Speculation about the mystery of medical admission comittee

[feeling-dizzy]

So there is still no II. While I have time in hand I like to think how the admission committes work.
Let say there is a team of 6 members of admission committee. The most efficient method is to divide into two groups of three; each group will process application seperately (2X as fast). Let take UCLA for example; last year there are 7200+ applicants; this year probably will be 7500+. So each application will be view by at least 2 members, who will give you their grades, either a thumb up or down.
If you get 2 thumbs up, you get an II; if 2 thumb down, rejection. If one up and one down, it will be view by the third member to decide. Let say it takes 10 minute for each member to read and decide your applications/passages (MCAT verbal speed); so it takes 10 mins for each group to decide an application. So there will be about 6*2= 12 applications process per hr. Which is 12*8 hr/day = 96 application process per day (I think it will be much slower since nobody working 8 hr straight without break/coffee). So a month = 96* 22 working day = 2,112 application per month. To process 7500 application will take approximately 3.5 months; which seem about right (from mid August to mid Dec).
The bottom line if my calculation hold true it only takes 20 mins to decide a person future (how long it takes to know a person? sure much longer). Thus the moral is to apply as broadly as you can because you want to multiply 20mins * #school = so u can have as many hrs and as many people to decide your future.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[studentp0x]

lol interesting post, I wouldn't look too much into it though. Your final tip is definitely good advice though. There's no other way to realistically do it though... there are so many applications and not so many adcom members.

 

[Plecopotamus]

So there is still no II. While I have time in hand I like to think how the admission committes work.
Let say there is a team of 6 members of admission committee. The most efficient method is to divide into two groups of three; each group will process application seperately (2X as fast). Let take UCLA for example; last year there are 7200+ applicants; this year probably will be 7500+. So each application will be view by at least 2 members, who will give you their grades, either a thumb up or down.
If you get 2 thumbs up, you get an II; if 2 thumb down, rejection. If one up and one down, it will be view by the third member to decide. Let say it takes 10 minute for each member to read and decide your applications/passages (MCAT verbal speed); so it takes 10 mins for each group to decide an application. So there will be about 6*2= 12 applications process per hr. Which is 12*8 hr/day = 96 application process per day (I think it will be much slower since nobody working 8 hr straight without break/coffee). So a month = 96* 22 working day = 2,112 application per month. To process 7500 application will take approximately 3.5 months; which seem about right (from mid August to mid Dec).
The bottom line if my calculation hold true it only takes 20 mins to decide a person future (how long it takes to know a person? sure much longer). Thus the moral is to apply as broadly as you can because you want to multiply 20mins * #school = so u can have as many hrs and as many people to decide your future.

it doesn't take 10 minutes (more like 10 seconds) to look at an MCAT or GPA too far below the mean or IS/OOS, check for "special circumstances" in the appropriate sections, and mark it as a rejection. That is the review you will approach the more inappropriately you apply. Increasing the frequency of that process will in no way benefit you.

 

[DrBowtie]

Protip: Most adcoms aren't comprised of people that their sole job is to review applications 8 hours a day.

 

[QofQuimica]

The thing is, not all apps are created equal in terms of complexity or interestingness. Some are slam dunk no-brainers based on stats, legacy status, or other criteria. Others take more time. And some screeners have busier schedules than others. These are all reasons why one applicant might hear back in a few days after submitting while another might be under review for a few months before an II decision is made.

As someone already said, adcoms are generally volunteers who already have a day job, and as such they do not sit and read apps for 8+ hours per day every day!

 

[NickNaylor]

Every school is going to have its own process. At my institution, for example, IIs are given out after being screened by at least two people.

Once you've seen enough apps, you can read through them very quickly and get an initial sense of the applicant in less than a minute. One of our admissions directors, for examples, reviews every single primary application. That's thousands of applications. If she spent 10 minutes reviewing every app, we would never get through the admissions process.

 

[BrCo]

Stop trying to understand the admissions process. It doesn't help you get accepted and it causes unnecessary anxiety and distress.

 

[Goro]

Let's say you make it past the first gatekeeper and get an II.

Now you have 1 hr where 1-3 people will determine your future....the interview itself.

Deal with it.

So there is still no II. While I have time in hand I like to think how the admission committes work.
Let say there is a team of 6 members of admission committee. The most efficient method is to divide into two groups of three; each group will process application seperately (2X as fast). Let take UCLA for example; last year there are 7200+ applicants; this year probably will be 7500+. So each application will be view by at least 2 members, who will give you their grades, either a thumb up or down.
If you get 2 thumbs up, you get an II; if 2 thumb down, rejection. If one up and one down, it will be view by the third member to decide. Let say it takes 10 minute for each member to read and decide your applications/passages (MCAT verbal speed); so it takes 10 mins for each group to decide an application. So there will be about 6*2= 12 applications process per hr. Which is 12*8 hr/day = 96 application process per day (I think it will be much slower since nobody working 8 hr straight without break/coffee). So a month = 96* 22 working day = 2,112 application per month. To process 7500 application will take approximately 3.5 months; which seem about right (from mid August to mid Dec).
The bottom line if my calculation hold true it only takes 20 mins to decide a person future (how long it takes to know a person? sure much longer). Thus the moral is to apply as broadly as you can because you want to multiply 20mins * #school = so u can have as many hrs and as many people to decide your future.

 

[studentp0x]

Let's say you make it past the first gatekeeper and get an II.

Now you have 1 hr where 1-3 people will determine your future....the interview itself.

Deal with it.

Goro, how long are applications really looked at anyway? For those who are in the stat range of the school.

 

[Goro]

For our superficial screening, I don't know, because that's the realm of our wily old Admissions dean.

When I get the files prior to interview, I spend a good 30 mins on each one, and then look them over again right before the interview. I go in this order:

Age of applicant
GPA and MCAT
School
Major
transcript
LOR
EC list
PS
secondary essays and questions

All of these I mine for interview questions.

Goro, how long are applications really looked at anyway? For those who are in the stat range of the school.

 

[studentp0x]

For our superficial screening, I don't know, because that's the realm of our wily old Admissions dean.

When I get the files prior to interview, I spend a good 30 mins on each one, and then look them over again right before the interview. I go in this order:

Age of applicant
GPA and MCAT
School
Major
transcript
LOR
EC list
PS
secondary essays and questions

All of these I mine for interview questions.

Interesting so does school name and major have any effect on the admissions result for DO schools if all else is equal? ex. engineering undergrad at MIT vs. basket weaving at Joe's University

 

[dbeast]

Your theory sounds a lot like American Idol.

 

[Goro]

No.

Interesting so does school name and major have any effect on the admissions result for DO schools if all else is equal? ex. engineering undergrad at MIT vs. basket weaving at Joe's University

 

[feeling-dizzy]

So, finally, I have the first interview invite from a MD school. Time to prepare to impress

 

[nOchemallday]

For our superficial screening, I don't know, because that's the realm of our wily old Admissions dean.

When I get the files prior to interview, I spend a good 30 mins on each one, and then look them over again right before the interview. I go in this order:

Age of applicant
GPA and MCAT
School
Major
transcript
LOR
EC list
PS
secondary essays and questions

All of these I mine for interview questions.

At best I'm hoping you check the bolded for traditional/non-traditional status. Otherwise isn't this a bias that defies nearly every school's diversity & inclusion statement? The loophole that is often used is "immaturity" since it's (in many cases) illegal to discriminate based on age. Maybe I'm just projecting my own fears of the subjective nature of the admissions process.

EDIT: Or I suppose there's some other loophole for expressing the inadequacies of an older applicant.

 

[Goro]

Calm your jets, I LIKE non-trads, and conversely, but do NOT like immaturity.

So I have a special set of questions for the youngest interviewees that fish out mature vs immature responses.

No, I'm going to share.

At best I'm hoping you check the bolded for traditional/non-traditional status. Otherwise isn't this a bias that defies nearly every school's diversity & inclusion statement? The loophole that is often used is "immaturity" since it's (in many cases) illegal to discriminate based on age. Maybe I'm just projecting my own fears of the subjective nature of the admissions process.

 

[ridethecliche]

Calm your jets, I LIKE non-trads, and conversely, but do NOT like immaturity.

So I have a special set of questions for the youngest interviewees that fish out mature vs immature responses.

No, I'm going to share.

Do you tell a story with lots of double-entendres or openings for 'thats what she said' jokes to see if they crack, because I'm a non trad but I'd be dying within the first 15 seconds of such torture.

 

[NickNaylor]

At best I'm hoping you check the bolded for traditional/non-traditional status. Otherwise isn't this a bias that defies nearly every school's diversity & inclusion statement? The loophole that is often used is "immaturity" since it's (in many cases) illegal to discriminate based on age. Maybe I'm just projecting my own fears of the subjective nature of the admissions process.

EDIT: Or I suppose there's some other loophole for expressing the inadequacies of an older applicant.

If you come across as intelligent, capable, mature, and well-developed, you won't have any problems with respect to your age. But there is a certain degree of "sliding" evaluation that occurs. If you're a non-trad in your mid to late 20s, I would expect a more obvious degree of maturity compared to a traditional applicant who hasn't yet graduated college. However, as @Goro mentions, that doesn't mean that you're at a disadvantage by any means. If anything, I would give a younger applicant a little more leeway when it comes to being somewhat idealistic and naive when it comes to medicine. In either case, though, coming across as clueless won't serve you well.

 

[nOchemallday]

If you come across as intelligent, capable, mature, and well-developed, you won't have any problems with respect to your age. But there is a certain degree of "sliding" evaluation that occurs. If you're a non-trad in your mid to late 20s, I would expect a more obvious degree of maturity compared to a traditional applicant who hasn't yet graduated college. However, as @Goro mentions, that doesn't mean that you're at a disadvantage by any means. If anything, I would give a younger applicant a little more leeway when it comes to being somewhat idealistic and naive when it comes to medicine. In either case, though, coming across as clueless won't serve you well.

Just had a knee-jerk reaction to it being listed explicitly. For example, what if an adcom said they like looking for the applicant's ethnicity as a specific factor to make sure they check before the applicant came to interview and then adapted their questions to gauge the applicant's competence in, for instance, oral communication. That is to say, specifically targeting a class of people based on factors which are illegal to discriminate upon thereby altering one's means of evaluation in an effort to "fish out" appropriate vs. inappropriate responses. I mean no disrespect, it just seemed like a slippery slope to me.

@NickNaylor , as you've pointed out: taking note of these factors may give leeway rather than scrutiny to an applicant's condition. And such is the subjective nature of the interview process. That's not to say subjectivity is bad, for ultimately medicine is fundamentally dependent on humanity - which cannot be assessed on a piece of paper.

 

[NickNaylor]

Just had a knee-jerk reaction to it being listed explicitly. For example, what if an adcom said they like looking for the applicant's ethnicity as a specific factor to make sure they check before the applicant came to interview and then adapted their questions to gauge the applicant's competence in, for instance, oral communication. That is to say, specifically targeting a class of people based on factors which are illegal to discriminate upon thereby altering one's means of evaluation in an effort to "fish out" appropriate vs. inappropriate responses. I mean no disrespect, it just seemed like a slippery slope to me.

@NickNaylor , as you've pointed out: taking note of these factors may give leeway rather than scrutiny to an applicant's condition. And such is the subjective nature of the interview process. That's not to say subjectivity is bad, for ultimately medicine is fundamentally dependent on humanity - which cannot be assessed on a piece of paper.

Ultimately it's not the sort of thing you can control short of ensuring that your application and interview are as strong as they can possibly be. IMO worrying about things like this is a needless source of anxiety. There's just nothing you can do about it, regardless of how you might feel about it or otherwise.

 

[Raryn]

Just had a knee-jerk reaction to it being listed explicitly. For example, what if an adcom said they like looking for the applicant's ethnicity as a specific factor to make sure they check before the applicant came to interview and then adapted their questions to gauge the applicant's competence in, for instance, oral communication. That is to say, specifically targeting a class of people based on factors which are illegal to discriminate upon thereby altering one's means of evaluation in an effort to "fish out" appropriate vs. inappropriate responses. I mean no disrespect, it just seemed like a slippery slope to me.

@NickNaylor , as you've pointed out: taking note of these factors may give leeway rather than scrutiny to an applicant's condition. And such is the subjective nature of the interview process. That's not to say subjectivity is bad, for ultimately medicine is fundamentally dependent on humanity - which cannot be assessed on a piece of paper.

Just an FYI, but age isn't quite as protected as ethnicity. What you're actually missing based on your reading of the law is that young age actually isn't a protected class.

As in, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people for being too *young* for the job. It just isn't legal to discriminate against them for being too *old*.

 

[Goro]

Exactly. I'd like to add that some of my all time best students have been in their 30s and 40s.

Just an FYI, but age isn't quite as protected as ethnicity. What you're actually missing based on your reading of the law is that young age actually isn't a protected class.

As in, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people for being too *young* for the job. It just isn't legal to discriminate against them for being too *old*.