Targeting / applying to only 1 school.

[nontrad314]

Hi everyone,

I was looking for some thoughts / discussion on an idea that I'm kicking around; which is to apply to / target only 1 school and to continue to work the problem until I tire out or am accepted. I am prepared to give several years to this project.

I am 32. I applied last year to 5 schools (including my preference) but no luck. I was pretty naive about the process, applied late, and wasn't as strong an applicant as I can be.

I applied again this year (stronger PS, and a lot more volunteer and course work) to 17 schools. I got lots of 2nds (including my preference) and interview offers (I'm still waiting for word on an interview offer from my preference; but interviews are really hard to get there).

Getting the 2nds from the other places forced me to look in to the details and that really illustrated to me that there's only 1 place I want to go to school, which is in the same state that I want to do residency, and to practice (incidently, it's in the same state as most of my family and where I did my undergraduate work).

I looked very closely at the application profiles for the school I am interested in and it seems to me that it is a very reasonable (although difficult) goal for me to get accepted at this school.

So, I am currently saving to relocate to the state in either January or June(where a free room is waiting in a relative's house that is currently sitting empty since the relative is out of the country and purchased the house as an investment). If it doesn't work out for me this year then

My plan is to:

1. Apply EDP next year and subsequent years

2. Retake the MCAT and shoot for a higher score obtained through concerted preparation (which was not the case last time; so I think that with the right effort I could pull maybe 5, 6, or 7 points out of my previous performance).

3. Get involved in research and tech work at the school through contacts I have there.

In short, my plan is to take on the problem and to work the problem until some sort of resolution is achieved.

What do ya'll think? Too much risk on top of an already risky situation?

Many thanks for any and all thoughts!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pathdr2b]

Without a GPA or MCAT score I think it's going to be real hard for anyone to comment intelligently. Having said that, I can understand your focus on one school as I for all intense purposes have done the same thing.

Honestly, I have to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases (mine included) it's not wise to focus on just one school. I think you have to ask yourself how long would you be satisfied being a tech at the school you're trying to get admitted to. In my case, I would be quite satisfied studying to be a PhD pathologist while wating to study to become a MD pathologist!

 

[nontrad314]

Without a GPA or MCAT score I think it's going to be real hard for anyone to comment intelligently. Having said that, I can understand your focus on one school as I for all intense purposes have done the same thing.

Honestly, I have to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases (mine included) it's not wise to focus on just one school. I think you have to ask yourself how long would you be satisfied being a tech at the school you're trying to get admitted to. In my case, I would be quite satisfied studying to be a PhD pathologist while wating to study to become a MD pathologist!

Thanks for your feedback.

Sorry, my stats: MCAT: 30 GPA: 3.42 BA/ 3.86 MA / 3.89 PhD ( I am told that my grades normalize to 3.66 or thereabouts)

I think you're right that it is very much about being satisfied; often there's a trade off between quality of work and quality of life. In the best of all worlds one has both. For the last 10 years I worked in what's an exotic subject; the work was good. But to do that I had to relocate to parts of the country where my quality of life was not has high as I would have liked. That was a trade I was prepared to make. Things worked out professionally as planned (although where I am now isn't 'home'; it hasn't been for 10+ years).

This idea that I am looking at now is more like quality of life over quality of work; e.g., it's the flip side of my last 10 years.

I think my last 10 years show me that I'm used to accepting trade offs. I think that I can do this because I can see the trade that I am making and why I am making it.

But for this to work, I'm assuming that there isn't some sort of 3 strikes rule and that in repeated app cycles to this school my application strengthens over that time and does not weaken (due to time).

 

[pathdr2b]

This idea that I am looking at now is more like quality of life over quality of work; e.g., it's the flip side of my last 10 years.

But for this to work, I'm assuming that there isn't some sort of 3 strikes rule and that in repeated app cycles to this school my application strengthens over that time and does not weaken (due to time).

You may want to ask the school your targeting, but I know for some schools they do have a limit on the number of times you can apply (Harvrad comes to mind).

Also, I've always been told that if you apply to med school in back to back years, that you need to change something significantly in your next application.

I think if I were in your situation, I would start networking my arse off at my top choice school but you never know, getting your application in early may mean all the difference for you this time around.

Good Luck!

 

[nontrad314]

You may want to ask the school your targeting, but I know for some schools they do have a limit on the number of times you can apply (Harvrad comes to mind).

Also, I've always been told that if you apply to med school in back to back years, that you need to change something significantly in your next application.

I think if I were in your situation, I would start networking my arse off at my top choice school but you never know, getting your application in early may mean all the difference for you this time around.

Good Luck!

Thanks again. And yes, you've said what I was trying to say: That some schools have a limit on the number of times that you can apply; that you have to change something significant in the app. That's sort of one of the motivations to relocating, retaking the MCAT, more clinical exposure etc; e.g., really make a case for the application by changing it as significantly (if not radically) as possible.

So can you tell me a bit about your situation in terms of targeting 1 school, how that's worked for you, reasons etc?

 

[pathdr2b]

So can you tell me a bit about your situation in terms of targeting 1 school, how that's worked for you, reasons etc?

I've targeted 1 school for family reasons however, getting to this decision stage has taken a looong time for me because of my career goals, MD/PhD. The school I would LOVE to attend for med school (Tier 3) isn't the same as the school I would love to attend for my PhD which also happens to be a top 5 school. Plus my #1 choice med school doesn't have the specific PhD program I want either.

So as I see it, I'm left with either possibly matriculating at the tier 3 med school and giving up the PhD alltogether, "sitting out a year" while I try to improve my MCAT's to get into the MD/PhD program at the top 5 school or matriculating into the PhD program at the top 5 school, improving my MCAT's, and transferring in. In my situation, the worst case scenario is that I have to finish my PhD in pathology before going to med school which is quite acceptable to me at this point.

Of course, this is going to take longer and I ain't getting any younger, but like you I'm valuing quality of life, family, ect over EVERYTHING else !!

 

[nontrad314]

I've targeted 1 school for family reasons however, getting to this decision stage has taken a looong time for me because of my career goals, MD/PhD. The school I would LOVE to attend for med school (Tier 3) isn't the same as the school I would love to attend for my PhD which also happens to be a top 5 school. Plus my #1 choice med school doesn't have the specific PhD program I want either.

So as I see it, I'm left with either possibly matriculating at the tier 3 med school and giving up the PhD alltogether, "sitting out a year" while I try to improve my MCAT's to get into the MD/PhD program at the top 5 school or matriculating into the PhD program at the top 5 school, improving my MCAT's, and transferring in. In my situation, the worst case scenario is that I have to finish my PhD in pathology before going to med school which is quite acceptable to me at this point.

Of course, this is going to take longer and I ain't getting any younger, but like you I'm valuing quality of life, family, ect over EVERYTHING else !!

Hmmm....That's an interesting situation that sounds like a good one.

Like you, I have a family situation that's pulling me toward this one school. Also like you, I have a PhD that has swirled my life around a little bit.

I fully agree about valuing quality of life, family etc over everything else. That's just me (although it hasn't always been that way). Funnily enough (for me), I don't think that my personal choice has necessarily come with age; since I know for example many colleagues who have chosen their careers consistently over where they've had to relocate to etc etc. They all seem mostly content with their trade off.

To each their own I suppose.

Thanks again. Best of luck.

 

[Wahoowa]

I knew a guy a few years ago that for some reason or other wanted to go to Georgetown med. He was persistent and it paid off, but it took him 8 years. If it were me, I think it would be very hard to turn down an acceptance to med school to hold out for another that I had not yet been accepted to. Perhaps this program you are looking at has something specific that you can not find anywhere else.

Your numbers are good. I might try to find out who sits on the admissions committee and get an informal appointment with one of the members to discuss my goals firstly and secondly find out what they are looking for in an applicant that they would accept. Who knows, if you make a good impression, you may get an allie to plead your case before the other committee members.

 

[nontrad314]

I knew a guy a few years ago that for some reason or other wanted to go to Georgetown med. He was persistent and it paid off, but it took him 8 years. If it were me, I think it would be very hard to turn down an acceptance to med school to hold out for another that I had not yet been accepted to. Perhaps this program you are looking at has something specific that you can not find anywhere else.

Your numbers are good. I might try to find out who sits on the admissions committee and get an informal appointment with one of the members to discuss my goals firstly and secondly find out what they are looking for in an applicant that they would accept. Who knows, if you make a good impression, you may get an allie to plead your case before the other committee members.

Very cool. Thanks for the take.

In terms of numbers, how I hate them so.... and that's a fact.

I mean what a faceless process this is. Given that it is, what can be done if anything? Maybe part of my goal here is to make this process somehow 'faceful'; e.g., by forcing the system to recognize the one face of a dim wit that just won't go away.

I mean, why not buck the system? Why not try to do the impossible?

Maybe I've lost my mind (again).....

.... The Man of La mancha just thinking out loud....

(8 years.... methinks that might be maybe tooooo many)

Thanks again though

later

 

[pathdr2b]

I almost forgot to mention the story of a woman who took the MCAT six times to get into Hopkins. I don't know if she tried to get accepted to any other school, although I'd guess she probably didn't.

Bottom line she's either in her 3rd or 4th year now at Hopkins, so yes I'd say tenacity DEFINITELY pays off in the end!

 

[smokeycat]

Hi everyone,

I was looking for some thoughts / discussion on an idea that I'm kicking around; which is to apply to / target only 1 school and to continue to work the problem until I tire out or am accepted. I am prepared to give several years to this project.

I have thought about doing this myself. I eventually decided to apply to three schools and feel happy about the situation.

You sound like you have made an informed decision. Go for it and good luck to you!!!

 

[Wahoowa]

Very cool. Thanks for the take.

In terms of numbers, how I hate them so.... and that's a fact.

I mean what a faceless process this is. Given that it is, what can be done if anything? Maybe part of my goal here is to make this process somehow 'faceful'; e.g., by forcing the system to recognize the one face of a dim wit that just won't go away.

I mean, why not buck the system? Why not try to do the impossible?

It is faceless until you get an interview. How many times did I say to myself "If they could only meet me and talk with me there would be no problem". One thing I do know is that perseverence is a quality that admissions committees like and it will pay off. Make them realize that the only way you are going to go away is for them to accept you.

 

[nontrad314]

Make them realize that the only way you are going to go away is for them to accept you.

Awesome! You said it perfectly!

 

[nontrad314]

smokeycat

Thanks for the post, I didn't have a chance to say that earlier.

path Doc

You too. Many thanks for dropping by and helping out.

Folks,

I'm gunna do it! I think that my chances are very good if I just keep working the problem (even in the face of all the 'statistics'). The way I see it if I keep working the problem for 2, 3, 4 more years I'll have a strong case for what this is about for me and what I'm bringing with me to this school.

If this doesn't work out, well then I'll accept that and (hopefully) take a few new lessons into the future.

Thanks again everyone!!!

 

[efex101]

Why just one school though? you *can* get a good medical education at any school and then move back to this state that you wish to practice in. Although some adcoms will think geez this person is really persistent...others may question your motivation and why not apply to more if you want to become a physician? you need to contact this school that is your number one and ask them why you have not been interviewed. Unless you drastically improve some component of your application what would be different each go round? there may be a red flag somewhere (maybe from an LOR) and you are unaware and if this is the case you are wasting time applying multiple times to the same place. I understand if you have a family and there is NO other option but it seems that you did apply to multiple schools so obviously moving *is* an option...

 

[nontrad314]

Thanks for your message. It's very well thought out and greatly appreciated.

Why just one school though? ...

1. Because I have family there,
2. It's a great school in general,
3. It's a great state,
4. I want to do residency and practice in that state
5. I'm 100% behind the school's philosophy.

you *can* get a good medical education at any school and then move back to this state that you wish to practice in....

This is true, but I've been out of state for 10+ years already. 4 more years doesn't seem like too much more, but infact it is too many: There's a family issue here that relates to me being an older applicant. If I move up now in Jan or June then I can start addressing that issue while also working on getting in to this school. Basically, at 32 I don't have the same time that I did when I was 26.

Although some adcoms will think geez this person is really persistent...others may question your motivation and why not apply to more if you want to become a physician? ....

This is true too. They will and should question my motivation (as do I). Moving up there and getting involved in clinical exposure in the region (such as EMT, research etc) is going to be a measure of that motivation on both sides (for them and me). It is also a measure of my motivation to be involved in this school and this region, which is my motivation: To be a physician in this region. Now if it doesn't work out in say 2,3,4 years of working the problem in that time the situation will become clear and through the course I can and will pursue other tracks (such as PA etc).

you need to contact this school that is your number one and ask them why you have not been interviewed. ....

Yes, I agree completely. I contacted the school and had a long conversation about the previous round. I also discussed the situation (and that conversation) with several individuals affiliated with the school (in various ways). In all cases there was initial surprise at not being interviewed, a questioning of where the gaps are (clinical exposure), a general understanding of the gaps and (without exception) a conclusion that what I was missing from the last round can be accounted for. It's that sort of feedback combined with my particular family situation and my 'numbers' in comparison to the 'profiles' of the students that set the seed of this idea. As I looked more closely in to it I found that it is managable.

Unless you drastically improve some component of your application what would be different each go round? ....

1. MCAT
2. Clinical experience (that can only expand over the years in numerous ways).
3. Research.
etc

there may be a red flag somewhere (maybe from an LOR) and you are unaware and if this is the case you are wasting time applying multiple times to the same place. ....

This is could be the case; and I and others looked hard for any indications of such but so far that does not seem to be the case. If there is a flag it isn't in my letters; and over time there is only going to be more letters. One of the motivations to take on the challenge of 1 school is infact the absence of flags and instead sort of the opposite: People who look in to my particular situation all say 'sure, you'll do great as a physician....'cause it's so you'

I understand if you have a family and there is NO other option but it seems that you did apply to multiple schools so obviously moving *is* an option...

I agree. It's about family in a major way; basically I'm running out of time and that has become more clear to me by looking at other schools.

So far I applied once to this school. Some physicians I know who attended the school and practiced for their entire careers in the region had to apply three times. There are people all over this board that had to apply to some chosen school 2, 3, or 4 times. Factoring that in with the absence of flags, with positive feed back from everyone, with my family situation, with the school, it's philosophy, my numbers, my EC etc motivates me to work this problem.

 

[pathdr2b]

This is could be the case; and I and others looked hard for any indications of such but so far that does not seem to be the case. If there is a flag it isn't in my letters; and over time there is only going to be more letters. One of the motivations to take on the challenge of 1 school is infact the absence of flags and instead sort of the opposite: People who look in to my particular situation all say 'sure, you'll do great as a physician....'cause it's so you'

Just looking at things from the "outside" and in conjunction with Efex's comments, I'd say that your letters just may be the problem.

If you're moving to the state where you want to attend med school and plan to work at the school, why not just "file" the old letters, in favor of new ones from people at the new school? For example, I have 2 SUPERB letters from my graduate work. However by the time I apply to med school, I'll have additional letters from the people at the school where I'll be a PhD student as well as some very strong letters from NIH PI's that work with folks at the med school I apply to/attend as a PhD student. I think you have to ask yourself in the overall scheme of things, which letters are going to carry the most weight? I know in my case, Hopkins folks are more interested in letters from "within" than "outside".

 

[nontrad314]

Just looking at things from the "outside" and in conjunction with Efex's comments, I'd say that your letters just may be the problem.

Howso? I mean, what is it that you see in this discussion (or elsewhere) that indicates to you that there is something going on with the letters as opposed to say my PS or the amount of clinical experience I have in relation to the amount of clinical experience that is favored at this school.

But let's assume that it is the letters. Wouldn't that have come up in my conversation with the school? (To be honest I don't recall all of the details of that conversation; instead I recall going in to the conversation with the question of 'what can I work on to strengthen my app, is it my grades, my mcat, my letters, my ps, my ec's'....and the answer that came back was 'clinical exposure: we're big big big on that')

But yes and yes. I agree more letters the better. I'm just interested here in what you have in mind, 'cause all feedback is appreciated.

 

[nontrad314]

One more thing. This feedback is exactly what I was looking for (and it is making me really understand the what, why, how of my intentions here).

For example, the point about the letters is an excellent point. Also, the point about motivation is excellent.

Just to describe things a little further (to have that information available to anyone that is interested):

My PhD is in an exotic field so one reaction can be (and is)

'Is it that you couldn't get a job in your field so you want to get in to medicine?'

But that's not what's going on: My PhD was in a competitive field but it was successful to the degree of including invited talks, several (primary author) publications, offers on grants, offers on post docs. I could, if I chose, pursue that work further, but research is not what it was for me any more.


It is also not about money either (which is a natural question to ask an academic). During my PhD and afterwards I worked in a small business that has been successful; to the degree that I have head hunters calling my secretary, lying to her about who they are, then getting through to me to offer me silly things in London, New York, Hong Kong. If I wanted money and that kind of thing I could have that. But London, NY, HK and all that stuff aren't what I'm looking for at all; no matter what kind of offer / duties / etc are involved.

Instead, I am looking to apply my training to contribute to a community around me. The examples of relatives and colleagues in medicine has shown me what that looks like; in comparison to other opportunities that are available to me.

 

[pathdr2b]

Howso? I mean, what is it that you see in this discussion (or elsewhere) that indicates to you that there is something going on with the letters as opposed to say my PS or the amount of clinical experience I have in relation to the amount of clinical experience that is favored at this school..

I'm actually enjoying this "conversation" because remember I've essentially made the same decidsion as you so I want to know all the angles and consequences of that too!

Back to your question, I've attended 2 universities where professors essentailly got their heads blown off by angry students. So I'm not too sure you could get a straight answer about the "quality" of your ec's from anyone. Did your contact at the medical school really say, "well your letter from professor X wasn't as strong as we would have liked". My gut says no, but I could be wrong.

I guess the other reason I think it may be the letters is because everything else in your application seems pretty good but you did also mention that you're weak in clinical experience, so that could be the answer as well

Honestly, I'd bet you'd have an easier time getting admitted if you planned to somehow incoprate you PhD into your medical school studies/career.

 

[nontrad314]

I'm actually enjoying this "conversation" because remember I've essentially made the same decidsion as you so I want to know all the angles and consequences of that too! .

Cool. Me too!! Let's keep going.

Back to your question, I've attended 2 universities where professors essentailly got their heads blown off by angry students. So I'm not too sure you could get a straight answer about the "quality" of your ec's from anyone. Did your contact at the medical school really say, "well your letter from professor X wasn't as strong as we would have liked". My gut says no, but I could be wrong. .

Well, in the conversation I had with the school if I didn't say outright 'Do you think I should have stronger letters submitted' (which if I recall I think I did infact say) then I said something like 'Is there anything wrong with my letters or do you think I should have other letters submitted?' and the reply I got was something like 'Your letters are fine' and then we had a LONG conversation about the clinical stuff, which when I hung up the phone was the resounding bottom line I carried away with me.

Incidently, my letters come from my PhD advisor (who I basically bent over backwards for and who used my work multiply in conferences etc) and from a prof who I worked with as an undergraduate doing research, taught for, helped him with his gardening and have known for 14 years. My other letter was from a graduate of the school who did residency there and who has practiced in the region for 20 years. Who knows maybe that guy's really a bum on the verge of malpractice etc (but I don't think so).

I guess the other reason I think it may be the letters is because everything else in your application seems pretty good but you did also mention that you're weak in clinical experience, so that could be the answer as well.

I see. You know I really really think that this is it. Let's assume that the clinical stuff really is the 1 reason. If it is the one reason then IT'S FIXABLE and so I should really go for it 'cause everything else is looking sorta good!!!

Thus one school 'cause it seems that the chances I have at this one school are not simply the chances that the 'statistics' would indicate.

Honestly, I'd bet you'd have an easier time getting admitted if you planned to somehow incoprate you PhD into your medical school studies/career.

I think so too! Basically you can't apply my PhD or MA or other research (which was biophysics) to anything directly. At all. It's amazing to think, but it's true: all that work was pure research. Vast other parts of my PhD training do go over directly into clinical components; so that's good. But there's this big fat dissertation just sitting there that is tottally and completely USELESS to all mankind for virtually all time. (Well maybe that's over stating it, the work is useful to some people, but there's not very many of them).

Soooo.....this fact motivates me to go up to the school and get involved in some of their research and do it on my dime. And that really really makes sense to me, because look: I want to be involved in this region, in this type of work and that's *exactly* what I would be doing! It comes as sort of an added fact that the school that I want to attend is where I would be doing that work and should (presummably) view that work favorably.

 

[nontrad314]

Folks:

Windmill or monster? Monster or windmill?

(It wouldn't be the first time that the monster was really a windmill or the windmill was really a monster)

FWIW I'm heading out now to go do an interview on friday and then there's another on monday ( so that's 2 interviews for 2 schools that I have no interest in attending at all! Good grief! Something's really amok here.)

 

[efex101]

Okay, if it is clinical that has an easy solution so you are good on that end. Another thing, that may be an issue do you have recent undergrad hard core competitive environment coursework? maybe that could kind of make adcoms go hmmm...exotic phd and no recent classes???

 

[pathdr2b]

Another thing, that may be an issue do you have recent undergrad hard core competitive environment coursework? maybe that could kind of make adcoms go hmmm...exotic phd and no recent classes???

Great point! I think this is something a lot of nontrads forget.

 

[nontrad314]

Great point! I think this is something a lot of nontrads forget.

Good point.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to me.

 

[pathdr2b]

Good point.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to me.

Well it will apply to me if I apply next year. I've only had a couple classes since finishing my master's back in 1999 but I'll be taking 4 courses for the 2004-2005 school year before I submit my application in 2005.

I guess a good question is what does recent mean? I'd say within the 2 years prior to the application being submitted.

 

[efex101]

Hmmm, I would not know what recent means exactly but I would guess within the last couple of years??? God and I would be dying right now if I had been away from an academic setting...medical school is freaking intense to say the least.

 

[nontrad314]

amk25a

Thanks for the post! Your situation sounds similiar.

You sound like a strong candidate; and I hope that it works out for you.

I just did 2 sets of interviews at 2 different places. The 2 schools selection criteria couldn't have been more different (although both were for MD as opposed to 1 for DO and 1 for MD). 1 school was very focused on numbers and the other school was very focused on clinical exposure. The variance between the 2 sets of interviews was large.

Anyway, this all emphasized to me that matriculating to a medical school is a complex process. Some people say that it is random, but I think it is more then that; admission committees really have their work cut out for them.

In light of how complex the process is, I think the thing to do is then to work the problem by finding out what the issues / concerns / interests are and then address those points to the best degree that they can be.

In your post it sounds like you are doing exactly that.

Best of luck to you!

 

[pathdr2b]

In light of how complex the process is, I think the thing to do is then to work the problem by finding out what the issues / concerns / interests are and then address those points to the best degree that they can be

Great Point!

However, I think that when you target just one school, you owe it to yourself to put forth the best application possible. I personally would not target one school with out numbers above average because if I wasn't successful, I'd always wonder what the outcome might have been had I strengthened my application first. In this case, I think throwing the clock out the window is a good idea. In the overall scheme of things, how much difference does starting one year later really make?

 

[nontrad314]

Great Point! However, I think that when you target just one school, you owe it to yourself to put forth the best application possible.

100% agreed.

I personally would not target one school with out numbers above average because if I wasn't successful, I'd always wonder what the outcome might have been had I strengthened my application first.

This point touches on one of the concerns I have with the complexity of this process. For example, numbers can be tricky sometimes. Say, in some cases averages can be suggestive but without things like standard deviations arriving at conclusions can be hard (if not impossible; sometimes there aren't even standard deviations...sample sizes are so small that the data has no informatic content). Some schools are aware of problems like these and opt to lend less weight on the numbers. Others believe otherwise. Another case inwhich numbers can be tricky are in things like composite MCATs. Say an individual does well on some section once, and not as well on that section a second time. What does that mean? Well, at best not much. Yet some schools have no qualms with averaging the two. Other schools only take the best (in some sense recognizing that having a bad day in one's professional pursuits is inevitable for everyone). Other schools will time weight the scores (and so on). There are other troubling factors with the numbers; say grade inflation. This is one that I am personally familiar with having attended schools (as a student) both with and without grade inflation. Also, I taught (upper level courses, so-called weed out courses, and 'science for poets' courses) at the university level at a smaller college, at an ivy, and also at a major research university. Depending on the courses and the institution, there were requirements (that differed) concerning the distribution of scores that I handed in each semester. Then there is the complicating factor of how (say) a C in a theoretical nuclear physics course might compare to something like an A in an introduction to marketing course.

But the med schools seem to have taken some positions on these sorts of problems (such as employing the MCAT and BPMC); although determining which position some one school has taken relative to some one application can be problematic.

In this case, I think throwing the clock out the window is a good idea. In the overall scheme of things, how much difference does starting one year later really make?

I don't think it makes very much difference.

 

[pathdr2b]

This point touches on one of the concerns I have with the complexity of this process. For example, numbers can be tricky sometimes. Say, in some cases averages can be suggestive but without things like standard deviations arriving at conclusions can be hard (if not impossible; sometimes there aren't even standard deviations...sample sizes are so small that the data has no informatic content). Some schools are aware of problems like these and opt to lend less weight on the numbers. Others believe otherwise. Another case inwhich numbers can be tricky are in things like composite MCATs. Say an individual does well on some section once, and not as well on that section a second time. What does that mean? Well, at best not much. Yet some schools have no qualms with averaging the two. Other schools only take the best (in some sense recognizing that having a bad day in one's professional pursuits is inevitable for everyone). Other schools will time weight the scores (and so on). There are other troubling factors with the numbers; say grade inflation. This is one that I am personally familiar with having attended schools (as a student) both with and without grade inflation. Also, I taught (upper level courses, so-called weed out courses, and 'science for poets' courses) at the university level at a smaller college, at an ivy, and also at a major research university. Depending on the courses and the institution, there were requirements (that differed) concerning the distribution of scores that I handed in each semester. Then there is the complicating factor of how (say) a C in a theoretical nuclear physics course might compare to something like an A in an introduction to marketing course.

As usual, great points!! The bottom line is that there are no absolutes when applying to med school, so I guess what I'm really talking about is being able to say at the end of the day that I did the absolute best I could with what I had.

 

[nontrad314]

This is sort of off topic of the discussion, but relates to the general idea of the thread.

In 4/4 of my interviews the question was raised about 'where and what do you want to practice?'. That's 100%. So I don't think that is an accident.

The discussion in each interview then turned to state mandates / charters and how those factor in to determinations made on the part of the applicants and admission committees. I think this is important.

School charters and state mandates in education are something that I was already aware of from another life, but I was interested to hear it come up again (and particularly) 4 out of 4 times.

The point about the charter is included in my interest in this one school: That is the region where I want to work for the rest of my life. That school has been chartered to provide physicians to serve that region. Therefore, if I am a truly competitive candidate (which I either am or will become), then I should focus my efforts on that school.

The presence of charters also means that the 'numbers' get weighted against different pools according to whether an applicant is included within the charter or not; moving to a region can make an applicant more or less competitive with respect to a given pool.

California and Texas are 2 good examples where everyone knows this.

 

[nontrad314]

A couple points to add about charters / production quotas.

1. If an applicant is considering a private then this issue about the charter is mostly irrelevant as discussed above; although, in the case of privates there are other issues related to production quotas that stem from what a specific applicant brings to a school. Some privates have specific interests in producing particular types of physicians (or employing particular types of students). For example, there are a couple privates that take more interest in applicants with backgrounds in (say) biomedical engineering; due to well earned biomedical engineering research funds / grants / proposals etc. In some ways that situation is a similar sort of concern to the legislated variety discussed above. I think it goes to show again some of the idiosyncrasy in the application process in general (and that point about idiosyncrasy seems to segue into what makes a potentially good (or bad) fit between an applicant and a school....which leads me again to my point that there is one school that seems to fit best for me; so I'm focused on that school).

2. Including the factor about production quotas / school charters doesn't seem as if can necessarily make or break an application; although it does seem to be a factor that is relevant (possibly in a borderline situation). So, in the event that charters are a factor the next question seems to be how significantly do they factor. For some it is significant, while for others it is not.

 

[MoosePilot]

Due to life/family considerations, I'm currently only applying to one school. My application process is done this year, due to military obligations, but I'll likely do the same thing next year. I let them know quite clearly that they were my one and only choice by speaking specifically to their school in the AMCAS personal statement.

Applying to only one school is handy. I know a lot about that one school. I've visited and spoken with the director of admissions (who is really cool). I tailored all of my essays to that single school. It will be easy to convey to them why I want to attend their school.

The downside is there is an element of random chance to applications and applying to multiple schools increases your probablity of acceptance. I know that, but it's just not right for my particular situation. People are shocked when I tell them I'm only applying to one school, but I pretty much gave up being influenced by peer pressure a long time ago

 

[nontrad314]

Due to life/family considerations, I'm currently only applying to one school. My application process is done this year, due to military obligations, but I'll likely do the same thing next year. I let them know quite clearly that they were my one and only choice by speaking specifically to their school in the AMCAS personal statement.

Applying to only one school is handy. I know a lot about that one school. I've visited and spoken with the director of admissions (who is really cool). I tailored all of my essays to that single school. It will be easy to convey to them why I want to attend their school.

The downside is there is an element of random chance to applications and applying to multiple schools increases your probablity of acceptance. I know that, but it's just not right for my particular situation. People are shocked when I tell them I'm only applying to one school, but I pretty much gave up being influenced by peer pressure a long time ago

Moose
Thanks for the post. This is excellent input!

Ultimately, I believe that there is something that is a lot more then trivial to the choice of 1 application to 1 school. There are many EDP programs at many schools. Thus, schools do recognize and reward the intentions that are behind 1 app to 1 school.

The risks are, as you point out, higher. But when you factor in multiple cycles you can easily get into cases where those risks shift (sometimes very considerably).

 

[pathdr2b]

I actually have another thought about the one school/one application (1/1) idea. I think in general the 1/1 idea works a lot better when you're talking about Teir 2-3 schools. However, I not only think it's risky but almost "dangerous" to have your 1/1 school be a top tier school.

In my case, my top choice school is also a top 5 school. No let me correct that, I think it's ranked #2 in the US!!! It's "tops" because it's the only school in the area with a decent PhD program ( of the 3 in the area) in Pathology and my PI already colloborates with a PI at this top school so of course they're behind me 100%. And as I've said a gizzioon times before, I'm not willing to short change myself at this stage of the game with an eye on an academic career. Plus, I already tried the PhD program at the "other" school which just based on my numbers, would probably have been a reasonable bet for MD admissions as well, but the atmosphere there wasn't a good "fit" for me.

I also think people intersted in clinical careers have an "easier" decision as most schools are there to train primarily clinicians but desiring a research career takes this process to a whole new stress level because school ranking is soooooo important

 

[nontrad314]

This is almost 2 cents; comes out of my research experience.

I understand your point about how 'ranking' can affect a PhD and research career. Another factor that can affect a research career (sometimes equally and sometimes moreso ) is the research of the PhD itself.

In various disciplines (not necessarily all) it is possible to establish an entire career at the first rank by doing work at a school ranked 'lower' down the 'ladder'. I can think of many individuals who did this; e.g., wrote and researched somewhere slightly remote and then shot like rockets into the academic atmosphere. There is one individual that I know who is currently considered 'the world's foremost authority' who started it all out at a community college. There is, however, an enormous amount of pressure with attempting to do this (as opposed to pursuing the research degree for educational or career credential reasons) and I can think of a large number of people (from the first rank on down) for whom this didn't work out (for multiple reasons mostly related to the difficulties and ambiguities of research in general). It should also be said that there is significant networking and recognition of what is 'fashionable' (and funded) for this to work. For example, in order to be the next big bright light someone who is already a bright light has to pass that torch down and must do that in a very public sense that the other bright lights are made aware of.

In my situation, I did an MA first and went hammer and tongs after my research there. That work worked out well, (although my health suffered as a consequence). But things changed gradually for me for a variety of reasons. Eventually I stopped shooting for the atmosphere and instead completed my research in an expedient manner by working on some problems that were open, fashionable, well defined, and considered essential to the research community (in other words I solved their problems; not the problems that I believed needed solving...such as I had in my MA). That worked out well and landed me jobs immediately in academia at post docs that were anything anyone could ask for. But ultimately, my heart wasn't in it and I moved on.

In any event, research is without question a fun (sometimes even thrilling) experience and I encourage everyone to get involved in research. It's a very social process I think and there are many ways to make a career out of it (some more stressful then others).

Hope this helps

 

[nontrad314]

I should add that, for me at least, it is orders of magnitude more fun (although also orders of magnitude more stressful) to work with the bright lights (although you don't necessarily have to be trying to revolutionize the world to do it). There is no question in my mind about this. The thing about the bright lights is that they have ENORMOUS amounts of things to teach you and they do it almost minute by minute. Some times it can be sort of 'mind blowing' to be around them and you wander home at the end of the day feeling sort of dizzy. Pretty cool I always thought.

 

[pathdr2b]

It should also be said that there is significant networking and recognition of what is 'fashionable' (and funded) for this to work. For example, in order to be the next big bright light someone who is already a bright light has to pass that torch down and must do that in a very public sense that the other bright lights are made aware of.

Thanks for your insight and sorry for getting a little off topic!

My research area is urological oncology and I'm pretty sure that it will continue to be well funded due in large part to the phalic nature of one area!

But if I read your post correctly, going to grad school with the intent to reinvent the wheel is probably not a very good idea although I understand the importance of having a novel discovery.

As for the bright light, I'd say working for one of the foremost pathologist in the US is indeed a good situation to be in. Put together with the 40K stipend, and I can't complain too much. And I have to admit, her insistance that I go for the best has rubbed off and luckily it feels like the "right thing" to do at this time.

In the end though, I know going for reputation only can be great when it works well and a complete disaster when it doesn't. Fortunately for me, I picked an area of research that I just HAD to do, as in I can't imagine doing any other program, and let the schools "fall into place after that".

 

[nontrad314]

As for the bright light, I'd say working for one of the foremost pathologist in the US is indeed a good situation to be in. Put together with the 40K stipend, and I can't complain too much. And I have to admit, her insistance that I go for the best has rubbed off and luckily it feels like the "right thing" to do at this time.

Ha Ha.

I'm glad to hear this; it sounds like you're in a *great* situation. As I said, I always liked working with the bright lights too (and yes indeed they sure can be pushy about the various directions forward).

Good for you!!

A bit more: I don't think that your point is too far off topic; infact in some ways it is bang on. As discussed above, I don't think that it's just leaders of research that can be pushy about a student's directions; states and schools can be and are pushy about these sorts of things as well. Infact, in some ways it is the generic responsibility of an educator to produce a graduate that performs some given set of tasks of whatever discipline. A graduate's ability to accomplish those tasks is a direct measure of the educator's ability / competence. I, for one, took very great interest in the performance of my students and modified my methods according to that feedback.

Thus, it would seem that mentors and institutions push in certain directions, since (at some level) it is their responsibility to push successfully in those directions.

As a young researcher I was at first naive about the significance of this sort of thing (and instead focused my attention on the materials / subject of the discipline). Very quickly it became virtually impossible to focus on those materials without first paying due dilligence to the multiple agendas involved.

I think that it is absolutely *crucial* that an applicant's / researcher's own agenda (own big picture) dovetails as closely as possible to the institution / groups agenda. If those 2 don't meet, then there's either failure or a lot of long days for everyone in the future.

 

[pathdr2b]

I think that it is absolutely *crucial* that an applicant's / researcher's own agenda (own big picture) dovetails as closely as possible to the institution / groups agenda. If those 2 don't meet, then there's either failure or a lot of long days for everyone in the future.

Perfecto! I think if I had ANY doubt about the "craziness" of what I'm trying to do, your statement puts me in the 110% completely reassured that I'm doing the right thing category!!