread ever and point at the Medium importance column where race and ethnicity is listed right next to Socioeconomic status.

I made a post a few weeks ago where I looked at overall acceptance rates published by the Ivies. Look in my post history in February-ish if you're interested. They were all quite high, ranging from 67% to the 90s, with an average probably around 80-85%, compared to schools like UCLA which published 53% and UVA which told me 66% when I visited during UG app season, though a friend who is there says the accurate number from the premed office is around 55%, and these are two of the best public schools in the country. Of course there are confounding factors such as whether or not schools screen (some Ivies do, others don't), whether it's due to intrinsic motivation or ability (though with UVA and UCLA, this is probably less of an issue than with say random state U with a 90% UG acceptance rate), self-selectivity, or something else. With regards to these schools eating their own, it's true to an extent, but Penn med for example is going to take its top UG applicants, not generally some rando with a 3.6/32, of which there are far more than 3.9/37s. However other schools (Hofstra, Sinai, and USC come readily to mind - notice they're all private) love these students for some reason, so it could be schools like those that place an emphasis on UG selectivity or whatever. I think that where you did undergrad matters to an extent that's greater than what SDN believes (med school admissions is certainly not a true meritocracy), but its a boost, not a lock. Being a top applicant at Yale will serve you much better than being a top applicant at University of Kentucky.

(Warning: anecdote) I fully believe that if I had my same stats at one of my state schools, I wouldn't have been interviewed at any of the 3 Ivies that interviewed me (they would be interviewing people with my stats from the Ivies) or from USC who has no reason to waste their precious few interviews on an east coaster who will probably stay on the east coast (they had no real reason to give me one other than for my school name). Again, here n=1, and my analysis could be wrong, but I've given some thought to this.

Oh also, at every top 20 interview I attended, a good 75%+ of my fellow interviewees were from top private undergrad schools (generally Ivy or equivalent). Take it with a grain of salt, but these are my observations.

 

[Lucca]

I made a post a few weeks ago where I looked at overall acceptance rates published by the Ivies. Look in my post history in February-ish if you're interested. They were all quite high, ranging from 67% to the 90s, with an average probably around 80-85%, compared to schools like UCLA which published 53% and UVA which told me 66% when I visited during UG app season, though a friend who is there says the accurate number from the premed office is around 55%, and these are two of the best public schools in the country. Of course there are confounding factors such as whether or not schools screen (some Ivies do, others don't), whether it's due to intrinsic motivation or ability (though with UVA and UCLA, this is probably less of an issue than with say random state U with a 90% UG acceptance rate), self-selectivity, or something else. With regards to these schools eating their own, it's true to an extent, but Penn med for example is going to take its top UG applicants, not generally some rando with a 3.6/32, of which there are far more than 3.9/37s. However other schools (Hofstra, Sinai, and USC come readily to mind - notice they're all private) love these students for some reason, so it could be schools like those that place an emphasis on UG selectivity or whatever. I think that where you did undergrad matters to an extent that's greater than what SDN believes (med school admissions is certainly not a true meritocracy), but its a boost, not a lock. Being a top applicant at Yale will serve you much better than being a top applicant at University of Kentucky.

(Warning: anecdote) I fully believe that if I had my same stats at one of my state schools, I wouldn't have been interviewed at any of the 3 Ivies that interviewed me (they would be interviewing people with my stats from the Ivies) or from USC who has no reason to waste their precious few interviews on an east coaster who will probably stay on the east coast (they had no real reason to give me one of their precious few interview other than for my school name). Again, here n=1, and my analysis could be wrong, but I've given some thought to this.

Oh also, at every top 20 interview I attended, a good 75%+ of my fellow interviewees were from top private undergrad schools (generally Ivy or equivalent). Take it with a grain of salt, but these are my observations.

Interesting. I have heard your last anecdote many times from my friends who have already gone through the process. Everyone who interviewed outside of Texas generally felt like they were a minority coming from a state institution.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Interesting. I have heard your last anecdote many times from my friends who have already gone through the process. Everyone who interviewed outside of Texas generally felt like they were a minority coming from a state institution.

I honestly didn't believe it myself until I went out on the interview trail.

 

[f4reignbeauty]

Interesting. I have heard your last anecdote many times from my friends who have already gone through the process. Everyone who interviewed outside of Texas generally felt like they were a minority coming from a state institution.

I second it. At most of my interviews, I was the only one in my group from a small state school.

 

[Psai]

I made a post a few weeks ago where I looked at overall acceptance rates published by the Ivies. Look in my post history in February-ish if you're interested. They were all quite high, ranging from 67% to the 90s, with an average probably around 80-85%, compared to schools like UCLA which published 53% and UVA which told me 66% when I visited during UG app season, though a friend who is there says the accurate number from the premed office is around 55%, and these are two of the best public schools in the country. Of course there are confounding factors such as whether or not schools screen (some Ivies do, others don't), whether it's due to intrinsic motivation or ability (though with UVA and UCLA, this is probably less of an issue than with say random state U with a 90% UG acceptance rate), self-selectivity, or something else. With regards to these schools eating their own, it's true to an extent, but Penn med for example is going to take its top UG applicants, not generally some rando with a 3.6/32, of which there are far more than 3.9/37s. However other schools (Hofstra, Sinai, and USC come readily to mind - notice they're all private) love these students for some reason, so it could be schools like those that place an emphasis on UG selectivity or whatever. I think that where you did undergrad matters to an extent that's greater than what SDN believes (med school admissions is certainly not a true meritocracy), but its a boost, not a lock. Being a top applicant at Yale will serve you much better than being a top applicant at University of Kentucky.

(Warning: anecdote) I fully believe that if I had my same stats at one of my state schools, I wouldn't have been interviewed at any of the 3 Ivies that interviewed me (they would be interviewing people with my stats from the Ivies) or from USC who has no reason to waste their precious few interviews on an east coaster who will probably stay on the east coast (they had no real reason to give me one other than for my school name). Again, here n=1, and my analysis could be wrong, but I've given some thought to this.

Oh also, at every top 20 interview I attended, a good 75%+ of my fellow interviewees were from top private undergrad schools (generally Ivy or equivalent). Take it with a grain of salt, but these are my observations.

How does attending an ivy league school not play into the idea of medical school admissions being a meritocracy? It takes a lot to get into an ivy league school and the people who went to Harvard are generally much smarter and hard working than the people who Cal State Fullerton. Name matters because it's generally a good proxy for value

 

[WedgeDawg]

How does attending an ivy league school not play into the idea of medical school admissions being a meritocracy? It takes a lot to get into an ivy league school and the people who went to Harvard are generally much smarter and hard working than the people who Cal State Fullerton. Name matters because it's generally a good proxy for value

I would say that if medical school was a true meritocracy, then all else being equal, a 4.0/36 from State U and a 4.0/36 from Harvard would be equal. Name can certainly be used as a proxy for value, but there is no discernible difference here other than name (which would never happen in reality, but let's just say for argument's sake). The level of performance is numerically the same, but the 4.0 at Harvard will carry more weight. But let's say that the State U person got a full ride to their school and thus chose to attend it over Harvard (which does happen somewhat often in real life), where they (again, for argument's sake) would have also gotten a 4.0/36. If the Harvard student is chosen over the State U student (again, all else being equal), can you really say it's a true meritocracy? Of course, this is an oversimplification, but it's just an example to try to demonstrate that medical school admissions, while meritocratic at its core, contains peripheral elements that don't perfectly align with the notion of a pure meritocracy.

 

[nOchemallday]

How does attending an ivy league school not play into the idea of medical school admissions being a meritocracy? It takes a lot to get into an ivy league school and the people who went to Harvard are generally much smarter and hard working than the people who Cal State Fullerton. Name matters because it's generally a good proxy for value

Dat EICD:

 

[Psai]

Do you think the competition at Harvard is the same as that of a state school? Why should someone that walks a more difficult road be compared as equals to someone who didn't? People who choose lower ranked schools because of cost are a minority so let's not pretend like that's a factor for most people. If all things were otherwise equal besides name then maybe but it's a moot point because nothing will be equal

 

[Lucca]

Do you think the competition at Harvard is the same as that of a state school? Why should someone that walks a more difficult road be compared as equals to someone who didn't? People who choose lower ranked schools because of cost are a minority so let's not pretend like that's a factor for most people. If all things were otherwise equal besides name then maybe but it's a moot point because nothing will be equal

It's one thing to say Harvard is a "more difficult" road than Sam Houston State but it's quite another to say it's much harder than UMich, UVa, Cal Berkeley, and some of the other tip top state institutions. Yet, the acceptance rates at these schools that I would argue admit identical quality high school students are very different; moreover, they are large research institutions and in terms of academic opportunities I feel they are comparable to Harvard and co.

 

[medic86]

I'm actually more curious about how many students from NoNameU (my alma mater to be) manage to get into a school like Harvard, JHU, etc.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Do you think the competition at Harvard is the same as that of a state school? Why should someone that walks a more difficult road be compared as equals to someone who didn't? People who choose lower ranked schools because of cost are a minority so let's not pretend like that's a factor for most people. If all things were otherwise equal besides name then maybe but it's a moot point because nothing will be equal

I disagree that such a situation is a trivial minority (a minority for sure, but non-trivial), but I digress.

Let's say that it's a student at UVA vs. Cornell, where the caliber of student will be arguably fairly similar. We can support this by the fact that UVA has programs that are intended to pull people away from Ivy League/similar schools (Jefferson, Echols, and Rodman scholarships), and UVA screens applicants so only those who have a decent shot will be applying. All else being approximately equal (as you say, perfect equality will never be achieved), the 4.0/36 from UVA will be beaten out by the 4.0/36 from Cornell due to name. This is probably as close as we can get to same caliber of student.

I don't disagree with you - med school admissions is certainly a meritocracy. It's just not a perfect one because of situations like these.

 

[WedgeDawg]

I'm actually more curious about how many students from NoNameU (my alma mater to be) manage to get into a school like Harvard, JHU, etc.

Probably 1-2 every 3-5 years or so. You would literally have to be at the top of your class with a killer MCAT score.

 

[Psai]

It's one thing to say Harvard is a "more difficult" road than Sam Houston State but it's quite another to say it's much harder than UMich, UVa, Cal Berkeley, and some of the other tip top state institutions. Yet, the acceptance rates at these schools that I would argue admit identical quality high school students are very different; moreover, they are large research institutions and in terms of academic opportunities I feel they are comparable to Harvard and co.

We were talking about schools with name value vs schools that don't so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but keep it up I guess

 

[justadream]

1) Yes, I am. I have no idea how applicants are selected for interviews. I'm sure things like numbers and undergrad play more importance at that point in the process than they do later on.

2) Well most letters are the same in that they are generally "good." However, extremely good (and, on the other end, bad) letters are harder to come by and can certainly have a big impact on an application.

What typically makes a "extremely good" letter? For example, if your letter-writer says you were in the top 1% s/he has encountered, how would that be considered at your school?

I would say that if medical school was a true meritocracy, then all else being equal, a 4.0/36 from State U and a 4.0/36 from Harvard would be equal. Name can certainly be used as a proxy for value, but there is no discernible difference here other than name (which would never happen in reality, but let's just say for argument's sake). The level of performance is numerically the same, but the 4.0 at Harvard will carry more weight. But let's say that the State U person got a full ride to their school and thus chose to attend it over Harvard (which does happen somewhat often in real life), where they (again, for argument's sake) would have also gotten a 4.0/36. If the Harvard student is chosen over the State U student (again, all else being equal), can you really say it's a true meritocracy? Of course, this is an oversimplification, but it's just an example to try to demonstrate that medical school admissions, while meritocratic at its core, contains peripheral elements that don't perfectly align with the notion of a pure meritocracy.

Your example is a somewhat more complicated since you have both students getting 4.0/4.0. But here I think the Harvard student should still be given a boost.

Why?

Well because a 4.0 at Harvard means for sure that you are dominating at Harvard (among "better" peers). Now, is it possible that the 4.0 student from State U could do the same at Harvard? Sure, but we don't know. We do know for the Harvard student though. You see, the data is censored but the fact that we know for sure that the Harvard student can perform at a higher level (whereas we are unsure about the other person) should, IMO, give the Harvard student a boost.

An analogous situation would be this:
Student A takes a math test at the 12th grade level and gets 100%. Student B takes a math test at the 11th grade level and gets 100%.

Now, let's say your life depends on you choosing one student who will answer 1 math question correctly. Who would you rather choose?

It's intuitive that you would choose Student A. We don't know for sure whether Student B is just as good (or perhaps, even BETTER) than Student A. But the data presented to us shows us that we can be sure Student A is at least proficient to the 12th grade level (we cannot say the same for Student B).

Of course, if you introduce major and other variables, it's much more complicated. But for the sake of this example, assume everything else is constant.

I guess if you want a true meritocracy (or at least something closer to that), then medical schools should throw out the GPA and purely use something that standardized (e.g., MCAT).

 

[Lucca]

We were talking about schools with name value vs schools that don't so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but keep it up I guess

I'm saying that both of those sets of schools has name value but only one set wins out in terms of whatever boost is given to undergraduate selectivity.

 

[Lucca]

What typically makes a "extremely good" letter? For example, if your letter-writer says you were in the top 1% s/he has encountered, how would that be considered at your school?



Your example is a somewhat more complicated since you have both students getting 4.0/4.0. But here I think the Harvard student should still be given a boost.

Why?

Well because a 4.0 at Harvard means for sure that you are dominating at Harvard (among "better" peers). Now, is it possible that the 4.0 student from State U could do the same at Harvard? Sure, but we don't know. We do know for the Harvard student though. You see, the data is censored but the fact that we know for sure that the Harvard student can perform at a higher level (whereas we are unsure about the other person) should, IMO, give the Harvard student a boost.

An analogous situation would be this:
Student A takes a math test at the 12th grade level and gets 100%. Student B takes a math test at the 11th grade level and gets 100%.

Now, let's say your life depends on you choosing one student who will answer 1 math question correctly. Who would you rather choose?

It's intuitive that you would choose Student A. We don't know for sure whether Student B is just as good (or perhaps, even BETTER) than Student A. But the data presented to us shows us that we can be sure Student A is at least proficient to the 12th grade level (we cannot say the same for Student B).

Of course, if you introduce major and other variables, it's much more complicated. But for the sake of this example, assume everything else is constant.

I guess if you want a true meritocracy (or at least something closer to that), then medical schools should throw out the GPA and purely use something that standardized (e.g., MCAT).

I would argue that a true meritocracy would use a robot to screen for GPA + MCAT and then have those numbers wiped from the application since I would also argue that those datapoints, while objective, do not actually equate to merit in a way that is useful for predicting positive qualities desirable in a physician.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Your example is a somewhat more complicated since you have both students getting 4.0/4.0. But here I think the Harvard student should still be given a boost.

Why?

Well because a 4.0 at Harvard means for sure that you are dominating at Harvard (among "better" peers). Now, is it possible that the 4.0 student from State U could do the same at Harvard? Sure, but we don't know. We do know for the Harvard student though. You see, the data is censored but the fact that we know for sure that the Harvard student can perform at a higher level (whereas we are unsure about the other person) should, IMO, give the Harvard student a boost.

An analogous situation would be this:
Student A takes a math test at the 12th grade level and gets 100%. Student B takes a math test at the 11th grade level and gets 100%.

Now, let's say your life depends on you choosing one student who will answer 1 math question correctly. Who would you rather choose?

It's intuitive that you would choose Student A. We don't know for sure whether Student B is just as good (or perhaps, even BETTER) than Student A. But the data presented to us shows us that we can be sure Student A is at least proficient to the 12th grade level (we cannot say the same for Student B).

Of course, if you introduce major and other variables, it's much more complicated. But for the sake of this example, assume everything else is constant.

I guess if you want a true meritocracy (or at least something closer to that), then medical schools should throw out the GPA and purely use something that standardized (e.g., MCAT).

Sure, but because the level of performance is identical, the boost is given to the school with a perceived (not necessarily actual) higher level of competition. Many people agree that Harvard is "harder" than average state U, but such a comparison would be hard to achieve directly (you could do something with standardized tests, but that would only indicate the caliber of students at the school, not necessarily the level of rigor present), and very few people have actually experienced both.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate now. I agree with you (and Psai) in principle. My only point is that due to a number of factors, medical school admissions isn't a 100% meritocracy. Not saying that's good, bad, or anything else, just that it is what it is, and given the number of unknowns that exist, figuring out precisely how much is based purely on merit and how much is based upon other factors would be an impossible task.

 

[justadream]

Sure, but because the level of performance is identical, the boost is given to the school with a perceived (not necessarily actual) higher level of competition. Many people agree that Harvard is "harder" than average state U, but such a comparison would be hard to achieve directly (you could do something with standardized tests, but that would only indicate the caliber of students at the school, not necessarily the level of rigor present), and very few people have actually experienced both.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate now. I agree with you (and Psai) in principle. My only point is that due to a number of factors, medical school admissions isn't a 100% meritocracy. Not saying that's good, bad, or anything else, just that it is what it is, and given the number of unknowns that exist, figuring out precisely how much is based purely on merit and how much is based upon other factors would be an impossible task.

One potential approach is just use some GPA "correction factor" that is based on average SAT/ACT of each school. Here at least, the correction factor would be based on something that has something statistically meaningful.

To use such an approach, we have to assume that all schools curve their classes so that only top X% get an A, top Y% get a B, etc. This assumption probably would hold. Of course, the X and Y here would vary from school to school. For example, MIT GPAs are deflated compared to Harvard GPAs. Perhaps a second correction factor would have to be applied here.

 

[WedgeDawg]

One potential approach is just use some GPA "correction factor" that is based on average SAT/ACT of each school. Here at least, the correction factor would be based on something that has something statistically meaningful.

To use such an approach, we have to assume that all schools curve their classes so that only top X% get an A, top Y% get a B, etc. This assumption probably would hold. Of course, the X and Y here would vary from school to school. For example, MIT GPAs are deflated compared to Harvard GPAs. Perhaps a second correction factor would have to be applied here.

Even within schools (or within departments) it can vary, too. For example, I have taken a biology class where x% got each grade, but I've also taken a biology class where if you got a 90, you were guaranteed an A and then below that you were graded on some arbitrary curve. It's a tricky thing to measure because the starting assumptions will vary greatly.

 

[Lucca]

One potential approach is just use some GPA "correction factor" that is based on average SAT/ACT of each school. Here at least, the correction factor would be based on something that has something statistically meaningful.

To use such an approach, we have to assume that all schools curve their classes so that only top X% get an A, top Y% get a B, etc. This assumption probably would hold. Of course, the X and Y here would vary from school to school. For example, MIT GPAs are deflated compared to Harvard GPAs. Perhaps a second correction factor would have to be applied here.

I don't think this is the right approach. Too much mathematical gymnastics to alter the perception of a number that matters very little to anyone other than the person who holds it. I stand by my suggestion to let a machine do it and let humans worry about the human elements of an application.

 

[NickNaylor]

Sure, but because the level of performance is identical, the boost is given to the school with a perceived (not necessarily actual) higher level of competition. Many people agree that Harvard is "harder" than average state U, but such a comparison would be hard to achieve directly (you could do something with standardized tests, but that would only indicate the caliber of students at the school, not necessarily the level of rigor present), and very few people have actually experienced both.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate now. I agree with you (and Psai) in principle. My only point is that due to a number of factors, medical school admissions isn't a 100% meritocracy. Not saying that's good, bad, or anything else, just that it is what it is, and given the number of unknowns that exist, figuring out precisely how much is based purely on merit and how much is based upon other factors would be an impossible task.

The problem with this view is that it's simply not how it works in admissions. We don't have a "Hot or Not"-like setup where two applicants are up on a screen and pitted in a deathmatch to determine who gets an acceptance. Every applicant is judged on his/her own without input from other applicants. This kind of "comparison" is commonly brought up on SDN, but it's simply not how it works - neither in an actual, pragmatic way nor in a theoretical way because applicants will never be so similar as to warrant distinctions at that level.

I, personally, do not put value on a 4.0 from Harvard vs. a 4.0 from a known state institution. I may be somewhat rare in that regard, but at least on my committee that really was the prevailing view. Could someone's institution be impacting our judgments indirectly? Sure. But the reality is that the students coming from Harvard et al are very likely 1) the kind of people that have all kinds of support academically and socially to warrant success in the application process and 2) receiving significant support from their institutions in the form of opportunities. In my mind, those two factors more than anything are more likely to lead to their success. The students coming from HYP schools are, in general, just much stronger applicants compared to your average applicant from a "lower tier" school. HYP schools gather together a bunch of ambitious individuals and put them in environments where the opportunities are almost limitless. Is it any surprise that these people are as successful as they are?

 

[justadream]

Even within schools (or within departments) it can vary, too. For example, I have taken a biology class where x% got each grade, but I've also taken a biology class where if you got a 90, you were guaranteed an A and then below that you were graded on some arbitrary curve. It's a tricky thing to measure because the starting assumptions will vary greatly.

Definitely agree. It's hard to find a way to compare GPAs. This is why the MCAT is so important.

 

[WedgeDawg]

The problem with this view is that it's simply not how it works in admissions. We don't have a "Hot or Not"-like setup where two applicants are up on a screen and pitted in a deathmatch to determine who gets an acceptance. Every applicant is judged on his/her own without input from other applicants. This kind of "comparison" is commonly brought up on SDN, but it's simply not how it works - neither in an actual, pragmatic way nor in a theoretical way because applicants will never be so similar as to warrant distinctions at that level.

I, personally, do not put value on a 4.0 from Harvard vs. a 4.0 from a known state institution. I may be somewhat rare in that regard, but at least on my committee that really was the prevailing view. Could someone's institution be impacting our judgments indirectly? Sure. But the reality is that the students coming from Harvard et al are very likely 1) the kind of people that have all kinds of support academically and socially to warrant success in the application process and 2) receiving significant support from their institutions in the form of opportunities. In my mind, those two factors more than anything are more likely to lead to their success. The students coming from HYP schools are, in general, just much stronger applicants compared to your average applicant from a "lower tier" school. HYP schools gather together a bunch of ambitious individuals and put them in environments where the opportunities are almost limitless. Is it any surprise that these people are as successful as they are?

I understand. I was just using this as a grossly oversimplified example to try to illustrate a point, but your point is well taken.

 

[hellanutella]

@medic86
Uncommon, but not as uncommon as I thought. Both a classmate and I were able to go from our US News #250+ undergrad to "top 5" medical school acceptances during this app cycle. From a cursory scroll through the accepted students' FB pages, the bulk of people do come from high-tier schools... though there is a smattering of folks from Rando State Universities.

As stated time and time again in these threads, Ivy/high-tier public schools typically receive high-caliber high school grads. In turn, these motivated individuals are given access to a wealth of awesome research, service, leadership, etc. opportunities. Smart students + unparalleled resources = incredible med school applicants.

Lower-tier schools don't usually get the high school superstars. Sometimes they do, but when you're a smart student or a late bloomer at a low-tier school, the resources at your disposal pale in comparison to those at Yale/Cal/etc. Smart students + middling resources = decent applicants. You'll probably get into medical school, but you may not have the "wow" factor to net you some love from Stanford. It's kind of hard to win a Goldwater Scholarship when your campus doesn't have a faculty representative or coauthor a report in Cell when your school doesn't have PhD students or postdocs.

Going into this game I was extremely worried about the effect my undergrad would have on my application. I was pleased – and surprised – to have been proven wrong. However, I won't deny that the process of gaining those pre-med experiences was an uphill battle. Getting a job in biotech was even more of a struggle, as I didn't have the alumni connections or pedigree that some companies were looking for. I can't say what impact my undergrad had on my application, but I'm very grateful that most of my schools responded favourably to application... less-than-stellar alma mater and all.

tl;dr: low-tier schools may "inflate" GPAs, but their applicants are not usually able to garner ECs of the same quality as applicants from high-tier schools. The system may not be perfect... but eh, it seems to work.

 

[Spinach Dip]

How does attending an ivy league school not play into the idea of medical school admissions being a meritocracy? It takes a lot to get into an ivy league school and the people who went to Harvard are generally much smarter and hard working than the people who Cal State Fullerton. Name matters because it's generally a good proxy for value

Do you think the competition at Harvard is the same as that of a state school? Why should someone that walks a more difficult road be compared as equals to someone who didn't? People who choose lower ranked schools because of cost are a minority so let's not pretend like that's a factor for most people. If all things were otherwise equal besides name then maybe but it's a moot point because nothing will be equal

Then again, some people (including myself) could not get into ivy league schools because our parents are poor, HS achievements were average, and ACT was not 98+ percentile.



For clarity, I have no problem with Harvard alums getting noticed. It does take effort to make it through an ivy league at the top of the class. But treating these applicants as if they are somehow better solely because of where they did their undergrad is a little bit ridiculous.

 

[Spinach Dip]

As for the original list....if I was in charge.... I'd knock volunteer experiences down a bit (largely because of my own experience with volunteers), and give a major boost to multilingualism.

....And I don't mean getting an A in ESP101. That's pointless in the longrun. I mean fluency (or at least conversational fluency) in one or two languages besides English. Sure, speaking Italian may not be the most used language in an American hospital, but it can open doors and avenues which would be closed to the vast majority of students.

 

[username456789]

I would also like to throw-back to every URM thread ever and point at the Medium importance column where race and ethnicity is listed right next to Socioeconomic status.

You actually think the school would go on record admitting that they consider URM status to be one of the highest selectivity criteria? You guys are more idealistic than I thought.

 

[LizzyM]

I am very happy that AMCAS now includes a section on how college expenses were paid for. This does help identify people who took a full-ride at a lower tier school. An interview will further elucidate what issues went into deciding where to go to college.

GPA matters and schools will chase those super high GPA/high MCAT applicants regardless of where the GPA was earned.

 

[sephora89]

I thought that section was only required to be filled out if one applied as a "disadvantaged" candidate.

 

[LizzyM]

I thought that section was only required to be filled out if one applied as a "disadvantaged" candidate.

I don't know if it is required for those applying as "disadvantaged" but it is optional for everyone and from what I've seen about 80-90% of applicants complete that section.

 

[Lucca]

You actually think the school would go on record admitting that they consider URM status to be one of the highest selectivity criteria? You guys are more idealistic than I thought.

I actually think that the people replying to the surveys have far less at stake saying they value diversity than anyone on here seems to think. My point was that SES matters, people here love to say "it should all be about SES!"

 

[medic86]

@medic86
Uncommon, but not as uncommon as I thought. Both a classmate and I were able to go from our US News #250+ undergrad to "top 5" medical school acceptances during this app cycle. From a cursory scroll through the accepted students' FB pages, the bulk of people do come from high-tier schools... though there is a smattering of folks from Rando State Universities.

As stated time and time again in these threads, Ivy/high-tier public schools typically receive high-caliber high school grads. In turn, these motivated individuals are given access to a wealth of awesome research, service, leadership, etc. opportunities. Smart students + unparalleled resources = incredible med school applicants.

Lower-tier schools don't usually get the high school superstars. Sometimes they do, but when you're a smart student or a late bloomer at a low-tier school, the resources at your disposal pale in comparison to those at Yale/Cal/etc. Smart students + middling resources = decent applicants. You'll probably get into medical school, but you may not have the "wow" factor to net you some love from Stanford. It's kind of hard to win a Goldwater Scholarship when your campus doesn't have a faculty representative or coauthor a report in Cell when your school doesn't have PhD students or postdocs.

Going into this game I was extremely worried about the effect my undergrad would have on my application. I was pleased – and surprised – to have been proven wrong. However, I won't deny that the process of gaining those pre-med experiences was an uphill battle. Getting a job in biotech was even more of a struggle, as I didn't have the alumni connections or pedigree that some companies were looking for. I can't say what impact my undergrad had on my application, but I'm very grateful that most of my schools responded favourably to application... less-than-stellar alma mater and all.

tl;dr: low-tier schools may "inflate" GPAs, but their applicants are not usually able to garner ECs of the same quality as applicants from high-tier schools. The system may not be perfect... but eh, it seems to work.

Thanks for the response, hellanutella!

I'd like to add about the "inflation" thing. I think that's really only applicable based on quality of the student body (and if there is systematic curving). The most common science major at my school is biology, which isn't what I'd call very rigorous, but the average GPA in my major is well below 3.5 (based on what my PI tells me). I'm sure this is attributable to the low GPA/SAT/ACT requirements for admissions to my school. But if you threw a bunch of Ivy-quality kids into the coursework, that average GPA will like be very high (our coursework isn't systematically curved - so As are As).

 

[el_duderino]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensle...-files-before-yale-destroyed-them#.lp78eo9eXX

"Both of the admissions officers took care to note, explicitly and unsubtly, exactly the spot I would fill at Yale if I were accepted: I would be a “high-impact writer on campus,” as one phrased it it. This is not exactly a secret of college admissions. It’s well-known that elite schools don’t just take the top 5% of applicants; they assemble themselves a marginally diverse, interesting, and “well-rounded” class that also happens to have good grades and test scores."

You think med school admissions is any different? Adcoms are not picking the best students or the best future physicians. They're using acceptances to mold an interesting, diverse class that will work well and bring out the best in each other and create impact. When you're only accepting 100-150 students, this is really easy to do.

Your metrics matter, but they don't matter nearly as much as you think they do.

 

[Goro]

As LizzyM has pointed out, it's not what you want, it's what the school wants.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensle...-files-before-yale-destroyed-them#.lp78eo9eXX

"Both of the admissions officers took care to note, explicitly and unsubtly, exactly the spot I would fill at Yale if I were accepted: I would be a “high-impact writer on campus,” as one phrased it it. This is not exactly a secret of college admissions. It’s well-known that elite schools don’t just take the top 5% of applicants; they assemble themselves a marginally diverse, interesting, and “well-rounded” class that also happens to have good grades and test scores."

You think med school admissions is any different? Adcoms are not picking the best students or the best future physicians. They're using acceptances to mold an interesting, diverse class that will work well and bring out the best in each other and create impact. When you're only accepting 100-150 students, this is really easy to do.

Your metrics matter, but they don't matter nearly as much as you think they do.

 

[WingedOx]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensle...-files-before-yale-destroyed-them#.lp78eo9eXX

"Both of the admissions officers took care to note, explicitly and unsubtly, exactly the spot I would fill at Yale if I were accepted: I would be a “high-impact writer on campus,” as one phrased it it. This is not exactly a secret of college admissions. It’s well-known that elite schools don’t just take the top 5% of applicants; they assemble themselves a marginally diverse, interesting, and “well-rounded” class that also happens to have good grades and test scores."

You think med school admissions is any different? Adcoms are not picking the best students or the best future physicians. They're using acceptances to mold an interesting, diverse class that will work well and bring out the best in each other and create impact. When you're only accepting 100-150 students, this is really easy to do.

Your metrics matter, but they don't matter nearly as much as you think they do.

To quote a former MD/PhD from Harvard (now at Penn) I had dinner with a while back. "Harvard doesn't give a crap about your 4.0. They care about your Olympic medal, your piano concerto at Carnege Hall, and your Young Adult Fiction novel you put on the NY Times best seller list."

 

[efle]

And yet they have an insane median gpa > 3.90. I guess they like a 4.0 AND something extra special

 

[WedgeDawg]

And yet they have an insane median gpa > 3.90. I guess they like a 4.0 AND something extra special

That, or super impressive people also tend to have high GPAs.

 

[tofuuu]

And yet they have an insane median gpa > 3.90. I guess they like a 4.0 AND something extra special

It's probably because they get so many applicants with 4.0s that they need that extra something special to distinguish one applicant from another.

 

[Doug Underhill]

I spoke with someone in the Harvard/MIT joint MSTP on Saturday. This person was more of a 4.0/40 typical superstar than an Olympic medalist or someone on the NY Times best seller list.

Also, this probably sheds some light on the matter. It includes the biographies of every single person who graduates from Harvard with a MD/Ph.D in 2014:
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/md_phd/downloads/Spring Grad Book.pdf