Understanding the Late Application Disadvantage

[maccu5000]

I've accepted that a Late Application is at a disadvantage in receiving an interview and eventual acceptance. I want to understand better why.

I can think of a few reasons mentioned on SDN and elsewhere:

1. "Late applicants are fighting for fewer interview spots."
Reply: Yes, that's true, but there have also been a number of rejections, and a late applicant is in the running against many others who have already been passed over once. Let's say Mary Apple is among 10,000 applicants to a class of 100 spots, and 500 interviews. If you were to "grade out" those 10,000 applicants, Mary is among the top 350-400 applicants. Let's say Mary's application just starts getting reviewed when 80% of the interview spots have already been filled. Presumably, about 80% (or more) of the applicants have already been looked at once. If Mary really is a good applicant, why would she be denied an interview among the remaining 20% of interview spots left? In context, it looks like her "chances" never really changed.

2. "Late applicants have demonstrated poor judgement and time management by applying late."
Reply: This is possibly true, but there are a number of factors that go into having an application completed by June 1--many of which are under the control of the applicant, and many of which are not. I would guess that very few intend to submit late apps, and being lazy or a poor manager of time and resources is not a driving factor in submitting late. If this is the perception, I'd be interested to know whether there are data to support this claim: ie, do late applicants who are then accepted do worse on boards and residency match than early applicants? There is likely bias there (only the best late applicants get admitted), but has there been a study to assess this?

3. "Schools willfully choose to interview 'less qualified' early applicants over 'more qualified' late applicants."
Reply: I don't know if this is true. I'd be interested to hear adcom members' experiences and what their feelings are. It's not very flattering to admit that a school would choose less qualified people because they were impatient in selecting the best candidates to compose a class. Why extend a deadline out so late if the well-qualified late-applicants won't even be given real consideration?

I don't want this thread to become a place of ad hominem attacks or arguments against late applicants (or me the poster ). I'm just seeking clarity on how late applicants are disadvantaged and why.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Boolean]

Say a new movie is coming out that you really want to see. You want to see it fairly soon, ideally the week it comes out. You know the movie is going to be packed, however, and many people have already bought tickets. Do you show up to the theater day of and try to buy one, or do you look online for tickets before the movie opens up?

Applying early seems to be rather common sense.

Does it demonstrate poor judgement or character or anything like that? Not necessarily.

I would say it perhaps shows lack of planning, but that's the most.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

As I have stated somewhere before, Wash U did a study where they analyzed applicants' success with getting an interview and with getting admission with when they submitted their primary. The results showed that people who submitted in June had the highest success for both variables (interview and admission), July was like 1/2 or 2/3 the success rate of June submissions, and August was like 1/4 of June. September and later had exponentially decreasing levels of success for both variables. I don't have the link to that study because our prehealth advisors only showed it to us on a career-advice day.

 

[raiderette]

LizzyM wrote this far more eloquently than I ever could, but imagine that an application come in June. The initial screening and review is comparing it to all the other application that came in June and is more likely to get an interview. In August that application is now being compared to all the applications in June, then July, and now August. So many more competitors. At the same time, the school has limited resources and will only schedule X amount of interviews. Someone with Stats X may have received an interview invite in June when the pool was full of 3.7, 32. In August, the overall application pool could be higher and the median invitee is at 3.8, 33 because they only have the resources left to invite 20 more people.
Seriously, I will try to find LizzyM's post later
tl;dr- you are competing in a larger pool for fewer spots

 

[onceawolverine]

I've accepted that a Late Application is at a disadvantage in receiving an interview and eventual acceptance. I want to understand better why.

I can think of a few reasons mentioned on SDN and elsewhere:

1. "Late applicants are fighting for fewer interview spots."
Reply: Yes, that's true, but there have also been a number of rejections, and a late applicant is in the running against many others who have already been passed over once. Let's say Mary Apple is among 10,000 applicants to a class of 100 spots, and 500 interviews. If you were to "grade out" those 10,000 applicants, Mary is among the top 350-400 applicants. Let's say Mary's application just starts getting reviewed when 80% of the interview spots have already been filled. Presumably, about 80% (or more) of the applicants have already been looked at once. If Mary really is a good applicant, why would she be denied an interview among the remaining 20% of interview spots left? In context, it looks like her "chances" never really changed.

2. "Late applicants have demonstrated poor judgement and time management by applying late."
Reply: This is possibly true, but there are a number of factors that go into having an application completed by June 1--many of which are under the control of the applicant, and many of which are not. I would guess that very few intend to submit late apps, and being lazy or a poor manager of time and resources is not a driving factor in submitting late. If this is the perception, I'd be interested to know whether there are data to support this claim: ie, do late applicants who are then accepted do worse on boards and residency match than early applicants? There is likely bias there (only the best late applicants get admitted), but has there been a study to assess this?

3. "Schools willfully choose to interview 'less qualified' early applicants over 'more qualified' late applicants."
Reply: I don't know if this is true. I'd be interested to hear adcom members' experiences and what their feelings are. It's not very flattering to admit that a school would choose less qualified people because they were impatient in selecting the best candidates to compose a class. Why extend a deadline out so late if the well-qualified late-applicants won't even be given real consideration?

I don't want this thread to become a place of ad hominem attacks or arguments against late applicants (or me the poster ). I'm just seeking clarity on how late applicants are disadvantaged and why.

1) I think the real variable of interest is not her "strength," but rather the pool size. People offered interviews in august were compared against people who submitted in june/july. People offered interviews in December have been compared against the previous six month's worth of people. You guarantee yourself a better/longer look if you submit earlier.
2) I highly doubt that later applicants do worse on the boards. Yes, lots of uncontrollable variables go into an application. But remember that there are many people out there with similar situations who managed to submit in June. I'd agree that few people intend to submit late. But if you prioritize submitting early (i.e. you start thinking about your timeline at least a year in advance), then really there's very little stopping you from a june submission date.
3) Again, I doubt this is true. I don't think schools willfully ignore late applicants; late applicants are already fighting an uphill battle. They already have ground to make up, relative to earlier submissions, before their gpa/mcat even gets looked at.

 

[Goro]

I have found that the people who interview late (as in Mar-May, yes, May) were profoundly less qualified applicants in both numbers and interview skills. Among all students who we accepted, those who got into trouble academically tended to be from the later interview pool. I should have saved that data for a paper in a medical education journal!

I suspect that poor time mgt and/or choice making are manifestations of other deficits not conducive to success in medical school.

OP, I fully understand that things happen for which one has no control, but we do expect people to make good choice based upon the information they already have. Even without SDN, applicants should be able to obtain a reasonable idea of the prime application season, and apply with the best possible app, and apply once.

This is complete hogwash. Schools go for the best applicants first.
3. "Schools willfully choose to interview 'less qualified' early applicants over 'more qualified' late applicants."

 

[FFH]

Others who are qualified to comment on this have already spoken. However, from what I observe on my trial, if you are the type who would normally snatch interviews from top 15 schools, then there isn't much disadvantage (except Michigan and Pittsburgh of course). I would suspect that if you apply/interview later for reasons that are not related to poor time management skills, with the quality of the interviewees going down, you are actually at a better position comparatively.

 

[maccu5000]

Thanks for all the replies. I've been looking at the Michigan Med Trackers, which have good data to work off of.
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_1.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_2.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_3.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_4.pptx
You can also get these for 2014 by changing 2015->2014.

A few things that I'm noticing:
-Though the number of applicants continues to increase over time (late Aug through end of Oct for these 4), mean GPA's and MCAT's of applicants, interviewees, and accepted applicants remain relatively steady within their categories. In other words, those who apply later do not have different stats; those who interview later do not have different stats from earlier interviewees, and those who are accepted later do not have different stats from those who are accepted earlier.

-The denominator (# of applications per month) is not given, but you can at least get a sense of how many applications are being submitted in the months of Sept and October, and who is getting interviews. On the face of it, it is clear that significantly more applicants in June were given interviews than applicants in October. However, if you track it by time and look at % of interviews given by month of application, it looks like the % receiving interviews by month of application stays constant.

Bear in mind, this is just one school (and not just any school). They aren't selecting from a slurry of most interchangeable applicants--they just need to skim off the cream of each month's applicants.

 

[PantherPride]

Thanks for all the replies. I've been looking at the Michigan Med Trackers, which have good data to work off of.
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_1.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_2.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_3.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_4.pptx
You can also get these for 2014 by changing 2015->2014.

A few things that I'm noticing:
-Though the number of applicants continues to increase over time (late Aug through end of Oct for these 4), mean GPA's and MCAT's of applicants, interviewees, and accepted applicants remain relatively steady within their categories. In other words, those who apply later do not have different stats; those who interview later do not have different stats from earlier interviewees, and those who are accepted later do not have different stats from those who are accepted earlier.

-The denominator (# of applications per month) is not given, but you can at least get a sense of how many applications are being submitted in the months of Sept and October, and who is getting interviews. On the face of it, it is clear that significantly more applicants in June were given interviews than applicants in October. However, if you track it by time and look at % of interviews given by month of application, it looks like the % receiving interviews by month of application stays constant.

Bear in mind, this is just one school (and not just any school).

If only more schools were this transparent with the admission process

 

[FFH]

Thanks for all the replies. I've been looking at the Michigan Med Trackers, which have good data to work off of.
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_1.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_2.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_3.pptx
http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/field/docs/2015 Tracker_4.pptx
You can also get these for 2014 by changing 2015->2014.

A few things that I'm noticing:
-though the number of applicants continues to increase over time (late Aug through end of Oct for these 4), mean GPA's and MCAT's of applicants, interviewees, and accepted applicants remain relatively steady within their categories. In other words, those who apply later do not have different stats; those who interview later do not have different stats from earlier interviewees, and those who are accepted later do not have different stats from those who are accepted earlier.

-As the year progresses, the number of interview spots given by month of application seems to increase proportional to the number of applications received that month. It's tough to really be sure, as the exact # of Applications per month data is missing.
On the face of it, it is clear that significantly more applicants in June were given interviews than applicants in October. However, if you track it by time and look at % of interviews given by month of application, it looks like the % receiving interviews by month of application stays constant.

Again, the denominator (# of applications per month) is not given, but you can at least get a sense of how many applications are being submitted at least in the months of Sept and October, and who is getting interviews.

Also, this is just one school (and not just any school).

However, if you read Michigan's last year's post more carefully , you'd notice that the acceptance rate goes down in the cycle. The first few rounds of interviews have exceptionally high rates. Last year the something like 80% of people interviewed on day 1 get accepted. This year it's 30 out of 33 people making it 91%. The acceptance rates on the second and third interview day already started to drop, with last year being around 75% acceptance if I remember correctly, this year being something like 88%. Michigan already gave out 1/3 of the acceptance after only 4 interview dates.

 

[maccu5000]

Among all students who we accepted, those who got into trouble academically tended to be from the later interview pool. I should have saved that data for a paper in a medical education journal!

Yes, this is important information. I'm surprised data like this hasn't been published (at least that I could find).

 

[Boolean]

Yes, this is important information. I'm surprised data like this hasn't been published (at least that I could find).

Releasing such data would be on touchy grounds. Even anonymizing the data leads to possible violation.

 

[maccu5000]

However, if you read Michigan's last year's post more carefully , you'd notice that the acceptance rate goes down in the cycle. The first few rounds of interviews have exceptionally high rates. Last year the something like 80% of people interviewed on day 1 get accepted. This year it's 30 out of 33 people making it 91%. The acceptance rates on the second and third interview day already started to drop, with last year being around 75% acceptance if I remember correctly, this year being something like 88%. Michigan already gave out 1/3 of the acceptance after only 4 interview dates.

Re: the high acceptance percentage for interviews this year vs last year, I don't see that in the data they've published. If anything, it looks like their acceptance rate has been slower than last year.

From 2014, the issue of decreasing likelihood of acceptance post interview is not linear by month (it's June at >70% acceptance rate post interview vs everyone else at 55-65ish%). Numbers may be a little off (getting late).

 

[maccu5000]

Releasing such data would be on touchy grounds. Even anonymizing the data leads to possible violation.

An analysis of Step 1 score vs AMCAS date of submission? I'm not sure how that's much different than already published data looking at step 1's vs mcat, gpa, etc . I'm not familiar with the data collection and regulatory issues in the previous studies with those other variables, but I assume it could be done again.

 

[Goro]

No, it wouldn't, and studies like this are done all the time.

Releasing such data would be on touchy grounds. Even anonymizing the data leads to possible violation.

 

[Boolean]

No, it wouldn't, and studies like this are done all the time.

Really? How would one anonymize results? Would the dates of completion and IA's be generalized to avoid giving individual information away?

 

[maccu5000]

Really? How would one anonymize results? Would the dates of completion and IA's be generalized to avoid giving individual information away?

You can obtain regulatory board approval to use protected personal information (eg a unique identifier [AMCAS ID, SSN, or names], and dates) for analysis. I believe everyone consents to allow AAMC to do analysis on its applicants and students. Once all data are linked with a unique identifier, it can be de-identified leaving only the dates and further de-identified by clustering the dates (e.g. two week intervals). That's a fully de-identified dataset. The results need not have any identifiable personal information.

This AAMC analysis looked as MCAT as a predictor of med school success. https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

 

[connerm]

This is a very helpful conversation!


Let's say that a student applies early and has something happen (i.e. a first author publication or the reception of some type of community service award) that would boost his or her chances of admission. Would it be possible to update currently submitted applications?

 

[midwstudent]

This is a very helpful conversation!


Let's say that a student applies early and has something happen (i.e. a first author publication or the reception of some type of community service award) that would boost his or her chances of admission. Would it be possible to update currently submitted applications?

It depends on the school--some of the ones I have applied to accept them and have a place to upload documents on the portal. Others don't accept any updates.

 

[maccu5000]

LizzyM wrote this far more eloquently than I ever could, but imagine that an application come in June. The initial screening and review is comparing it to all the other application that came in June and is more likely to get an interview. In August that application is now being compared to all the applications in June, then July, and now August. So many more competitors. At the same time, the school has limited resources and will only schedule X amount of interviews. Someone with Stats X may have received an interview invite in June when the pool was full of 3.7, 32. In August, the overall application pool could be higher and the median invitee is at 3.8, 33 because they only have the resources left to invite 20 more people.
Seriously, I will try to find LizzyM's post later
tl;dr- you are competing in a larger pool for fewer spots

This is a good explanation. I am skeptical of the last part about changing competitiveness of the applicant pool.

But in terms of the pool being more crowded, I'm not understanding why someone is more or less likely to receive an interview if, given a random sampling of people, the pool is n=1000 or n=10,000--your application will be deemed competitive or not competitive. Btw, it's likely never this extreme because people will have already been rejected or passed over.

There are two reasons I see that debunk this thinking: Adcoms may see applicants as very interchangeable (very possible, though they'd never admit it), so they might as well just fill the spot with someone who's earlier. AND/OR there are way more well-qualified applicants than interview spots, so they just take who comes first.

That last sentence is probably the driving factor in the disadvantage, but it's not completely explanatory. People throughout the admissions process (June-Oct) do get admitted. What is it about the late applicants who do get in that helps them "stand out"? Their applications are likely not much different than earlier applicants. It could be that spots are "reserved" for later applicants (unless they actually are unqualified).

 

[Goro]

There will always be applicants who have cookie cutter apps, those who are unqualified, but apply anyway because they're stupid about the process, and those who stand out. Guess which ones get IIs?



That last sentence is probably the driving factor in the disadvantage, but it's not completely explanatory. People throughout the admissions process (June-Oct) do get admitted. What is it about the late applicants who do get in that helps them "stand out"? Their applications are likely not much different than earlier applicants. It could be that spots are "reserved" for later applicants (unless they actually are unqualified).[/QUOTE]

 

[maccu5000]

There will always be applicants who have cookie cutter apps, those who are unqualified, but apply anyway because they're stupid about the process, and those who stand out. Guess which ones get IIs?

[/QUOTE]

Approximately what % of all applications fall into each category?

And assuming >90% of all standouts are interviewed, what % of all cookie cutter applicants are interviewed cumulatively?

 

[Goro]

I don't know the absolute breakdown, but I do estimate that about 50% of applicants have no business setting foot on a medical school campus, much less submitting an app.


Approximately what % of all applications fall into each category?

And assuming >90% of all standouts are interviewed, what % of all cookie cutter applicants are interviewed cumulatively?[/QUOTE]

 

[Doctor_Nope]

I'm sure that all the reasons previously stated factor into the disadvantages for late applications, but I've been curious regarding the human aspect to the process. I imagine for the first few weeks an adcom will review an applicant with average stats and decent EC's and may be quite willing to offer them an interview invite. After a few hundred applicants with the same stats and EC's and the burnout of pouring through thousands of applications, though, I would guess that the same applicant would have a much harder time securing that interview. It would probably take something extraordinary to make this applicant standout to the adcom. I know that most adcoms have been doing this for years but time tends to heal all wounds. A few months of reprieve probably allows them to view the applications at the beginning of the cycle with a fresh and eager perspective. And then a few months of reviewing thousands of applicants with the same range of GPA and MCATs and the same standard ECs (100 some hours of shadowing, 100 some hours of volunteering, a research paper, etc...) makes them get pickier as the cycle progresses.

I hope an adcom may shed some perspective on this as I've been quite interested in the subjective nature of this whole process.

 

[breakintheroof]

Re: the high acceptance percentage for interviews this year vs last year, I don't see that in the data they've published. If anything, it looks like their acceptance rate has been slower than last year.

From 2014, the issue of decreasing likelihood of acceptance post interview is not linear by month (it's June at >70% acceptance rate post interview vs everyone else at 55-65ish%). Numbers may be a little off (getting late).

Last year, Michigan tweeted out the acceptance rate from each interview day.

I went through their tweets and made a chart. (Please don't make fun of me.)

Edited to add: The first two data points each represent two interview days, since the results of interview days 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 were combined.

 

[unnumzaan]

Last year, Michigan tweeted out the acceptance rate from each interview day.

I went through their tweets and made a chart. (Please don't make fun of me.)

LOL. You even put it in Michigan colors. Awesome.

The dip from the first group isn't really surprising, since they probably interview the strongest applicants first from their initial download of primaries in late June.

 

[maccu5000]

That is great work, @breakintheroof . Very consistent with the published data and timeline.

I don't know the absolute breakdown, but I do estimate that about 50% of applicants have no business setting foot on a medical school campus, much less submitting an app.

That makes sense, as almost 60% of all applicants do not receive an acceptance.

Does anyone know what % of all applicants are interviewed each year? and is there a histogram or other data showing timeline of applications to AMCAS?

 

[HinduHammer]

As I have stated somewhere before, Wash U did a study where they analyzed applicants' success with getting an interview and with getting admission with when they submitted their primary. The results showed that people who submitted in June had the highest success for both variables (interview and admission), July was like 1/2 or 2/3 the success rate of June submissions, and August was like 1/4 of June. September and later had exponentially decreasing levels of success for both variables. I don't have the link to that study because our prehealth advisors only showed it to us on a career-advice day.

Wow that is informative. To some degree, who cares about the reason? The point is that earlier submission just WORKS BETTER. I wish I had taken my MCAT earlier so I could have submitted earlier. *le sigh*

If I don't get in this year I will def be applying June 1 2015.

 

[mehc012]

Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that there is a steady stream of applications at a constant rate (say, 1000/mo) from June through August. This stream has a constant ratio of great:good:bad candidates. (10:50:40)
Let's also assume that the adcoms give out the same number of interviews (200) in June as in July as in August.

In June, they've received 1000 applications. Of those, 10% are stellar candidates, 50% are good candiates, and 40% are bad candidates.
They want to give out 200 interviews that month.
100 go to the stellar candidates, and 100 are given to applicants in the 'good' pool. That means that 1/5 or 20% of the 'good' candidates get interviews.

In July, they get another 1000 applications.
100 more interviews go to stellar applicants.
100 more are given to the 'good' pool, only this pool now consists of the 500 from this month as well as the 400 left over from June. That means that only 1/9 or 11% of the uninterviewed 'good' candidates get interviews.

In August, they get another 1000 applications.
100 more interviews to stellar applicants
100 more to the good pool, which is now 1800 applicants, meaning that 1/18, or just over 5% receive interview invites. That's 4x less likely than their early applicant candidates.

Now repeat this process with 'acceptances offered after interviewing' throughout the cycle.


Clearly this is simplified - it doesn't take into account the increased odds someone has after being in the pool 3x instead of 1x, for example. It also assumes that the school has fewer stellar applicants than interview slots, which is probably not true. It also does not account for 'well, these students have poor judgement/planning' biases. However, those ignored factors, if taken into account, would actually increase the benefits of applying early, so if anything, this imaginary model is an underdemonstration.

 

[Goro]

This varies from school to school. Rough, offhand estimate is that about 10-12% of applicants are given IIs.

Does anyone know what % of all applicants are interviewed each year? and is there a histogram or other data showing timeline of applications to AMCAS?[/QUOTE]

 

[maccu5000]

Wow that is informative. To some degree, who cares about the reason? The point is that earlier submission just WORKS BETTER. I wish I had taken my MCAT earlier so I could have submitted earlier. *le sigh*

If I don't get in this year I will def be applying June 1 2015.

Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that there is a steady stream of applications at a constant rate (say, 1000/mo) from June through August. This stream has a constant ratio of great:good:bad candidates. (10:50:40)
Let's also assume that the adcoms give out the same number of interviews (200) in June as in July as in August.

In June, they've received 1000 applications. Of those, 10% are stellar candidates, 50% are good candiates, and 40% are bad candidates.
They want to give out 200 interviews that month.
100 go to the stellar candidates, and 100 are given to applicants in the 'good' pool. That means that 1/5 or 20% of the 'good' candidates get interviews.

In July, they get another 1000 applications.
100 more interviews go to stellar applicants.
100 more are given to the 'good' pool, only this pool now consists of the 500 from this month as well as the 400 left over from June. That means that only 1/9 or 11% of the uninterviewed 'good' candidates get interviews.

In August, they get another 1000 applications.
100 more interviews to stellar applicants
100 more to the good pool, which is now 1800 applicants, meaning that 1/18, or just over 5% receive interview invites. That's 4x less likely than their early applicant candidates.

Now repeat this process with 'acceptances offered after interviewing' throughout the cycle.


Clearly this is simplified - it doesn't take into account the increased odds someone has after being in the pool 3x instead of 1x, for example. It also assumes that the school has fewer stellar applicants than interview slots, which is probably not true. It also does not account for 'well, these students have poor judgement/planning' biases. However, those ignored factors, if taken into account, would actually increase the benefits of applying early, so if anything, this imaginary model is an underdemonstration.

Very good analysis. The other unknown is how schools treat the candidates they have already passed over once (with either reject or hold for later). Perhaps some schools keep reviewing the hold batch at each interview invite stage; other schools might treat the newly received applicants as a new lineup, so you just have to be the best of the "good" for that month's batch to get an interview. From the data I linked before, it looks like that's what Michigan did (for the most part).

 

[maccu5000]

This varies from school to school. Rough, offhand estimate is that about 10-12% of applicants are given IIs.

School II rate and cumulative II data are very different. The II cohort for each school is definitely not a random sample of the overall pool (as you know... but for others reading who may be confused). Again, I think it was a 43% acceptance rate in 2013. So assuming a 50% cumulative acceptance rate post interview, then at most the cumulative acceptance rate is 86%... the reality is maybe 50-60% of all applicants are interviewed somewhere?? I really have no idea, but I doubt it's in the 80's.

 

[FFH]

Last year, Michigan tweeted out the acceptance rate from each interview day.

I went through their tweets and made a chart. (Please don't make fun of me.)

Edited to add: The first two data points each represent two interview days, since the results of interview days 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 were combined.

I wish we end up in the same med school. If that happens, then my next wish is to be on the same small learning group with you, no one can stop me. No one.

 

[breakintheroof]

I wish we end up in the same med school. If that happens, then my next wish is to be on the same small learning group with you, no one can stop me. No one.

Ha ha, I hope we do. But you're too kind, I couldn't even figure out how to make a trendline for it.

I suspect I am not the only premed person who identified with Lisa Simpson growing up...

"As intelligence goes up, happiness goes down. See, I made a graph. I make lots of graphs."

 

[mehc012]

Very good analysis. The other unknown is how schools treat the candidates they have already passed over once (with either reject or hold for later). Perhaps some schools keep reviewing the hold batch at each interview invite stage; other schools might treat the newly received applicants as a new lineup, so you just have to be the best of the "good" for that month's batch to get an interview. From the data I linked before, it looks like that's what Michigan did (for the most part).

Yup, policy would have a huge impact on this. I was just going as generic as possible to try and explain why the 'larger pool' could matter! Thanks!

 

[Psai]

I have found that the people who interview late (as in Mar-May, yes, May) were profoundly less qualified applicants in both numbers and interview skills. Among all students who we accepted, those who got into trouble academically tended to be from the later interview pool. I should have saved that data for a paper in a medical education journal!

I suspect that poor time mgt and/or choice making are manifestations of other deficits not conducive to success in medical school.

OP, I fully understand that things happen for which one has no control, but we do expect people to make good choice based upon the information they already have. Even without SDN, applicants should be able to obtain a reasonable idea of the prime application season, and apply with the best possible app, and apply once.

This is complete hogwash. Schools go for the best applicants first.
3. "Schools willfully choose to interview 'less qualified' early applicants over 'more qualified' late applicants."

haha less qualified applicants

wait a second, i interviewed in april...

 

[xffan624]

Ha ha, I hope we do. But you're too kind, I couldn't even figure out how to make a trendline for it.

I suspect I am not the only premed person who identified with Lisa Simpson growing up...

"As intelligence goes up, happiness goes down. See, I made a graph. I make lots of graphs."

Excellent use of Simpsons quote. It's a dying art. Half my classmates don't even get them when I make references.

 

[FFH]

Excellent use of Simpsons quote. It's a dying art. Half my classmates don't even get them when I make references.

yeah, I mostly use Futurama instead. Although it is likely that I'm older than all of you, med students included.

 

[xffan624]

yeah, I mostly use Futurama instead. Although it is likely that I'm older than all of you, med students included.

Not as likely, I'm older than most of my classmates as well.

 

[Gulliver Dark]

Excellent use of Simpsons quote. It's a dying art. Half my classmates don't even get them when I make references.

Simpson's references are definitely a dying breed.

I commented mostly because of the simpson reference, but I will say that I am considering taking the MCAT in August of next year and applying in September, but this thread is making me reconsider. Hah.

 

[FFH]

Simpson's references are definitely a dying breed.

I commented mostly because of the simpson reference, but I will say that I am considering taking the MCAT in August of next year and applying in September, but this thread is making me reconsider. Hah.

You might be a living proof that SDN can sometimes help people

 

[alpinism]

I've accepted that a Late Application is at a disadvantage in receiving an interview and eventual acceptance. I want to understand better why.

I can think of a few reasons mentioned on SDN and elsewhere:

1. "Late applicants are fighting for fewer interview spots."
Reply: Yes, that's true, but there have also been a number of rejections, and a late applicant is in the running against many others who have already been passed over once. Let's say Mary Apple is among 10,000 applicants to a class of 100 spots, and 500 interviews. If you were to "grade out" those 10,000 applicants, Mary is among the top 350-400 applicants. Let's say Mary's application just starts getting reviewed when 80% of the interview spots have already been filled. Presumably, about 80% (or more) of the applicants have already been looked at once. If Mary really is a good applicant, why would she be denied an interview among the remaining 20% of interview spots left? In context, it looks like her "chances" never really changed.

2. "Late applicants have demonstrated poor judgement and time management by applying late."
Reply: This is possibly true, but there are a number of factors that go into having an application completed by June 1--many of which are under the control of the applicant, and many of which are not. I would guess that very few intend to submit late apps, and being lazy or a poor manager of time and resources is not a driving factor in submitting late. If this is the perception, I'd be interested to know whether there are data to support this claim: ie, do late applicants who are then accepted do worse on boards and residency match than early applicants? There is likely bias there (only the best late applicants get admitted), but has there been a study to assess this?

3. "Schools willfully choose to interview 'less qualified' early applicants over 'more qualified' late applicants."
Reply: I don't know if this is true. I'd be interested to hear adcom members' experiences and what their feelings are. It's not very flattering to admit that a school would choose less qualified people because they were impatient in selecting the best candidates to compose a class. Why extend a deadline out so late if the well-qualified late-applicants won't even be given real consideration?

I don't want this thread to become a place of ad hominem attacks or arguments against late applicants (or me the poster ). I'm just seeking clarity on how late applicants are disadvantaged and why.

Basically on the money.

A few other points:

1. Essentially, the earlier you submit (for schools with rolling admissions) the less applicants you're competing against and the more interview spots are available. Think about it, most schools want to interview the best applicants that they currently have available at the time. Lets say the adcom has 20 interview spots available for August 20th. They can only invite applicants with completed applications that they've received, verified, and reviewed. It takes time to review applications, typically 1-4 weeks depending on the volume. Plus, you also need time to schedule the interview and allow interviewees time to make travel arrangements. Because of this they're usually only looking at completed applications from late July and earlier (1 month prior). So, if you don't submit till late August, you've already missed out on all the August interview dates and probably most of September. Thus there are fewer spots you are competing for along with all the people who submitted earlier but didn't get interviews.

2. Medical schools want people who are good at time management and planning ahead. For most applicants, if you do this you should be able to submit by July at the latest. Waiting till September to submit demonstrates a lack of planning and organization on your part. Obviously sometimes there are factors out of your control, but the above statement generally holds true.

3. Medical schools also want people who are enthusiastic and passionate about medicine. If you really want to go to med school, you'd apply ASAP to maximize your chances and also because you're excited about finally being able to apply. Like #2, submitting in September demonstrates a lack of both of those qualities. Just from personal observation, late applicants are generally more likely to be on the fence about applying or have second thoughts about going into medicine.

4. Finally, and most importantly, it's considered common sense to apply early. Just like any other job interview, you want to show up early and not at the last moment. Because of this, applying late generally implies a lack of common sense.