still no interview...should i start preparing next year application now?

[wrongperson]

33O, 3.6, CA applicant....no interviews yet, it is probably i got an 8 in my verbal.....should I prepare for next year MCAT retake now? if I still don't get any interviews by November, it is basically over for me right? Any input is welcomed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[luv2sd]

33O, 3.6, CA applicant....no interviews yet, it is probably i got an 8 in my verbal.....should I prepare for next year MCAT retake now? if I still don't get any interviews by November, it is basically over for me right? Any input is welcomed.

where did you apply? what safety schools?

 

[silverlining1]

When were you complete? Interview decisions take time. I've heard many stories of people interviewing around February and receiving acceptances. I think it is unreasonable to give up hope now.

 

[etf]

33O, 3.6, CA applicant....no interviews yet, it is probably i got an 8 in my verbal.....should I prepare for next year MCAT retake now? if I still don't get any interviews by November, it is basically over for me right? Any input is welcomed.

my personal opinion is that you are a relatively strong candidate - maybe not in terms of the UCs - but med school in general. there must be something wrong with the qualitative aspects of your application - maybe a weak personal statement, bad letter of recs, sub-par ecs, or school-choice. normally i would have said that the 8 in VR would be holding you back, but as i painfully learned from discussions in another thread, an 8 in verbal isn't a death sentence. i'm in a similar situation as you - i have a lower gpa but a higher mcat, and also i'm a reapplicant. this time last cycle i had been offered 4 interviews, including one to my top choice. now i have 0, even though i've submitted what i believe is a better application. i'm going to start freaking out around nov. 15th.

 

[drizzt3117]

When were you complete at all schools? Both your GPA and MCAT are above the average for matriculants, so that's a good sign but certainly not a guarantee of acceptance. How are your ECs/PS/LORs?

 

[WurangBlang]

a thread like this makes me quite nervous... dude, don't worry. I have 7 on verbal and no interview (my gpa is higher tho), and i believe it's still early in the game. For me, it's only been <3 weeks since I was completed, and I applied broadly (25schools), so i think i am going to chill until it's late november.


GOOD LUCK!

 

[go lakers]

same mcat (10 VR), lower GPA, CA resident, 4 interviews.

be patient..

 

[Richard8794]

33O, 3.6, CA applicant....no interviews yet, it is probably i got an 8 in my verbal.....should I prepare for next year MCAT retake now? if I still don't get any interviews by November, it is basically over for me right? Any input is welcomed.

seriously, it is not your mcat.

because I am also ca resident and have 3.7 33 with 8 on verbal

I got 5 interviews including mayo and vanderbilt.

don't lose your hope yet. most school just started interviewing process. and interview season usually lasts til march.

good luck!

 

[monkily_stealth]

Yep, like most people are saying, don't freak. A lot of schools extended their interview seasons, so those invitations can roll in as late as March (I got 2 last year in that month).

 

[holyhyperion]

seriously, it is not your mcat.

because I am also ca resident and have 3.7 33 with 8 on verbal

I got 5 interviews including mayo and vanderbilt.

don't lose your hope yet. most school just started interviewing process. and interview season usually lasts til march.

good luck!

Out of curiosity, how did you get an interview at Vanderbilt and Mayo?! I have a 3.69 cGPA, 37-T MCAT and I got rejected from Vanderbilt flat out. I didn't apply to Mayo, obviously.

3.7 cGPA with a 33 MCAT, 8 on verbal ... interview at Mayo and Vanderbilt ... did you get published in Science or Nature or something ridiculous?

 

[Richard8794]

Out of curiosity, how did you get an interview at Vanderbilt and Mayo?! I have a 3.69 cGPA, 37-T MCAT and I got rejected from Vanderbilt flat out. I didn't apply to Mayo, obviously.

3.7 cGPA with a 33 MCAT, 8 on verbal ... interview at Mayo and Vanderbilt ... did you get published in Science or Nature or something ridiculous?

no..I didn't have any publications or crazy ECs...maybe this shows that medical school admission process is not all about numbers after all.


Best of lucks!

 

[holyhyperion]

maybe this shows that medical school admission process is not all about numbers after all.

If the medical school admission process is not, at the very least a significant game of numbers, then is it fallacious to say that the process is somewhat arbitrary?
If not comparing numbers, what else can you compare objectively that is also a good predictor for success in med. school classes?

 

[Tibor]

If the medical school admission process is not, at the very least a significant game of numbers, then is it fallacious to say that the process is somewhat arbitrary?
If not comparing numbers, what else can you compare objectively that is also a good predictor for success in med. school classes?

Yes it is fallacious. Personal statement, LORs, Secondary essays, and extracurricular activities count for a whole lot pre-interview. They are what make you come alive. If they didn't then places like harvard and hopkins would not have lower mcat/gpa avg's than washu. You should probably find a few outside opinions on your EC's, essays, etc.

 

[Tibor]

Out of curiosity, how did you get an interview at Vanderbilt and Mayo?! I have a 3.69 cGPA, 37-T MCAT and I got rejected from Vanderbilt flat out. I didn't apply to Mayo, obviously.

3.7 cGPA with a 33 MCAT, 8 on verbal ... interview at Mayo and Vanderbilt ... did you get published in Science or Nature or something ridiculous?

whats so hard to believe about this, his stats are very competitive considering the averages at these schools

Mayo = ~3.8 gpa, 33 mcat

V = 3.75ish GPA, 34 mcat

 

[holyhyperion]

whats so hard to believe about this, his stats are very competitive considering the averages at these schools

Mayo = ~3.8 gpa, 33 mcat

V = 3.75ish GPA, 34 mcat

I also got rejected from Georgetown Medical School with the scores I mentioned, but we won't go there because bringing it up would make me say a lot of nasty 4 letter words. And no, my application does not suggest I'm a bookworm. I have significant clinical experience (where I practiced leadership skills in patient care), a year and a semester of lab research with authorship credit in an article published in a relatively 'no-name' molecular biology journal (I guess publication is better than nothing). I'm fairly certain that my LOR's were very strong. My AMCAS personal statement, I believe, was well composed and I think I did a decent job on Georgetown's supplemental essay.

Actually, I'm curious about on what grounds Georgetown rejected me.

 

[Law2Doc]

if I still don't get any interviews by November, it is basically over for me right?

There will still be schools interviewing into March. I think setting a drop dead date of November is pretty premature unless you actually get rejected by everyplace by then. But the reality of the situation is that half of all applicants don't get in, and schools get as many as 10,000 applications, and are looking for any reason to whittle down their applicant pool. So your GPA and MCAT may be competitive, but any other thing in your app can tank you, numbers notwithstanding. And numbers are only part of this game -- schools don't merely start with the highest numbers they can get and work their way down-- they look for people above certain numerical cut-offs who have impressive, dynamic, non-numerical stats as well. So it's not realistic to determine that you should get into schools based on your numbers because that is only one component -- you may have survived the numerical cut only to be decimated by hordes of folks with impressive ECs, LORs, graduate degrees, armed service records etc etc. This is not a random process, but it sure will feel like one if you focus on the numbers, because the nonnumerical stuff is hard for the typical applicant to quantify. You may not see your EC experience as substantially different than someone else's, but the adcom who chooses to invite them over you probably does.

 

[etf]

If they didn't then places like harvard and hopkins would not have lower mcat/gpa avg's than washu.

which is why i respect washu a lot more than harvard/hopkins.

anyway, i've mentioned this before, but if you think it's not a numbers game you're kidding yourself. i've got a great ps, stellar lors, and some fairly decent extracurriculars detailed on my amcas. however, a human being at ucsf will never see my amcas, because a computer will decide that my numbers are too low to merit further consideration.

 

[BrokenGlass]

There will still be schools interviewing into March. I think setting a drop dead date of November is pretty premature unless you actually get rejected by everyplace by then. But the reality of the situation is that half of all applicants don't get in, and schools get as many as 10,000 applications, and are looking for any reason to whittle down their applicant pool. So your GPA and MCAT may be competitive, but any other thing in your app can tank you, numbers notwithstanding. And numbers are only part of this game -- schools don't merely start with the highest numbers they can get and work their way down-- they look for people above certain numerical cut-offs who have impressive, dynamic, non-numerical stats as well. So it's not realistic to determine that you should get into schools based on your numbers because that is only one component -- you may have survived the numerical cut only to be decimated by hordes of folks with impressive ECs, LORs, graduate degrees, armed service records etc etc. This is not a random process, but it sure will feel like one if you focus on the numbers, because the nonnumerical stuff is hard for the typical applicant to quantify. You may not see your EC experience as substantially different than someone else's, but the adcom who chooses to invite them over you probably does.

How much of a difference would a graduate degree make if it's not in biological sciences? Some graduate degress don't even require research.

 

[holyhyperion]

This is not a random process, but it sure will feel like one if you focus on the numbers, because the nonnumerical stuff is hard for the typical applicant to quantify. You may not see your EC experience as substantially different than someone else's, but the adcom who chooses to invite them over you probably does.

The non-numerical stuff is not only "hard" to quantify, its impossible to quantify. How do you assign "numbers" comparing my experience saving lives and performing patient care in the emergency setting with your experience volunteering at a free AIDs clinic in Mali? How do you calculate my research experience during the academic school year with your summer research internship over the summer?
The only objective part of the application is my MCAT score and to a lesser extent, my GPA (GPA as more of a reflection of overall rank rather than the raw number).
Sure, the adcom can attempt to "quantify" the worth of different EC's, but that's a completely subjective and at least somewhat arbitrary process.

All I know is, at my school, everyone I know who has a 3.8 cGPA and a 38 MCAT has been interviewed at almost every school they've applied to, including their top choices and their safeties. On the other hand, most of the other applicants with weaker test scores and GPA have had far less number of interviews, if any at all.

Of course, getting an interview and getting in are two completely seperate processes. But, getting an interview is a pre-req for acceptance, so those getting the most number of interviews (i.e. 3.8 GPA, 38 MCAT) have the best shot of getting in somewhere. I agree with etf. This is substantially a numbers game.

If you're complaining about not getting many/any interviews, find someone with a 3.8 GPA and 38 MCAT. I'm sure they've probably had 8 interviews lined up if not at least one acceptance by now.

 

[jamilla_w]

How much of a difference would a graduate degree make if it's not in biological sciences? Some graduate degress don't even require research.

I don't think it would be particularly helpful unless you used the degree in your job for a few years. If you did well, that's nice but it shows that you got a degree in an area you are abandoning... and it's reasonable to think you are more likely than someone else to do it again.

 

[drizzt3117]

which is why i respect washu a lot more than harvard/hopkins.

Because they offer merit scholarships to high stat people to convince them to go there and put higher importance on stats rather than considering applicants as a whole? Certainly seems to be praiseworthy behavior.

anyway, i've mentioned this before, but if you think it's not a numbers game you're kidding yourself. i've got a great ps, stellar lors, and some fairly decent extracurriculars detailed on my amcas. however, a human being at ucsf will never see my amcas, because a computer will decide that my numbers are too low to merit further consideration.

How do you differentiate between 3000 3.8/35 applicants if you're Harvard or Hopkins? Take the 3.81/35 over the 3.80/35?

 

[Law2Doc]

How much of a difference would a graduate degree make if it's not in biological sciences? Some graduate degress don't even require research.

Schools basically view it as a nice EC. Helps bring diversity of experience to the class. Which helps us lawyer types get into med school.

 

[drizzt3117]

How much of a difference would a graduate degree make if it's not in biological sciences? Some graduate degress don't even require research.

Actually lots of graduate degrees can make a big difference (usually positive but not always). I think my masters in business has been more useful in the application/interview process than a masters in biochem would have been <shrug>

 

[drizzt3117]

The non-numerical stuff is not only "hard" to quantify, its impossible to quantify. How do you assign "numbers" comparing my experience saving lives and performing patient care in the emergency setting with your experience volunteering at a free AIDs clinic in Mali? How do you calculate my research experience during the academic school year with your summer research internship over the summer?
The only objective part of the application is my MCAT score and to a lesser extent, my GPA (GPA as more of a reflection of overall rank rather than the raw number).
Sure, the adcom can attempt to "quantify" the worth of different EC's, but that's a completely subjective and at least somewhat arbitrary process.

All I know is, at my school, everyone I know who has a 3.8 cGPA and a 38 MCAT has been interviewed at almost every school they've applied to, including their top choices and their safeties. On the other hand, most of the other applicants with weaker test scores and GPA have had far less number of interviews, if any at all.

Of course, getting an interview and getting in are two completely seperate processes. But, getting an interview is a pre-req for acceptance, so those getting the most number of interviews (i.e. 3.8 GPA, 38 MCAT) have the best shot of getting in somewhere. I agree with etf. This is substantially a numbers game.

If you're complaining about not getting many/any interviews, find someone with a 3.8 GPA and 38 MCAT. I'm sure they've probably had 8 interviews lined up if not at least one acceptance by now.

Certainly solid numbers are going to help when it comes to getting interviews because schools have fairly little else to go off of pre-interview. That said, the top schools have lots of people with high stats to pick from and differentiating oneself from the other people with high stats with good ECs/LORs/PS isn't easy. In order to maximize your success you need to be great both quantitatively and qualitatively.

 

[holyhyperion]

How do you differentiate between 3000 3.8/35 applicants if you're Harvard or Hopkins? Take the 3.81/35 over the 3.80/35?

If you're comparing an applicant with a 3.8/35 versus another with 3.81/35, then you look at their EC's, LOR's, PS, and the rest of the subjective stuff.

But, I think the choice is much more clear when you're comparing a 3.6/33 applicant with a 3.8/36 applicant. Which is why I was baffled at how somebody with a 3.6/33 is getting interviewed at Vanderbilt while another person (according to this forum) with a 4.0/39 didn't even get to the interview step.

 

[Law2Doc]

The non-numerical stuff is not only "hard" to quantify, its impossible to quantify.

The fact that adcoms can decide who they want to interview based not only on the numerical but also nonnumerical factors means it isn't impossible. In most cases they come to these decisions as a team, and each adcom member is likely internally consistent as to what experiences s/he values more than others. This may differ from adcom member to adcom member, and from school to school, but that doesn't make it random, it just makes it externally unpredictable. The bottom line is that to an outsider, this process seems random because you neither see what everyone else has in their applications, nor do you know what each adcom member values most. But there is method to the madness.

 

[BrokenGlass]

If you're comparing an applicant with a 3.8/35 versus another with 3.81/35, then you look at their EC's, LOR's, PS, and the rest of the subjective stuff.

But, I think the choice is much more clear when you're comparing a 3.6/33 applicant with a 3.8/36 applicant. Which is why I was baffled at how somebody with a 3.6/33 is getting interviewed at Vanderbilt while another person (according to this forum) with a 4.0/39 didn't even get to the interview step.

Vanderbilt admissions people probably know from experience that someone with such high numbers will most likely end up matriculating somewhere else (e.g. Wash U). So s/he may have been rejected not because s/he's not good enough but because s/he too good.

 

[BrokenGlass]

The fact that adcoms can decide who they want to interview based not only on the numerical but also nonnumerical factors means it isn't impossible. In most cases they come to these decisions as a team, and each adcom member is likely internally consistent as to what experiences s/he values more than others. This may differ from adcom member to adcom member, and from school to school, but that doesn't make it random, it just makes it externally unpredictable. The bottom line is that to an outsider, this process seems random because you neither see what everyone else has in their applications, nor do you know what each adcom member values most. But there is method to the madness.

This may well be the best (i.e. most accurate) description of the admissions process.

 

[Law2Doc]

But, I think the choice is much more clear when you're comparing a 3.6/33 applicant with a 3.8/36 applicant. Which is why I was baffled ...

See, I think that is where you went awry. Schools usually want a certain level of numerical stats, but beyond that, outstanding non-numerical stuff can take the day. A dynamic applicant with unique ECs and a 3.6/33 is frequently going to get the nod over a more generic 3.8/36 type at numerous schools.

You have to make the distinction between above and below average (i.e. the 3.4/30 versus 3.8/35) for your theory to hold. Most schools see a 3.6/33 as perfectly in the range of admissibility, and so non-numerical factors can take the day once someone is at that threshold.

 

[drizzt3117]

If you're comparing an applicant with a 3.8/35 versus another with 3.81/35, then you look at their EC's, LOR's, PS, and the rest of the subjective stuff.

But, I think the choice is much more clear when you're comparing a 3.6/33 applicant with a 3.8/36 applicant. Which is why I was baffled at how somebody with a 3.6/33 is getting interviewed at Vanderbilt while another person (according to this forum) with a 4.0/39 didn't even get to the interview step.

The point is that quantitative measurements show a school that you have the capacity to do well in a rigorous curriculum but if your stats are "good enough" then they look at qualitative measurements to determine which candidates they will choose. It's pretty similar to a job interview in that respect. Your resume gets you the interview, but your personality and activities get you the job. Remember that you were talking about a candidate that had more or less the average matriculant stats at both of the schools that he received interviews at. Just because your stats are higher doesn't mean you're what they're looking for. I doubt people are getting rejected from Vanderbilt because their stats are too high. 3.8/35 schools typically don't play that game.

 

[armybound]

I believe people should always be working on improving their application until they hold an acceptance in hand. It's not too early to be considering what you'd do if you get no acceptances this year.

 

[etf]

Because they offer merit scholarships to high stat people to convince them to go there and put higher importance on stats rather than considering applicants as a whole? Certainly seems to be praiseworthy behavior.

seems to me enough people are doing this, that is, taking money over perceived prestige, and i for one wholeheartedly condone it. there aren't too many opportunities afforded at harvard that aren't available at a school like washu, so you're essentially "paying" for the name if you decline washu's offer (unless you'd rather live in boston or have other reasons for wanting to go, even if that reason is that you'd be happier at harvard).

How do you differentiate between 3000 3.8/35 applicants if you're Harvard or Hopkins? Take the 3.81/35 over the 3.80/35?

well, i think this was part of my point - you need to make it to that 3.8/35 threshold before you are even placed in the pool of 3000 that can possibly be considered. after this quantitative screen the more qualitative aspects of your candidacy come into play. but again, without the numbers, you're probably not going to make it into the pool - trust me, i know from experience

 

[etf]

But, I think the choice is much more clear when you're comparing a 3.6/33 applicant with a 3.8/36 applicant. Which is why I was baffled at how somebody with a 3.6/33 is getting interviewed at Vanderbilt while another person (according to this forum) with a 4.0/39 didn't even get to the interview step.

actually, the choice isn't that clear - while it is a numbers game at first, a 3.6 and a 33 is good enough to make it past that stage of the game at nearly every school. obviously vandy isn't going to consider someone with the 4.0/39 as "too high" or "too good" for their school, the way an albany might, but rather the rest of their application wasn't up to snuff.

 

[drizzt3117]

well, i think this was part of my point - you need to make it to that 3.8/35 threshold before you are even placed in the pool of 3000 that can possibly be considered. after this quantitative screen the more qualitative aspects of your candidacy come into play. but again, without the numbers, you're probably not going to make it into the pool - trust me, i know from experience

That's true to some degree, but generally schools have some sort of quantitative guideline in order to determine how qualified a given student is to complete the basic science curriculum, and if you can show you are basically qualified enough to do so, then qualitative characteristics are significantly more important, IMO.

 

[BrokenGlass]

actually, the choice isn't that clear - while it is a numbers game at first, a 3.6 and a 33 is good enough to make it past that stage of the game at nearly every school. obviously vandy isn't going to consider someone with the 4.0/39 as "too high" or "too good" for their school, the way an albany might, but rather the rest of their application wasn't up to snuff.

Vandy isn't exactly Harvard or Johns Hopkins and 4.0/39 combination is very rare. There are many people with high GPA and low MCAT, there are many people with low GPA and high MCAT, but not that many people have both a high GPA and a high MCAT.

 

[drizzt3117]

A school with a 3.8/35 average is just not going to reject ppl for having too high of stats. Its just not going to happen. Vanderbilts avg matriculant stats are not significantly different from hms/jhu.

 

[theNEWgirl]

I also got rejected from Georgetown Medical School with the scores I mentioned, but we won't go there because bringing it up would make me say a lot of nasty 4 letter words. And no, my application does not suggest I'm a bookworm. I have significant clinical experience (where I practiced leadership skills in patient care), a year and a semester of lab research with authorship credit in an article published in a relatively 'no-name' molecular biology journal (I guess publication is better than nothing). I'm fairly certain that my LOR's were very strong. My AMCAS personal statement, I believe, was well composed and I think I did a decent job on Georgetown's supplemental essay.

Actually, I'm curious about on what grounds Georgetown rejected me.

It is because they know that with YOUR stats, you won't bother to go to Georgetown even if they accept you, and they can sense it in your 2nd app essay.

 

[BrokenGlass]

A school with a 3.8/35 average is just not going to reject ppl for having too high of stats. Its just not going to happen. Vanderbilts avg matriculant stats are not significantly different from hms/jhu.

those averages don't mean an avg accepted applicant had BOTH 3.8 GPA and 35 MCAT. There aren't that many people with 4.0/39 combo.

 

[holyhyperion]

It is because they know that with YOUR stats, you won't bother to go to Georgetown even if they accept you, and they can sense it in your 2nd app essay.

That's preposterous. There is no way for them to know that (even if it was true in the first place) without inviting me for an interview. Sure, if I get invited to the interview, change dates at the last minute, and act like an All-Star Douche during the actual interview, then yes, the adcoms can extrapolate that because I didn't take the subjective portion seriously, I probably won't take the school seriously either. But there is no way they can come to that conclusion simply based on a secondary essay that was decently written. I did do my research on their medical school.

If what you're saying is true, you're suggesting that no person with my stats or higher will ever go to Georgetown. And I'm sure this is not true.

In essence, I could see Vanderbilt rejecting my application pre-interview/secondary because my GPA is significantly lower than their average matriculant GPA (3.69 vs. 3.8+). Georgetown, on the other hand, has no valid reason to reject me pre-interview (secondaries are given to all applicants), yet they still did. As such ... the four letter words come to mind.

 

[holyhyperion]

What are University of Missouri-Columbia's averages?

I looked at your MDApps profile. You have a 4.0/37 and a great EC's. They probably rejected you for the same reason Southern Illinois or even Georgetown rejected me.

Basically, you're significantly overqualified for U of Missouri-Columbia's medical school. Perhaps their school history has shown that virtually nobody with a 4.0/37 with outstanding EC's has ever gone to their school. They probably expect such an applicant to go to a higher ranked medical school than theirs.

As such, instead of wasting their time and your time, they decided to not offer you an interview, because they are 99% sure that you wouldn't go even if you got in.

EDIT: Your MDApps also states that you applied to Southern Illinois. With a 4.0 in Biomedical Engineering and a 37Q MCAT score, I found that to be extremely humorous. It's good that you withdrew your application from Southern because they would have rejected you pre-secondary too.
A small segment of your list of research honors:
2 summers of NIH funded research
1 year + 1 summer of research at Northwestern University Medical School
1 summer of research at University of California, San Francisco
1 year of research at Case Western Reserve University
1 small publication, first author

LOL, I doubt anybody in the history of Southern Illinois Medical School has had a list of such research accolades.

Considering that you still have open applications to Harvard, Wash U, Stanford, etc etc, I doubt that you have much to worry about.

 

[drizzt3117]

those averages don't mean an avg accepted applicant had BOTH 3.8 GPA and 35 MCAT. There aren't that many people with 4.0/39 combo.

I believe those are median numbers actually, which means half the applicants had a higher GPA and half the applicants had a higher MCAT. Chances are there are a number of people with close to 4.0 and close to 40 MCAT.

 

[holyhyperion]

That's BS, how do they know that I will get in somewhere else? I actually really want to go there since it's a top ranked primary care school. They told me that their OOS applicants are really strong in academics, so why would they reject me because I have alright stats?

*Sigh* You made me bust out the MSAR.

U of Missouri Columbia: Avg 3.79 cGPA / 31 MCAT.

You have a 4.0 cGPA from Biomedical Engineering (I'm sure any engineering major is hard as heck to get a 4.0 in) and a 4.0 science GPA. You have a 37 MCAT.

The Adcom at U of Missouri - Columbia is probably thinking, "Hmmm, this dude is going to Harvard, JHS, or a similar top ranked school. There is no way he'd ever come here. Hell, no one in this school's history has had those kind of grades AND EC's. So, rejected."

People can be underqualified when they apply to HMS. People can also be overqualified when they apply to other schools.

 

[TheRealMD]

If you're comparing an applicant with a 3.8/35 versus another with 3.81/35, then you look at their EC's, LOR's, PS, and the rest of the subjective stuff.

But, I think the choice is much more clear when you're comparing a 3.6/33 applicant with a 3.8/36 applicant. Which is why I was baffled at how somebody with a 3.6/33 is getting interviewed at Vanderbilt while another person (according to this forum) with a 4.0/39 didn't even get to the interview step.

Because it's easier to be derailed than it is to be impressed.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I believe those are median numbers actually, which means half the applicants had a higher GPA and half the applicants had a higher MCAT. Chances are there are a number of people with close to 4.0 and close to 40 MCAT.

Avg or median, my point still stands: high MCAT compensates for lower GPA and vice versa. Schools reports avg (or median) GPA separately from avg (or median) MCAT scores, so if a school X says we have and avg GPA of 3.7 and an avg MCAT of 35, this doesn't mean that an average matriculant to this school has BOTH. Very few people have a high GPA and a high MCAT score.

A school may fill its class with 50 people with 4.0 GPA and 30 MCAT and 50 people with 3.0 GPA and 40 MCAT and rightfully claim
that they have an average GPA of 3.5 and an avg MCAT of 35.

 

[holyhyperion]

They told me that their OOS applicants have to be highly qualified or they would not be considered. So I assume that's like ~3.9 GPA 35 MCAT. Are you saying that they lied to me? I can dig up that email if you want me to.

Medical schools are, more or less, a business in the same sense that universities are "businesses." They want to attract the best possible and as many customers as possible. To do that, they need to advertise their school in the best light as possible.
Regardless of whether or not OOS applicants to U of Missouri-Columbia have "highly qualified" test scores, do you really think that they would put anything OTHER than that statement in their advertisement?
Hell, one of my OOS buddies applied to Southern Illinois and their email to him said something similar, if not identical. I.E. Our out-of-state applicants have outstanding qualifications. But, if somebody with a 3.9/35 actually ended up going to Southern, I would ask him WTF happened?
The fact that you got rejected PRE-SECONDARY indicates that something similar happened. The adcom somehow came to the conclusion (I am not saying that their conclusion was founded on substantive evidence) that with your test scores, there is no way that you'd actually go to their school. They didn't even give you a chance to prove them wrong by mailing you their secondary.

But again, if I had your test scores and EC's, I wouldn't be worry about a rejection letter from that school. I'd be more concerned about prepping for my interview at Vanderbilt (warm congratulations, by the way) and future interviews.
Personally, I found it absurd that you even applied to Southern Illinois with those test scores. But then again, you came to your senses and withdrew your application before they could reject you LOL.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Medical schools are, more or less, a business in the same sense that universities are "businesses." They want to attract the best possible and as many customers as possible. To do that, they need to advertise their school in the best light as possible.
Regardless of whether or not OOS applicants to U of Missouri-Columbia have "highly qualified" test scores, do you really think that they would put anything OTHER than that statement in their advertisement?
Hell, one of my OOS buddies applied to Southern Illinois and their email to him said something similar, if not identical. I.E. Our out-of-state applicants have outstanding qualifications. But, if somebody with a 3.9/35 actually ended up going to Southern, I would ask him WTF happened?
The fact that you got rejected PRE-SECONDARY indicates that something similar happened. The adcom somehow came to the conclusion (I am not saying that their conclusion was founded on substantive evidence) that with your test scores, there is no way that you'd actually go to their school. They didn't even give you a chance to prove them wrong by mailing you their secondary.

But again, if I had your test scores and EC's, I wouldn't be worry about a rejection letter from that school. I'd be more concerned about prepping for my interview at Vanderbilt (warm congratulations, by the way) and future interviews.
Personally, I found it absurd that you even applied to Southern Illinois with those test scores. But then again, you came to your senses and withdrew your application before they could reject you LOL.

Yeah, it doesn't matter what schools say in their advertising materials. University of Minnesotta says something along the lines of "we are one of the top medical schools in the country..." Schools can and do whatever they want in private, regardless of what they claim in public.

 

[holyhyperion]

i refuse to believe that i was rejected because of "overqualifications." there's no such thing. i'd be damn flattering myself if i believed that. there's gotta be another reason, flaw in my app, etc

One possible flaw in your application is if you were rejected from a "crappy" (I use this word in the loosest of possible senses) school because you blew off their secondary application.
However, you didn't get a secondary at all from them. So, if there is a flaw, then it would have to be in your primary application.
Your EC's are, to be frank, outstanding. So, that leaves your LOR, your personal statement, and any academic/institutional/criminal infractions.

Since you got an interview at Vandy, I think its reasonable to say that your personal statement was at least acceptable and you don't have any significant institutional or criminal infractions.

So, what else are you left with?

 

[BrokenGlass]

dude i got a secondary from SIU, i just didn't fill it out because it was ridiculously long

and if med schools are businesses, wouldn't they want the best clients???

Because you are not the best client for them. They know you'll get into a much better school and will choose to go there. They have seen it hundreds of times in the past, so they don't bother to give you a chance...

 

[drizzt3117]

Avg or median, my point still stands: high MCAT compensates for lower GPA and vice versa. Schools reports avg (or median) GPA separately from avg (or median) MCAT scores, so if a school X says we have and avg GPA of 3.7 and an avg MCAT of 35, this doesn't mean that an average matriculant to this school has BOTH. Very few people have a high GPA and a high MCAT score.

A school may fill its class with 50 people with 4.0 GPA and 30 MCAT and 50 people with 3.0 GPA and 40 MCAT and rightfully claim
that they have an average GPA of 3.5 and an avg MCAT of 35.

You know what, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I suggest you take a look at MDapplicants and take a look at acceptances at Vanderbilt. There's about 50 people that are ~4.0/39 including some guy from UT-Austin with 3.98/41 and some people from Harvard with 3.9+/40. There are plenty of reasons why a 4.0/39 person could be rejected from Vanderbilt, but it's not because their stats are too high.

 

[BrokenGlass]

You know what, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I suggest you take a look at MDapplicants and take a look at acceptances at Vanderbilt. There's about 50 people that are ~4.0/39 including some guy from UT-Austin with 3.98/41 and some people from Harvard with 3.9+/40. There are plenty of reasons why a 4.0/39 person could be rejected from Vanderbilt, but it's not because their stats are too high.

mdapplicants? Are you kidding me? I trust politicians more than I trust mdapplicants.com