Stories of perfect candidates being rejected?

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

So this is probably just me but I have heard several people talk about how their friend/relative has been rejected from every med school they applied to, even with perfect stats, EC's and other factors. These factors are things like personality, essay's, applying to a broad range of schools, etc.

Does this just happen with me or anyone else? Is it just an effect of people overhyping the true strengths of their friends/relatives? Sorry, I'm not sure how to clarify it but can someone help me out on this? Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[toros102]

It seems like what really happened a lot of the times is they messed up the interview. Here's one story from a dean of admissions: absolutely perfect candidate, and he nailed the faculty interview. However, when a fourth year student interviewed him, he was totally disrespectful, and didn't even realize it was an interview after he called months later to ask why he had been rejected.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

Can you elaborate on "didn't realize it was an interview"?

 

[NickNaylor]

Can you elaborate on "didn't realize it was an interview"?

Sometimes applicants mistake student interviews as a time to be "less formal" and "let your guard down" to the point of being blatantly unprofessional (and I hate that word). This happened at least a few times per year at my school. An applicant would have great staff/faculty interviews but then have a terrible student interview. That would sink them.

In terms of the thread topic, there are rarely legitimately "perfect applicants" that don't get a spot in a class. More than likely they have a great paper application but have some kind of red flag that they may or may not be aware of or are incapable of not being odd in an interview. In both cases, applicants often don't have insight into their weaknesses, so if you hear a story second-hand it often isn't giving you the whole picture.

 

[goldy490]

I know of a few kids (3) who didn't get in anywhere last cycle and asked me to proof their app this cycle. Great, not stellar, applicants (more like 3.7/33 type), but certainly should've gotten into a low tier/state MD. When I read their PS and most meaningful essays, it was clear that their trouble was in explaining why med school, what their qualifications were, etc. This current cycle, these guys all have multiple interviews. A proofing from the University Writing Center, a premed advisor, and some peers can go a long way!

 

[Law2Doc]

Places don't reject perfect applicants. Every time you hear about a "perfect" applicant getting rejected, there's another side to the story. I've seen people who looked good on paper but came across horrible in person. I've seen similar people whose confidential LORs were quite unflattering. But most of the time people who feel like they are getting rejected despite being perfect are putting way too much emphasis on numbers and not enough on the nonnumerical aspects of the application. A guy with a 3.7/37 who is really interesting and has done a lot of cool things in their life beats out the 4.0/40 with cookie cutter ECs every time. The latter guy isn't "perfect", he's one dimensional. Lots of premeds don't like the fact that good numbers don't guaranty you a seat, but they really don't. Schools look at a range, (some place's ranges are tighter than others) and the guy within that range who is better in person, or has some wow factor, usually gets the spot.

 

[avgn]

No one's perfect.

 

[Goro]

Allow me to share two stories of "perfect candidates" who were outright rejected at my school, which actually takes some work to do.

One woman was such the overachiever that she she wanted to answer questions asked of a another candidate. Imagine Hermione Granger, but on steroids.

The other was a fellow who never made eye contact, and in fact, looked at the ground for the entire interview. His answers were flat, and the only time he displayed a pulse was when we asked about his research.

Both of these interviewees had LizzyM scores close to 80.

Places don't reject perfect applicants. Every time you hear about a "perfect" applicant getting rejected, there's another side to the story. I've seen people who looked good on paper but came across horrible in person. I've seen similar people whose confidential LORs were quite unflattering. But most of the time people who feel like they are getting rejected despite being perfect are putting way too much emphasis on numbers and not enough on the nonnumerical aspects of the application. A guy with a 3.7/37 who is really interesting and has done a lot of cool things in their life beats out the 4.0/40 with cookie cutter ECs every time. The latter guy isn't "perfect", he's one dimensional. Lots of premeds don't like the fact that good numbers don't guaranty you a seat, but they really don't. Schools look at a range, (some place's ranges are tighter than others) and the guy within that range who is better in person, or has some wow factor, usually gets the spot.

 

[LuluLovesMe]

The other was a fellow who never made eye contact, and in fact, looked at the ground for the entire interview. His answers were flat, and the only time he displayed a pulse was when we asked about his research.

Oh no! Having a pulse is a requirement even for Caribbean medical schools. Poor guy.

 

[BluMist]

I think Caribbean would be ok with his lack of pulse if he can write a check.

Oh no! Having a pulse is a requirement even for Caribbean medical schools. Poor guy.

 

[mimelim]

So this is probably just me but I have heard several people talk about how their friend/relative has been rejected from every med school they applied to, even with perfect stats, EC's and other factors. These factors are things like personality, essay's, applying to a broad range of schools, etc.

Does this just happen with me or anyone else? Is it just an effect of people overhyping the true strengths of their friends/relatives? Sorry, I'm not sure how to clarify it but can someone help me out on this? Thanks

If you have the following, it is virtually impossible to not get into medical school:

Strong applicants with a good application strategy get into medical school. I have yet to hear of an inexplicable story when it comes to medical school admissions.

Things to consider:
#1 People lie.
#2 People embellish.
#3 People don't know the whole truth about other people's applications.
#4 People drastically overestimate how good their LOR are.
#5 People overestimate how good their writing is.
#6 People underestimate how many strong applicants there are every cycle.
#7 People have difficulty gauging how good interviews go.

Nobody wants to think that they weren't "good enough" to get into medical school and they make up all kinds of excuses. The worst of which was, "I got unlucky." The reality is that there are a lot of strong students applying every year. Just eyeball this: https://www.aamc.org/download/321518/data/factstable25-4.pdf

 

[jl lin]

If you have the following, it is virtually impossible to not get into medical school:

Strong applicants with a good application strategy get into medical school. I have yet to hear of an inexplicable story when it comes to medical school admissions.

Things to consider:
#1 People lie.
#2 People embellish.
#3 People don't know the whole truth about other people's applications.
#4 People drastically overestimate how good their LOR are.
#5 People overestimate how good their writing is.
#6 People underestimate how many strong applicants there are every cycle.
#7 People have difficulty gauging how good interviews go.

Nobody wants to think that they weren't "good enough" to get into medical school and they make up all kinds of excuses. The worst of which was, "I got unlucky." The reality is that there are a lot of strong students applying every year. Just eyeball this: https://www.aamc.org/download/321518/data/factstable25-4.pdf

That leaves the "best of the best" @ only a 93.6% acceptance rate. A person can only make the best application that they can, and after that, apply and hope for the best. It's ridiculous to let it draw productive energy from you.

 

[moisne]

Yes - perfect on paper...
- one of my classmates in college. He had close to a 40 on his MCAT (38 or 39), and a 4.0 in chemical engineering. The president of our pre-med society, had close to 600 volunteer hours in a medical setting. My impression was that most professors loved him too. He also did research and have 2 publications.

He is pretty "not" humble. He basically thinks he's the perfect med student candidate (which he probably was pretty close to that) but his attitude got him rejected.

 

[wasteofspace323]

Yes - perfect on paper...
- one of my classmates in college. He had close to a 40 on his MCAT (38 or 39), and a 4.0 in chemical engineering. The president of our pre-med society, had close to 600 volunteer hours in a medical setting. My impression was that most professors loved him too. He also did research and have 2 publications.

He is pretty "not" humble. He basically thinks he's the perfect med student candidate (which he probably was pretty close to that) but his attitude got him rejected.

Is there something wrong with the perfect candidate thinking he is the perfect candidate? Would it be better if he were neurotic and under informed about his quality? Or maybe he should misrepresent himself? It sounds like he was just being himself tbh

 

[moisne]

Is there something wrong with the perfect candidate thinking he is the perfect candidate? Would it be better if he were neurotic and under informed about his quality? Or maybe he should misrepresent himself? It sounds like he was just being himself tbh

It's not the "I'm a great fit for this school and you should totally accept me"...
It's the "I'm better than everyone else" condescending attitude that got him rejected.

 

[wasteofspace323]

It's not the "I'm a great fit for this school and you should totally accept me"...
It's the "I'm better than everyone else" condescending attitude that got him rejected.

But he is better than everyone else applying, so any other attitude would be inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Isn't that the case?

 

[moisne]

But he is better than everyone else applying, so any other attitude would be inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Isn't that the case?

You have a lot to learn. No matter how high your GPA and MCAT it is - it doesn't determine how great of a doctor you will be. Most people (who aren't urgently dying) would prefer a doc with good bed side manners rather than ... let's say House.

Plus, all medical students feel ******ed - especially the first time they are pimped. You gotta just brush it off and move on.

Btw, he applied twice - rejected both time - Guess he didn't learn. :/

 

[Lannister]

Sometimes applicants mistake student interviews as a time to be "less formal" and "let your guard down" to the point of being blatantly unprofessional (and I hate that word). This happened at least a few times per year at my school. An applicant would have great staff/faculty interviews but then have a terrible student interview. That would sink them.

I've seen people mention this quite a few times on here, what are some examples of ways that applicants are too unprofessional during the student interviews? Like swearing or talking about partying/drinking or something?

 

[wasteofspace323]

Most people (who aren't urgently dying) would prefer a doc with good bed side manners rather than ... let's say House.
:/

I'd be very interested in a study showing that patients, given knowledge of test scores and interview scores, would actively choose a physician they know perform better in a "test of bedside manner".

I wish I could do a study like this. Give patients at a teaching hospital information about resident they'll be working with and see what patients really want. This is just my hypothesis, but I suspect it would strongly favor higher test scoring applicants.

Although there would probably be a large hump in favor of low Stat high interviewers (cough, drug seekers, cough)

 

[moisne]

I wish I could do a study like this. Give patients at a teaching hospital information about resident they'll be working with and see what patients really want. This is just my hypothesis, but I suspect it would strongly favor higher test scoring applicants.

I score great on all my exams - doesn't mean I know ****.

 

[wasteofspace323]

I score great on all my exams - doesn't mean I know ****.

Cheating is unethical, moisne.

 

[solitarius]

Nobody is perfect, so....

 

[moisne]

Cheating is unethical, moisne.

I'm flattered. lol

 

[gyngyn]

But he is better than everyone else applying, so any other attitude would be inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Isn't that the case?

Smugness is an acceptance repellent.

 

[Donald Juan]

I'd be very interested in a study showing that patients, given knowledge of test scores and interview scores, would actively choose a physician they know perform better in a "test of bedside manner".

I wish I could do a study like this. Give patients at a teaching hospital information about resident they'll be working with and see what patients really want. This is just my hypothesis, but I suspect it would strongly favor higher test scoring applicants.

Although there would probably be a large hump in favor of low Stat high interviewers (cough, drug seekers, cough)

I would highly disagree with you after the patients have talked to said individuals with poor bedside manner. I've heard many patients bash a doctor who has great credentials because they feel like even though the individual may be smart, they didn't listen to them or get the right information to get the right diagnosis/plan. If you don't talk to a patient and address their concerns, then they assume whatever treatment you've blasted onto them must be incorrect, even if it was a slam dunk diagnosis based on the imaging and labs (which even those should always be taken into context with the clinical picture).

 

[wavvvvvves123]

I would highly disagree with you after the patients have talked to said individuals with poor bedside manner. I've heard many patients bash a doctor who has great credentials because they feel like even though the individual may be smart, they didn't listen to them or get the right information to get the right diagnosis/plan. If you don't talk to a patient and address their concerns, then they assume whatever treatment you've blasted onto them must be incorrect, even if it was a slam dunk diagnosis based on the imaging and labs (which even those should always be taken into context with the clinical picture).

yeah exactly. i'd imagine for certain specialties especially, like ob/gyn or pediatrics or psychiatry, a significant amount of people would probably value a doctor with excellent people skills and bedside manner whose test scores were competent enough to get a medical degree to a person with perfect test scores but meh bedside manner.

 

[gyngyn]

With every interviewee we are projecting forward to the day we need them to match.
If we can't get them a job, there is no sense in accepting them (no matter their scores or grades).

 

[Terry Toma]

I wish I could do a study like this. Give patients at a teaching hospital information about resident they'll be working with and see what patients really want. This is just my hypothesis, but I suspect it would strongly favor higher test scoring applicants.

A premed hasn't taken a test that would be relevant to this decision making process yet. Good grades and a good MCAT just show that you'll probably be able to handle the coursework and tests that lie ahead, and indicate that you have solid knowledge of basic sciences. They don't measure medical knowledge (because we don't have any).

So maybe some people would select residents with higher STEP scores, but that isn't relevant to the admissions process. Premeds don't have STEP scores yet.

 

[LizzyM]

But he is better than everyone else applying, so any other attitude would be inaccurate or a misrepresentation. Isn't that the case?

If he had a 39/4.0 he was not better than everyone else applying. Sometimes these applicants come in and want to be told that they are great and want to interview us as to why the applicant should choose our school. That sends some people's teeth on edge.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

With every interviewee we are projecting forward to the day we need them to match.
If we can't get them a job, there is no sense in accepting them (no matter their scores or grades).

It seems so intuitive, but if I had to guess that's hardly the what any of us pre-meds think goes through an adcom's mind like yourself. Normally we think, "oh my grades sucked or my interview went poorly", thank you for that insight.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

The top two things, the absolute top two things I look for in a PS or secondary are:

1) Is it arrogant (as opposed to confident) ?
2) Does it read true and sincere ?

About half of the traditional premeds who come to me for review and advisement have at least 1 of these in their first drafts. And you can tell in usually the first paragraph or 2 in just a few minutes

I've always heard to include elements from past, present, and future reasons why you want to be a physician? I realize that is quite general advice, but is there any weight to that?

 

[704]

Yep I call it the smart wall. The stats get you to the wall but your personality/demeanor get you over it. Some people never get over it.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

Yep I call it the smart wall. The stats get you to the wall but your personality/demeanor get you over it. Some people never get over it.

 

[704]

rviewees had LizzyM scores close to 80

Oh my goodness. That's like a 4.0 and a 37-38

 

[wasteofspace323]

yeah exactly. i'd imagine for certain specialties especially, like ob/gyn or pediatrics or psychiatry, a significant amount of people would probably value a doctor with excellent people skills and bedside manner whose test scores were competent enough to get a medical degree to a person with perfect test scores but meh bedside manner.

Gonna be honest, people complain casually about a dick doctor but in my experience most people who've experienced significant missed diagnoses or a failed hip replacement would trade just about any amount of bedside manner for even what they perceive as a 1% improvement in diagnostic or surgical skill. People are much more apt to complain about casual annoyances than major concerns they feel they have little control over. I think this would be rather heavily demonstrated if a study were performed.

 

[wasteofspace323]

A premed hasn't taken a test that would be relevant to this decision making process yet. Good grades and a good MCAT just show that you'll probably be able to handle the coursework and tests that lie ahead, and indicate that you have solid knowledge of basic sciences. They don't measure medical knowledge (because we don't have any).

So maybe some people would select residents with higher STEP scores, but that isn't relevant to the admissions process. Premeds don't have STEP scores yet.

Mcat is designated as important strictly because it correlates with step 1, which in turn I would imagined residencies feel correlates with physician quality. Are either of these incorrect?

If we can attach step 1 to physician quality, we certainly can attach mcat to step 1. If we can't, everyone needs to stop taking the mcat asap.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

Allow me to share two stories of "perfect candidates" who were outright rejected at my school, which actually takes some work to do.

One woman was such the overachiever that she she wanted to ask questions aksed of a another candidate. Imagine Hermione Granger, but on steroids.

The other was a fellow who never made eye contact, and in fact, looked at the ground for the entire interview. His answers were flat, and the only time he displayed a pulse was when we asked about his research.

Both of these interviewees had LizzyM scores close to 80.

Is there any truth to the notion that maybe mid-tier to low-tier med schools reject people who are Lizzym > 75-76/3.9-4.0,/35+MCAT?? I have heard this idea bounced around before and have always wondered if it was true. What I hear a lot is that people who look too good on paper are sometimes assumed to be those "look at the floor" types or "anti-social" types. And schools who may receive many applicants might shoot for a more average-slightly above demographic rather than scheduling interviews they may presume to go poorly.

Of course, I ask this because I don't know what to believe. Any adcomes @gyngyn willing to address this?

 

[gyngyn]

Gonna be honest, people complain casually about a dick doctor but in my experience most people who've experienced significant missed diagnoses or a failed hip replacement would trade just about any amount of bedside manner for even what they perceive as a 1% improvement in diagnostic or surgical skill. People are much more apt to complain about casual annoyances than major concerns they feel they have little control over. I think this would be rather heavily demonstrated if a study were performed.

Failed hips and "missed diagnosis" are not just the purview of "dumb" doctors.
Much (if not most) of what heals can be found in the non-technical aspect of our practice.

 

[gyngyn]

Is there any truth to the notion that maybe mid-tier to low-tier med schools reject people who are LizzyM > 75-76/3.9-4.0,/35+MCAT?? I have heard this idea bounced around before and have always wondered if it was true. What I hear a lot is that people who look too good on paper are sometimes assumed to be those "look at the floor" types or "anti-social" types. And schools who may receive many applicants might shoot for a more average-slightly above demographic rather than scheduling interviews they may presume to go poorly.

Of course, I ask this because I don't know what to believe. Any adcomes @gyngyn willing to address this?

Each school can predict how many interviews they need to grant in each stratum of achievement (MCAT score) to acquire one matriculant. If you have the resources to interview 500 applicants and the luxury of thousands of applicants, you will focus on the best ones that are likely to be accepted and matriculate.

 

[wasteofspace323]

Much (if not most) of what heals can be found in the non-technical aspect of our practice.

Hmm, would care to elaborate on that statement?

 

[medic86]

Is there any truth to the notion that maybe mid-tier to low-tier med schools reject people who are LizzyM > 75-76/3.9-4.0,/35+MCAT?? I have heard this idea bounced around before and have always wondered if it was true. What I hear a lot is that people who look too good on paper are sometimes assumed to be those "look at the floor" types or "anti-social" types. And schools who may receive many applicants might shoot for a more average-slightly above demographic rather than scheduling interviews they may presume to go poorly.

Of course, I ask this because I don't know what to believe. Any adcomes @gyngyn willing to address this?

I'm pretty sure that the presumption that they're anti-social isn't the reason they get rejected. It's more likely yield protection: that is, they probably won't go to that school because they'll get accepted to a "better" school.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

I'm pretty sure that the presumption that they're anti-social isn't the reason they get rejected. It's more likely yield protection: that is, they probably won't go to that school because they'll get accepted to a "better" school.

Right, I agree with you. Again, this is just something I have heard before from some other pre-meds. It doesn't make a lot of statistical sense to accept a bunch of 4.0's when your school median is 3.55. I was just wondering.

 

[gyngyn]

Hmm, would care to elaborate on that statement?

Sure. "Failed hips" are uncommon but are more likely in high risk individuals seen in quarternary care facilities. They are a result of the patient population, not the skill of the surgeon.
"Missed" diagnosis is a normal component of many common conditions and unrelated to the knowledge of the physician (see: sojourn time).

 

[wasteofspace323]

"Missed" diagnosis is a normal component of many common conditions and unrelated to the knowledge of the physician (see: sojourn time).

Wow, It seems almost unbelievable that the knowledge of the physician plays no role in the likelihood of such an event. Life sure is crazier than fiction.

 

[gyngyn]

Right, I agree with you. Again, this is just something I have heard before from some other pre-meds. It doesn't make a lot of statistical sense to accept a bunch of 4.0's when your school median is 3.55. I was just wondering.

"Yield protection" happens before the interview.
There is no reason to interview an excellent candidate only to waitlist or reject them!

 

[gyngyn]

Wow, It seems almost unbelievable that the knowledge of the physician plays no role in the likelihood of such an event. Life sure is crazier than fiction.

The average breast cancer has been present for 5 to 10 years before it becomes clinically diagnosable.
This is the normal and currently irreducible amount of time that the diagnosis is "missed."
The "miss' has more to do with the limitations of our screening/diagnostic tools than the brilliance (or thickness) of our doctor.

 

[Lancer]

Each school can predict how many interviews they need to grant in each stratum of achievement (MCAT score) to acquire one matriculant. If you have the resources to interview 500 applicants and the luxury of thousands of applicants, you will focus on the best ones that are likely to be accepted and matriculate.

I feel like while this system makes sense for medical schools to do, it can leave certain populations of rather qualified applicants with fewer options than others.

For instance, applicants whose files aren't strong enough for the top tier schools (stats slightly lower, ECs weaker), but whose stats are above the medians of most mid-tier and above the 90th % for most lower tier schools may not get much attention. Lower tier schools and some mid-tier schools consider them to be low yield. Top tier schools don't consider them to be competitive enough. This seems to leave them with a rather narrow range of schools that would actually consider interviewing them, thus limiting their options.

 

[Goro]

No matter how good the person is on paper, arrogance and hubris are never well received.

Is there something wrong with the perfect candidate thinking he is the perfect candidate? Would it be better if he were neurotic and under informed about his quality? Or maybe he should misrepresent himself? It sounds like he was just being himself tbh

 

[wasteofspace323]

The average breast cancer has been present for 5 to 10 years before it becomes clinically diagnosable.
This is the normal and currently irreducible amount of time that the diagnosis is "missed."
The "miss' has more to do with the limitations of our diagnostic tools than the brilliance of our doctor.

As, I see. You definitely have a much broader scope than I do. I hadn't considered the failure to identify and diagnose issues which are, at the time, not capable of being diagnosed. I do wonder what we would find if we perhaps focused specifically on failure to diagnose issues which could have been successfully diagnosed (particularly the relationship of this event to physician knowledge). However this is a somewhat obscure situation I'm describing.

 

[SnakeDoc9497]

I feel like while this system makes sense for medical schools to do, it can leave certain populations of rather qualified applicants with fewer options than others.

For instance, applicants whose files aren't strong enough for the top tier schools (stats slightly lower, ECs weaker), but whose stats are above the medians of most mid-tier and above the 90th % for most lower tier schools may not get much attention. Lower tier schools and some mid-tier schools consider them to be low yield. Top tier schools don't consider them to be competitive enough. This seems to leave them with a rather narrow range of schools that would actually consider interviewing them, thus limiting their options.

This also seems like very narrow population of people...to be somehow above a mid/low school's 90th percentiles while somehow also being slightly lower than median at top-tier schools? Of course there are a 150+ schools where this may or may not be the case for each applicant, but the current system seems to be just fine...there is a school out there for (nearly) everyone