UCLA implements new sGPA and MCAT Cutoffs; 3.4 and 512

[965978]

Difficult to process this given that there is so much unknown information about what happens behind closed doors at UCLA (as with any other school, really). But just thinking about how long UCLA has emphasized diversity (especially SES diversity) and how much data they have gathered over the years since they are one of the most applied to med schools, I would reckon that they are completely confident that they will be able to retain the diversity of their class despite the cutoffs. Otherwise they wouldn't be taking such a huge step.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[965978]

Another thing I would like to mention is that I would imagine that the link between disadvantaged/privilege status and success on the MCAT has been getting weaker over time. AAMC offers prep materials to FAP approved applicant and Khan academy has become an extremely qualified resource for MCAT preperation. Also, a lot of pre-2015 MCAT materials are for sale for merely a few bucks and are incredibly valuable since ~95% of that material shows up on the new MCAT.

 

[OchemOficionado]

Another thing I would like to mention is that I would imagine that the link between disadvantaged/privilege status and success on the MCAT has been getting weaker over time. AAMC offers prep materials to FAP approved applicant and Khan academy has become an extremely qualified resource for MCAT preperation. Also, a lot of pre-2015 MCAT materials are for sale for merely a few bucks and are incredibly valuable since ~95% of that material shows up on the new MCAT.

I would imagine it hasn’t. Only because there are still plenty of disadvantaged applicants that don’t qualify for FAP (due to the student working and the combined income with their parents being too high to qualify, and also due to increases in parents income over time that now makes them ineligible, but still disadvantaged). Also, success on the MCAT isn’t just linked to the availability of prep materials. Students from very poor communities many times, are not educationally prepared to the level of their peers in higher income communities. This creates a dilapidated foundation, so to speak, that can impact ongoing educational success.

 

[965978]

I would imagine it hasn’t. Only because there are still plenty of disadvantaged applicants that don’t qualify for FAP (due to the student working and the combined income with their parents being too high to qualify, and also due to increases in parents income over time that now makes them ineligible, but still disadvantaged). Also, success on the MCAT isn’t just linked to the availability of prep materials. Students from very poor communities many times, are not educationally prepared to the level of their peers in higher income communities. This creates a dilapidated foundation, so to speak, that can impact ongoing educational success.

Totally Agreed! It really sucks to see people not being able to reach their full potential because of the resources and background required. However, I'm so glad that addressing this has started to become a priority in the educational world in the past several years. Yes, there are still holes and lots of them. But it's a start.

Betsy Devos certainly isn't making it better...

 

[theKingLT]

Another thing I would like to mention is that I would imagine that the link between disadvantaged/privilege status and success on the MCAT has been getting weaker over time. AAMC offers prep materials to FAP approved applicant and Khan academy has become an extremely qualified resource for MCAT preperation. Also, a lot of pre-2015 MCAT materials are for sale for merely a few bucks and are incredibly valuable since ~95% of that material shows up on the new MCAT.

I would imagine it hasn’t. Only because there are still plenty of disadvantaged applicants that don’t qualify for FAP (due to the student working and the combined income with their parents being too high to qualify, and also due to increases in parents income over time that now makes them ineligible, but still disadvantaged). Also, success on the MCAT isn’t just linked to the availability of prep materials. Students from very poor communities many times, are not educationally prepared to the level of their peers in higher income communities. This creates a dilapidated foundation, so to speak, that can impact ongoing educational success.

They also often have to devote study time to working and lack opportunities that wealthy students have access to if need be like prep-courses and private tutors. The books and practice tests are a start, but only part of the picture.

 

[efle]

Found this interesting report from the AAMC on how the new MCAT correlates with step. People with a 100 percentile score average over a 250. https://www.aamc.org/download/493340/data/lsl2018validity.pdf

Also interesting to note it's the same overall correlation as before, 0.6

Guess their 2015 update didn't change much at all

 

[deleted804295]

They also often have to devote study time to working and lack opportunities that wealthy students have access to if need be like prep-courses and private tutors. The books and practice tests are a start, but only part of the picture.

Another thing I would like to touch on is even with the increased availability to some prep material, disadvantaged students often don't have the network needed to understand the amount of preparation needed for the MCAT.

Without SDN/internet, I don't know where disadvantaged students would be. No family members who have went through medicine in the US, no friends of friends, no family friends. This process is incredibly stressful for students who do not have that network of even a single person to talk to.

 

[Lucca]

Another thing I would like to touch on is even with the increased availability to some prep material, disadvantaged students often don't have the network needed to understand the amount of preparation needed for the MCAT.

Without SDN/internet, I don't know where disadvantaged students would be. No family members who have went through medicine in the US, no friends of friends, no family friends. This process is incredibly stressful for students who do not have that network of even a single person to talk to.

Yup! Information asymmetry is a huge barrier. I think going to a big enough UG can go towards correcting that since you meet a lot of people with similar goals who might tell you about or model the path you want to go down, but with Uni getting more and more expensive all the time, the trend with lower SES and average students is to go to CC close to home first where they might not get the same kind of exposure or be sufficiently immersed in student life to absorb good premed planning or find the right peer group to learn from.

Of my oldest friend group growing up, I’m literally the only one who went straight to a 4 yr uni and most of them dropped out of higher Ed while my HS peers (several SES classes later in my life) had planned absolutely everything out from elementary school thanks to their parents and something like 90% of our graduating class went to a 4 yr uni right away

 

[Goro]

Found this interesting report from the AAMC on how the new MCAT correlates with step. People with a 100 percentile score average over a 250. https://www.aamc.org/download/493340/data/lsl2018validity.pdf

Lots of interesting data there.
Note on page 20: if you score > 506, the likelihood of you NOT repeating MS1 or MS2 is pretty much the same as those with perfect MCAT scores. (this is on par with what the old MCAT also predicted).

Score > 506, then you will most likely pass Step I. Score < 500, the odds are 10% that you'll fail Step I. Again, no surprise here.

On page 23-24, I defer those those more talented than I at stats, but it appears to my little brain that the MCAT is a fair, but not great predictor of Step I performance; rather, it identifies the most at-risk population, but the best populations.

On p. 26, I think that this is a given as well; if you're in the top 95th %ile of MCAT takers, you're going to do very, very well on Boards. BUT, notice the ranges on p.27!

For those of you who think that a high MCAT will have med schools lay down for you, look at page 38.

 

[efle]

Of my oldest friend group growing up, I’m literally the only one who went straight to a 4 yr uni while my HS peers (several SES classes later in my life) had planned absolutely everything out from elementary school thanks to their parents and something like 90% of our graduating class went to a 4 yr uni right away

The craziest thing to me is the early-decision meta game that has recently gotten huge. I don't remember anybody from my public high school applying early to colleges. But now it's a huge part of getting into your top choice, e.g. Northwestern admitted 27% of early apps and 6% of regular apps. Having an informed parent or high school guidance counselor can literally quadruple your odds of success just by knowing about this phenomenon.

I guess the silver lining is that forums like college confidential and SDN can teach anyone how to play the game, if they do go looking for info.

 

[deleted804295]

Yup! Information asymmetry is a huge barrier. I think going to a big enough UG can go towards correcting that since you meet a lot of people with similar goals who might tell you about or model the path you want to go down, but with Uni getting more and more expensive all the time, the trend with lower SES and average students is to go to CC close to home first where they might not get the same kind of exposure or be sufficiently immersed in student life to absorb good premed planning or find the right peer group to learn from.

Of my oldest friend group growing up, I’m literally the only one who went straight to a 4 yr uni and most of them dropped out of higher Ed while my HS peers (several SES classes later in my life) had planned absolutely everything out from elementary school thanks to their parents and something like 90% of our graduating class went to a 4 yr uni right away

Yep. It's stunning how vast the disparities are. I never noticed them until halfway through Uni and that's pretty sad. Merit/intelligence can lead one far in life but merit alone cannot get people to the top. It takes a lot of luck, a good environment, and connections.

Anyways kudos to you for doing so well despite being handed very little from the start. It isn't an effortless rags to riches narrative that many people spout. There's always a warm place in my heart for those who beat so many obstacles to eventually do well in life.

 

[Lucca]

The craziest thing to me is the early-decision meta game that has recently gotten huge. I don't remember anybody from my public high school applying early to colleges. But now it's a huge part of getting into your top choice, e.g. Northwestern admitted 27% of early apps and 6% of regular apps. Having an informed parent or high school guidance counselor can literally quadruple your odds of success just by knowing about this phenomenon.

I guess the silver lining is that forums like college confidential and SDN can teach anyone how to play the game, if they do go looking for info.

yah I discovered CC too late in the game. I was lucky to go to a competitive enough public HS that my friends helped me plan college apps but even then I applied to like 9 schools IIRC and had virtually zero strategy lol. Hence, the obsessive I became after discovering SDN in uni.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

That edict was based on data correlating medical school students with MCAT 26 (about 500) ultimately passed STEP 1/2 exams

https://www.aamc.org/download/434596/data/usingmcatdata2016.pdf#page=54

That may be why the edict was made, but med schools don’t just care if students pass STEP 1/2 exams. Don’t med schools want their students to get 220+ step scores (which is about 25 pts above passing?

 

[Goro]

most institutions have these types of cutoffs whether they are advertised or not. This is especially true when applying for residency

Very true. While a school may have "3.0 and 500 MCAT minimum" stated on their website, they also have in reality an "effective floor". My rule of thumb is that this is the 10th %ile (which you can find on MSAR). Jack it up to the 25th %ile for the really Top Schools

 

[efle]

Seems awfully coincidental that right after the AAMC releases their report on MCAT scores correlating to Step1 performance, UCLA sets a new MCAT cutoff at exactly the level that coincides to an average in the 230s...

Spoiler: MCAT vs Step 1 AAMC report

 

[Walter Raleigh]

Hell. Let's make that Native American a former Army combat medic with a Silver Star for valor and a first-author paper. And she's started a nonprofit for Native American women. Still, she gets shut out - when she could very well be competitive at schools like Harvard and Yale.

 

[Med Ed]

Seems awfully coincidental that right after the AAMC releases their report on MCAT scores correlating to Step1 performance, UCLA sets a new MCAT cutoff at exactly the level that coincides to an average in the 230s...[/SPOILER]

Do you have the one with the 10th-90th percentile bars?

Edit: found it!

 

[Med Ed]

If I was an admissions dean this is what I’d do:

Unfortunately your approach is only really viable at a school that already has very high average metrics and the gravitas to attract high stat URM unicorns.

For the rest of us plebs, setting our metric cutoffs at the "no need to worry about anyone passing Step 1" level will simply homogenize our classes as even more white, ORM, and affluent than they already are. The whole reason to set relatively low cutoffs is to give yourself the flexibility to fill a limited number of seats in your class with higher risk/higher reward students.

You may also be surprised at how ineffective publishing your cutoffs actually is. There are many, many applicants out there who consider them suggestions, or perhaps feel they have nothing to lose.

 

[Goro]

You may also be surprised at how ineffective publishing your cutoffs actually is. There are many, many applicants out there who consider them suggestions, or perhaps feel they have nothing to lose.

I am NOT making this up; it's surprising how many uncompetitive SDNers have posted their impractical school lists (translation, magic thinking) like this:

NYU (well, you never know)
Harvard (you miss all the shots you take)
Stanford (hey, a guy can dream)
Yale (maybe they'll have some spots left over?)
Baylor (I match their mission)

 

[theKingLT]

Baylor (I match their mission)

I like this last one. If you're LM 80+ then you match the mission pretty well! But I have a feeling those aren't the applicants you're referring to

 

[OchemOficionado]

I am NOT making this up; it's surprising how many uncompetitive SDNers have posted their impractical school lists (translation, magic thinking) like this:

NYU (well, you never know)
Harvard (you miss all the shots you take)
Stanford (hey, a guy can dream)
Yale (maybe they'll have some spots left over?)
Baylor (I match their mission)

You’re right, lol. I consider myself a realistic person and yet I still added an extra 10 ish schools that I had no business applying to. Something is seriously wrong with us

 

[deleted938090]

What do these error bars mean? 1 standard deviation? 10-90 percentiles? Without knowing this, interpretation of this data is impossible.

 

[Med Ed]

What do these error bars mean? 1 standard deviation? 10-90 percentiles? Without knowing this, interpretation of this data is impossible.

Reread the post.

 

[965978]

I am NOT making this up; it's surprising how many uncompetitive SDNers have posted their impractical school lists (translation, magic thinking) like this:

NYU (well, you never know)
Harvard (you miss all the shots you take)
Stanford (hey, a guy can dream)
Yale (maybe they'll have some spots left over?)
Baylor (I match their mission)

That was me this year! I applied to schools I had no business applying to (Pitt, Michigan, UCLA, and Mayo to be specific). Then I quickly realized that I was spending too much time on the secondaries for top schools when I could have been spending my time on secondaries for other schools. Luckily I learned my lesson before seconding secondaries to NYU, Stanford, and Duke haha.

 

[efle]

What do these error bars mean? 1 standard deviation? 10-90 percentiles? Without knowing this, interpretation of this data is impossible.

10-90 which is why they are so outrageously wide. A standard dev, standard error or IQR (as used by NRMP in their Step1 match report graphs) would be much better

 

[Lucca]

10-90 which is why they are so outrageously wide. A standard dev, standard error or IQR (as used by NRMP in their Step1 match report graphs) would be much better

or just overlay a violin or boxplot and actually show the whole distribution.

 

[DubbiDoctor]

10-90 which is why they are so outrageously wide. A standard dev, standard error or IQR (as used by NRMP in their Step1 match report graphs) would be much better

10-90 makes sense when what ultimately matters are failure rates. After achieving 500, your risk of failing step 1 is less than 10%. This makes sense since scoring a 500 arguably means "passing" the MCAT. If you score 500 or above on the MCAT and have a decent GPA, med schools have good reason to think that you can get through and pass the board exams. Historically, a 91% first time pass rate for step 1 wasn't uncommon. The reason the median med student has a score 1 SD above passing (and 2 SDs above passing for NYU, Vandy, WashU and Yale) is that there are too many applicants for too few spots.

 

[Med Ed]

10-90 makes sense when what ultimately matters are failure rates. After achieving 500, your risk of failing step 1 is less than 10%. This makes sense since scoring a 500 arguably means "passing" the MCAT. If you score 500 or above on the MCAT and have a decent GPA, med schools have good reason to think that you can get through and pass the board exams. Historically, a 91% first time pass rate for step 1 wasn't uncommon. The reason the median med student has a score 1 SD above passing (and 2 SDs above passing for NYU, Vandy, WashU and Yale) is that there are too many applicants for too few spots.

Here were the Step 1 failure rates for this cohort:

 

[deleted938090]

"Passing" alone would make it really hard to match, I'd presume? They should do a study of % matching vs score.

 

[F4532]

I swear to god, I’m upset of ever pursuing Medicine. If I had to put my finger on next lehman brothers, it would be medical education lol.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[F4532]

Who wants to short medical education?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Med Ed]

"Passing" alone would make it really hard to match, I'd presume? They should do a study of % matching vs score.

See Charting Outcomes from the NRMP.

 

[ciestar]

"Passing" alone would make it really hard to match, I'd presume? They should do a study of % matching vs score.

This data already exists lol

 

[deleted938090]

Yes I implied MCAT score, not Step 1 score in reference to the above study.

 

[Med Ed]

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say % matching vs. MCAT score.

FTFY.

 

[Med Ed]

10-90 which is why they are so outrageously wide. A standard dev, standard error or IQR (as used by NRMP in their Step1 match report graphs) would be much better

They are so outrageously wide because there is outrageously wide variation in Step 1 performance at each MCAT score. I think the 10-90 bars are perfect for what the graph is trying to convey. One glance and I can see that 10% of people with a 492 MCAT scored above average on Step 1. Standard deviation and standard error bars are less visually intuitive. IQR's would be way too busy.

Also, we are fortunate that this information was organized and disseminated in the first place. Let's not leap to criticize the hand that feeds.

 

[Lucca]

They are so outrageously wide because there is outrageously wide variation in Step 1 performance at each MCAT score. I think the 10-90 bars are perfect for what the graph is trying to convey. One glance and I can see that 10% of people with a 492 MCAT scored above average on Step 1. Standard deviation and standard error bars are less visually intuitive. IQR's would be way too busy.

Also, we are fortunate that this information was organized and disseminated in the first place. Let's not leap to criticize the hand that feeds.

well, the intended audience are medical schools and the author is the AAMC so reporting broad variation in 10-90 at each MCAT score supports the AAMCs broader policy of discouraging medical schools from focusing on minute differences between MCAT scores. The IQRs, while way too busy, might reveal that, say, while at least some portion of 505-510 scorers are scoring above the national Step 1 avg, students who scored 515-520 were twice as likely to score that high, 525+ three times as likely, etc.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

I don't really care that UCLA implements it after all nobody really has a significant chance in the UC system- not even Californian residents.

Well, that’s a real issue. The state already has a serious seat shortage issue. Any thresholds should be for OOS students and could be set 3.7/520+ and who’d justifiably complain? And until UCLA SOM and similar cut their financial ties to the state, they need to reminded just who owns them. There are enough more-than-enough-qualified instate applicants that they don’t need to be accepting so many OOS.

 

[deleted853360]

Does anyone know how this affects the UCLA/Drew program?

 

[Lucca]

Does anyone know how this affects the UCLA/Drew program?

UCLA and Drew admissions are totally separate as Drew is technically a private university affiliated with UCLA, not one-in-the-same with UCLA even though their students are often counted as one-in-the-same. I tried to look for any statement from Drew on the new change and couldn't find it, but given Drew's mission and already highly differentiated applicant pool, I doubt Drew will follow these same guidelines.

 

[RNthenDoc]

Here were the Step 1 failure rates for this cohort:

View attachment 248354

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in a while

 

[907914]

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in a while

Just remember, passing Step 1 is not the goal. You don't want to just pass, you want to get above a certain threshold. If you look at the N= on the bottom, that 64% is only based on 11 people and the two 83% categories are based on around 300 people. In total, only 263 out of those 7,000 data points actually failed step 1 on their first attempt (so like 3%). And half of those failures came from people who were not competitive by most med school standards (<498 MCAT). It should not be encouraging that you have a 97% chance of passing a test. Even then, USMLE data suggests that around 65% of those who failed their first attempt pass on their second attempt or even still match with a failed Step 1. Step 1 passing score is designed to be super low.

 

[RNthenDoc]

It should not be encouraging that you have a 97% chance of passing a test.

So should I be discouraged that I'm probably going to pass?
Would it be way more encouraging to know that I have a 97% chance of failing?

I think what you're getting at is that passing=/=doing well and having the ability to match competitively, which I already knew but I do appreciate your concern for.

 

[907914]

So should I be discouraged that I'm probably going to pass?
Would it be way more encouraging to know that I have a 97% chance of failing?

I think what you're getting at is that passing=/=doing well and having the ability to match competitively, which I already knew but I do appreciate your concern for.

Nah, not encouraged or discouraged - passing seems to just be the general expectation. Being that 97% pass, worrying about failing the test should be a non-issue if you are at least OK. Worry goes in to doing better, not doing the minimum (which already, the minimum is a super low bar in this case).

But yah, I am a statistics lover and if you don't like statistics being thrown your direction:

TL;DR - Git gud, GB/GH

 

[FindMeOnTheLinks]

Hell. Let's make that Native American a former Army combat medic with a Silver Star for valor and a first-author paper. And she's started a nonprofit for Native American women. Still, she gets shut out - when she could very well be competitive at schools like Harvard and Yale.

As if UCLA is the only medical school this person can go to? If you didn't know, there are many medical schools where this type of applicant is actually the preferred candidate. Plus, who's to say that this type of candidate can't ALSO have high stats that would meet UCLA's cutoff? They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know why everybody here is up in arms about this. UCLA can do as they damn well please. If you think it's dumb, then don't apply there. If you're mad because now you won't be considered, well that's too bad, maybe you should have done better on your MCAT. At least they are transparent about it, they very well could have had these cutoffs but not told anybody and just enjoyed the thousands of donation secondaries every year.

 

[efle]

As if UCLA is the only medical school this person can go to? If you didn't know, there are many medical schools where this type of applicant is actually the preferred candidate. Plus, who's to say that this type of candidate can't ALSO have high stats that would meet UCLA's cutoff? They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know why everybody here is up in arms about this. UCLA can do as they damn well please. If you think it's dumb, then don't apply there. If you're mad because now you won't be considered, well that's too bad, maybe you should have done better on your MCAT. At least they are transparent about it, they very well could have had these cutoffs but not told anybody and just enjoyed the thousands of donation secondaries every year.

I think most people are upset because it's kind of a symbolic death for holistic admissions, rather than because they thought they'd be in the fraction of a percent of med students who end up going there. UCLA was the last bastion of truly practicing what all the competitive schools preach. When even UCLA says you have to be top 10% to have your application file opened, you know the medical admissions game has gone the way of competitive college admissions and everything about you now comes second to your standardized scores.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think most people are upset because it's kind of a symbolic death for holistic admissions, rather than because they thought they'd be in the fraction of a percent of med students who end up going there. UCLA was the last bastion of truly practicing what all the competitive schools preach. When even UCLA says you have to be top 10% to have your application file opened, you know the medical admissions game has gone the way of competitive college admissions and everything about you now comes second to your standardized scores.

Is it though? Again, they get like 14,000 apps. Just because they are setting a high cutoff for stats doesn’t mean they can’t also view the ones left in a holistic manner. Holistic doesn’t mean you ignore stats.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but to me it seems like most people are upset because they misunderstand what holistic really means. Yes a high cut off means some great applicants will get shut out, and that’s the school’s loss. But they can still pick applicants based on a h o l i s t i c review.

 

[931408]

I think most people are upset because it's kind of a symbolic death for holistic admissions, rather than because they thought they'd be in the fraction of a percent of med students who end up going there. UCLA was the last bastion of truly practicing what all the competitive schools preach. When even UCLA says you have to be top 10% to have your application file opened, you know the medical admissions game has gone the way of competitive college admissions and everything about you now comes second to your standardized scores.

We don't know if they are overturning their cycle to favor stats over all else. This cycle, UCLA is giving out acceptances/Geffens to individuals with a 514 MCAT, and I believe these cutoffs are already in place. I predict that once you reach their threshold of a 512, they look at your other work for decision of an interview and potentially an acceptance.

And it's not as if other T20 schools are any better. People can keep preaching the 'holistic' game, but I don't know of a single other T20 where a score of 514 will be given strong consideration. There is some weight to rising grade trends, but the MCAT is the most important factor for the initial screen for getting an interview at these top places whether we like it or not.

 

[efle]

Is it though? Again, they get like 14,000 apps. Just because they are setting a high cutoff for stats doesn’t mean they can’t also view the ones left in a holistic manner. Holistic doesn’t mean you ignore stats.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but to me it seems like most people are upset because they misunderstand what holistic really means. Yes a high cut off means some great applicants will get shut out, and that’s the school’s loss. But they can still pick applicants based on a h o l i s t i c review.

Personally I think "holistic as long as you're top 10% test scores" isn't holistic by any stretch. Anything past ~30 (now 508 I guess) and you will be able to handle the learning/testing style of med school, in my opinion (and also in the data). The idea that an otherwise incredible applicant with a 30 will not even be considered is the system operating poorly

We don't know if they are overturning their cycle to favor stats over all else. This cycle, UCLA is giving out acceptances/Geffens to individuals with a 514 MCAT, and I believe these cutoffs are already in place. I predict that once you reach their threshold of a 512, they look at your other work for decision of an interview and potentially an acceptance.

And it's not as if other T20 schools are any better. People can keep preaching the 'holistic' game, but I don't know of a single other T20 where a score of 514 will be given strong consideration. There is some weight to rising grade trends, but the MCAT is the most important factor for the initial screen for getting an interview at these top places whether we like it or not.

I agree nobody else among their peers is any better. UCLA is just noteworthy for being the last holdout, especially since a couple years back they REALLY walked the walk by having a 508 enrolled median. A decade ago, the medians for all the top programs were in the low 30s (~ same as low five-teens) and now here we are a short while later watching the last legit h o l i s t i c school join the standardized score bandwagon

 

[LAIsTheBestPlaceEver]

I remember defending UCLA pretty hard for this topic on the school thread.

----------------------
Problem:
- Increased/Large Applications received
- Limited Resources and Energy for review
- Wish to keep a holistic(competence-based) review while following the mission of having a diverse(not limited to racial/ethical) group of class

Solution:
- Establish a cut-off to conserve the resources for holistic review admission

Consequences of the solution:
1. Some unique applicants who have a promising future will be lost
2. UCLA will be seen as no longer or less holistic and mission-driven

-------------------------

For Consequences #1: I don't believe UCLA is not aware of the great potential applicant they are going to lose when they implant this cut-off. I think potentially UCLA can/will do what UCSD does, establish a sub-committee who reviews the applicant who got cut-off for re-consideration by looking at a few criteria in a quick fashion(GPA trend, AMCAS Disadvantaged Essay, MCAT Trend/Distribution, Personal Background on AMCAS). *I don't actually know the exact criteria UCSD uses... this is just a speculation. However, there's always the possibility that UCLA has already received enough unique/promising applicants that they started to focus on picking the best cherries among them. I totally agree with the idea that this cut-off can be part of the holistic review process, even though the idea of cut-off does not fit into the concept of a holistic review.

For Consequences #2: This will be solved with future admission and class profile. We have no ways to predict the future. There could be less Unique/Great applicant applying there in the first place, thus making them realizing the cut-off was a mistake, or the bar was set too high. However, given the unique situation of California and their prestige, I don't think this will be the case. It will be interesting to see how the next cycle plays out now that they brought attention to themselves.

--------------------------
As an incoming MS1 who barely passed this cut-off threshold, I wish to be involved in the admission process as much as possible to voice my concerns and learn the different perspectives internally.

Sorry for the long post, I think this will be my last point for this topic until I learn more about it as a medical student there.