Very confused and depressed

[terp720]

You're at best a cookie cutter applicant, but the truth is that your research is severely lacking and you haven't shown any leadership or desire to volunteer outside the medical setting.

If you honestly believe that DO "won't cut it," I suggest you re-apply. Yes, you put in money, but is it worth to you saving a few thousands now compared to the lifelong letters behind your name that you aren't particularly fond of?

I don't know why people always say this. There are plenty of people who don't do research at all (and they post about that on here every time someone asks "is research necessary?") or had minimal research when they realized it wasn't for them.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

If you aren't a college senior and if your MCAT was taken in the previous year, then it can be assumed that you are a reapplicant unless proven otherwise. You need not state it on the application; AMCAS knows all. There is a "reapplicant" item on page 1, column 2 of the AMCAS application that I see as an adcom and it can be yes/no or blank. If it is blank, I always assume this is a new applicant to my school and a reapplicant overall.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I don't know why people always say this. There are plenty of people who don't do research at all (and they post about that on here every time someone asks "is research necessary?") or had minimal research when they realized it wasn't for them.

Agreed. There were exactly 0 hours of research on my application.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Haha... Shoot your better off than my friend. 3.9 GPA 33 MCAT 5 interviews, 4 straight rejections. He's lacking clinical volunteer hours even though he was a scribe for over 2 years.

I'd say that's more indicative of poor interviews than low clinical volunteer hours.

 

[moop]

If you aren't a college senior and if your MCAT was taken in the previous year, then it can be assumed that you are a reapplicant unless proven otherwise. You need not state it on the application; AMCAS knows all. There is a "reapplicant" item on page 1, column 2 of the AMCAS application that I see as an adcom and it can be yes/no or blank. If it is blank, I always assume this is a new applicant to my school and a reapplicant overall.

Great then so I wasn't on crack when I said I thought I knew that all schools would know who's a reapplicant or not. Yay

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I don't know why people always say this. There are plenty of people who don't do research at all (and they post about that on here every time someone asks "is research necessary?") or had minimal research when they realized it wasn't for them.

Most schools don't have 100% volunteer work on the MSAR. Now make the argument that a cookie cutter applicant like OP can get in without volunteer work because others have when it wasn't for them.

 

[487806]

I don't know why people always say this. There are plenty of people who don't do research at all (and they post about that on here every time someone asks "is research necessary?") or had minimal research when they realized it wasn't for them.

This is key. Research is only necessary if you're aiming for the top tiers. Rest all, it's not important.

Great then so I wasn't on crack when I said I thought I knew that all schools would know who's a reapplicant or not. Yay

 

[487806]

Most schools don't have 100% volunteer work on the MSAR. Now make the argument that a cookie cutter applicant like OP can get in without volunteer work because others have when it wasn't for them.

That makes zero sense. Volunteering is deemed necessary for all medical schools. Research and leadership are only specific for top tier schools. Two entirely different cases.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Most schools don't have 100% volunteer work on the MSAR. Now make the argument that a cookie cutter applicant like OP can get in without volunteer work because others have when it wasn't for them.

I think the argument being put forth is that many people get into MD and DO schools every year with no research experience on their application therefore it's not needed in many cases. Do you disagree with that?

 

[WillburCobb]

Great then so I wasn't on crack when I said I thought I knew that all schools would know who's a reapplicant or not. Yay

Its school specific though. For example if I'm a reapplicant at school X but not school Y, school Y won't know I'm a reapplicant. Though they can assume all they want, but that's all it is, an assumption. They won't know for sure unless its asked on a secondary or in an interview. Also, just my opinion, but I don't know that, that assumptions is necessarily fair. My first cycle my MCAT was 2 years old and I was out of school, but I wasn't a reapplicant. I know quite a few other students with a similar situation.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I think the argument being put forth is that many people get into MD and DO schools every year with no research experience on their application therefore it's not needed in many cases. Do you disagree with that?

Many people get in without volunteer work.

I disagree to the point of saying a cookie cutter applicant doesn't have that privilege. I saw someone worried about research on "what are my chances?" Who had played in the MLB. Now, not everyone needs to be in the MLB, but that's one case where research is clearly not a necessity.

 

[487806]

Many people get in without volunteer work.

I disagree to the point of saying a cookie cutter applicant doesn't have that privilege. I saw someone worried about research on "what are my chances?" Who had played in the MLB. Now, not everyone needs to be in the MLB, but that's one case where research is clearly not a necessity.

Again. Research. And. Leadership. Are. Only. Necessary. For. Top. Tier. Schools. How. Is. That. Hard. To. Understand?

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Many people get in without volunteer work.

I disagree to the point of saying a cookie cutter applicant doesn't have that privilege. I saw someone worried about research on "what are my chances?" Who had played in the MLB. Now, not everyone needs to be in the MLB, but that's one case where research is clearly not a necessity.

You can't really say unless you know which schools he applied to. Unless I missed that, OP hasn't said which tier or which schools he applied to. He is not "cookie cutter" for all schools. He'd be very competitive at any of the state schools in my geographical area that emphasize volunteering &/or clinical exposure over research.

Edit: Missed that from the OP

 

[terp720]

You can't really say unless you know which schools he applied to. Unless I missed that, OP hasn't said which tier or which schools he applied to. He is not "cookie cutter" for all schools. He'd be very competitive at any of the state schools in my geographical area.

was about to post this, also for everyone who keeps saying we don't know what tier OP applied to and they could have been all top 25, etc.

from the OP:

I applied to 25 MD schools, mostly mid-lower tier ones.

 

[LizzyM]

Most schools don't have 100% volunteer work on the MSAR. Now make the argument that a cookie cutter applicant like OP can get in without volunteer work because others have when it wasn't for them.

I suspect that AAMC pulls that information for the MSAR from the AMCAS application experience section with the tags "volunteer, clinical" /"volunteer, non-clinical" Now, there may be situations where someone has provided service but gave it a different tag such as "leadership", "employment, military", or "teaching/tutoring" but the adcoms judged to be demonstrative of community service and admitted the applicant without anything tagged "volunteer".

 

[V5RED]

Most schools don't have 100% volunteer work on the MSAR. Now make the argument that a cookie cutter applicant like OP can get in without volunteer work because others have when it wasn't for them.

Maybe it is different in the physical msar, but the online one lists clinical volunteering separately from nonclinical. There is no overall volunteering listed, so it is likely that most applicants have at least one or the other even though they do not all have both types of volunteering.

 

[Chipster.]

Again. Research. And. Leadership. Are. Only. Necessary. For. Top. Tier. Schools. How. Is. That. Hard. To. Understand?

Right, because mid to low tier medical schools don't want leaders, they're satisfied with getting anyone...

Keep spewing, Agent B. But let us know when you actually decide to apply.

 

[moop]

Its school specific though. For example if I'm a reapplicant at school X but not school Y, school Y won't know I'm a reapplicant. Though they can assume all they want, but that's all it is, an assumption. They won't know for sure unless its asked on a secondary or in an interview. Also, just my opinion, but I don't know that, that assumptions is necessarily fair. My first cycle my MCAT was 2 years old and I was out of school, but I wasn't a reapplicant. I know quite a few other students with a similar situation.

@LizzyM, as quoted above, made a distinction between a blank and a yes/no in the "reapplicant" box. According to this logic you would've been marked as "no" but a hidden reapplicant would be blank, which opens up the door for assumptions.

"but I don't know that assumptions is necessarily fair."
..well then, the whole app process is an assumptions game so tough luck? An assumption of ANY red flag is all an applicant needs to go the way of OP and the legion of people rejected for seemingly little reason.

 

[487806]

Right, because mid to low tier medical schools don't want leaders, they're satisfied with getting anyone...

Keep spewing, Agent B. But let us know when you actually decide to apply.

Nice strawman argument there (typical of SDN). I only said research/leadership are necessary for top tier schools. That doesn't mean they're useless for other schools. In fact, having them is always beneficial and can be recommended by mid/low tier schools.

 

[Mad Jack]

Can you guys not focus on this DO situation and potentially force OP to make a MD vs DO debate? Even if/when OP applied strictly to MD and is in the same exact situation (minus the acceptance), what can we do to help him out?

It's entirely possible the same attitude of entitlement that leads him to think that DO just won't cut it is the very reason for zero MD acceptances to begin with. It probably shows through on his PS and in his interview, and is something no amount of ECs and high performance can compensate for.

 

[mTORC]

Long story short, I worked my ass off for 4 years to get a 3.8 GPA at my undergrad university. Took the MCAT and scored a little lower than I wanted (32), but still thought I stood a more than realistic chance at getting into many MD schools.

Well here I am in late March. I have had 2 interviews. Zero acceptances. I applied to 25 MD schools, mostly mid-lower tier ones. And yes, I applied early. I'm still on the waitlist for both schools, but at this point I'm treating them as silent rejections.

Luckily, I have been accepted into one DO school, but my plan all along was to go MD and honestly for the time that I put in during college, DO just doesn't cut it (no offense). I feel like I wasted my time getting A's in my classes just to compete for acceptances with people who have 3.3 GPA/25 MCAT.

There were no red flags in my application that I know of. I am completely baffled. I have begun to get paranoid and I've considered the possibility that maybe one of my recommendation letters was negative. But I really have no idea. It's hitting me that I won't be able to get into an MD program after all the hours I've put in. And to see people with lower stats getting accepted left and right just confuses and annoys me more.

I'm sorry if I came across as an arrogant dingus in this post, but its more pent up anger than anything. I just don't get it.

DO is the same thing as an MD (with some extra OMM added); why does it not cut it? You got into medical school, so celebrate!!!

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

Haha... Shoot your better off than my friend. 3.9 GPA 33 MCAT 5 interviews, 4 straight rejections. He's lacking clinical volunteer hours even though he was a scribe for over 2 years.

lol wow no way. does he have non-clinical volunteering? you'd expect them to just want the best clinical experience possible, whether it's paid or volunteer shouldn't matter at all, unless you have no kind of volunteering period then I'd understand.

 

[Patros]

I don't know why people always say this. There are plenty of people who don't do research at all (and they post about that on here every time someone asks "is research necessary?") or had minimal research when they realized it wasn't for them.

Research isn't necessary, but whatever you do, you have to show commitment and competence. So if you choose not do research, that's fine, excel in something else. Doing just 2 months of research is almost certainly box-checking, and OP doesn't have an extensive clinical background to argue "I am not interested in academics, I just want to practice medicine."
If the 2 months of research was just due to things not working out, honestly I would just leave it out of the application, and pursue another research experience, or go 100% into clinical work and volunteering.

Not saying that OP hasn't demonstrated competence for MD admissions, just saying the ECs are not that great.

 

[WillburCobb]

lol wow no way. does he have non-clinical volunteering? you'd expect them to just want the best clinical experience possible, whether it's paid or volunteer shouldn't matter at all, unless you have no kind of volunteering period then I'd understand.

Don't forget that an interview can make or break you. Just because you have all your boxes checked doesn't assure an acceptance.

 

[darklabel]

I'm going to say that in the end, it might just be "bad luck" as stated by an Adcom, ~20% of people with your stats don't make it for whatever reason and you're a statistical anomaly. I would say if MD is that important to you, to take off an extra year and apply for the 2015 cycle while beefing up your ECs and retaking the MCAT for a higher score. Besides that idk how else you would succeed. You already stated you're a reapplicant so applying immediately a third time wouldn't be wise anyways. I'm going to chalk this up as nothing else but terrible luck. I know you said that you're going DO, which is a great decision, but if MD is all you see yourself as, I would advise holding off reapplying a 3rd time right away.

I will say though that you are waitlisted and come May 15th you may get good news headed your way. Be sure to send updates and maybe even just LoI. I know SDN says their useless and adcoms don't hold high regard for them from applicants who have no acceptances, but may as well try. This application cycle has been brutal and I only see it getting worse in the near future as the economy hasn't really picked up and some schools report record high numbers of premeds (n=1, but my school is having issues with having enough classes available for the number of premeds).

Good luck OP! And I hope good news goes your way.

 

[terp720]

Research isn't necessary, but whatever you do, you have to show commitment and competence. So if you choose not do research, that's fine, excel in something else. Doing just 2 months of research is almost certainly box-checking, and OP doesn't have an extensive clinical background to argue "I am not interested in academics, I just want to practice medicine."
If the 2 months of research was just due to things not working out, honestly I would just leave it out of the application, and pursue another research experience, or go 100% into clinical work and volunteering.

Not saying that OP hasn't demonstrated competence for MD admissions, just saying the ECs are not that great.

I agree. I just counter a post that implies an app severely lacking research will end in these results. (edit: at least this is how I read that post)
I never made claims about the quality of the rest of OP's ECs.

 

[WillburCobb]

@LizzyM, as quoted above, made a distinction between a blank and a yes/no in the "reapplicant" box. According to this logic you would've been marked as "no" but a hidden reapplicant would be blank, which opens up the door for assumptions.

"but I don't know that assumptions is necessarily fair."
..well then, the whole app process is an assumptions game so tough luck? An assumption of ANY red flag is all an applicant needs to go the way of OP and the legion of people rejected for seemingly little reason.

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/amcas/faqs/301606/amiareapplicanttoallschools.html

Per the link, "You are only a reapplicant to schools that previously received an AMCAS application from you. For example, if you applied to School A and School B last year, you would be considered a reapplicant at both of those schools if you apply to them this year. You would not be considered a reapplicant at School C since you did not previously apply to that school."

 

[moop]

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/amcas/faqs/301606/amiareapplicanttoallschools.html

Per the link, "You are only a reapplicant to schools that previously received an AMCAS application from you. For example, if you applied to School A and School B last year, you would be considered a reapplicant at both of those schools if you apply to them this year. You would not be considered a reapplicant at School C since you did not previously apply to that school."

Yes I know I posted that link ITT before you did. AAMC says one thing, and an adcom member has said another. From what I've read on SDN, there is some gray area as to who assumes what and therefore acts on what. Not all PEOPLE on a committee (let alone what AAMC tells them to think) views these things in the same way, so it's just good to acknowledge both sides instead of living in a happy bubble of black and white in admissions.

 

[Lucca]

How can low-tier schools still have low acceptance rates if only mediocre ECs are necessary to get in?

On SDN not having research = mediocre.

 

[WillburCobb]

On SDN not having research = mediocre.

That's a bit of an understatement - probably closer to a death sentence for your app.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

How can low-tier schools still have low acceptance rates if only mediocre ECs are necessary to get in?

# of seats / # of applicants ?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Again. Research. And. Leadership. Are. Only. Necessary. For. Top. Tier. Schools. How. Is. That. Hard. To. Understand?

Just because you say it, it doesn't mean anything. Have you gotten into medical school yet?

Again, this is about a particular applicant that is cookie cutter at best. You keep focusing on the word necessary. People have gotten into MD school having below a 3.0, so I guess good grades are optional. Again, this is a comment regarding a particular person and a particular case.

I am positive my leadership and research was essential to gaining an admission because if you see my numbers they were pretty average and yet I didn't get 100% interviews from osteopathic schools I applied.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

How can low-tier schools still have low acceptance rates if only mediocre ECs are necessary to get in?
And how do they decide between applicants?

I'm completely failing to see the link between low acceptance rates (which is a function of # of applicants and # of seats) and "mediocre" ECs.

If every applicant had stellar EC's the acceptance rate remains the same.
If every applicant had mediocre EC's the acceptance rate remains the same.
If half have stellar and half have mediocre, the acceptance rate remains the same.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

You need a way to select between the thousands of apps. Most of those apps have great GPA/MCAT scores. Which means you need to use ECs as another criteria to judge applicants. Which also means that students with the best ECs are most likely to get accepted. Ergo, you still need good ECs to get accepted to low-tier schools.

Ok but that has nothing to do with acceptance rates. That has to do with acceptance criteria.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that you don't need good EC's to get into medical school. The argument is that you don't need research experience to get into medical school. And that is true in many cases. Not true in other cases. I'm honestly not even sure why it's an argument at all as it depends on the medical school.

 

[Spinach Dip]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that you don't need good EC's to get into medical school. <snip> I'm honestly not even sure why it's an argument at all as it depends on the medical school.

It is interesting which direction some of these threads take...



And your last sentence is spot-on.

 

[gumdrops]

It is interesting which direction some of these threads take...



And your last sentence is spot-on.

I'm still surprised that nobody took the AA bait earlier.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I'm still surprised that nobody took the AA bait earlier.

Residents be trollin, good form pre-allo.

 

[487806]

How can low-tier schools still have low acceptance rates if only mediocre ECs are necessary to get in?

Low stats. Bad LORs. Bad essays. Poor interviewing skills. etc.

Just because you say it, it doesn't mean anything. Have you gotten into medical school yet?

Again, this is about a particular applicant that is cookie cutter at best. You keep focusing on the word necessary. People have gotten into MD school having below a 3.0, so I guess good grades are optional. Again, this is a comment regarding a particular person and a particular case.

I am positive my leadership and research was essential to gaining an admission because if you see my numbers they were pretty average and yet I didn't get 100% interviews from osteopathic schools I applied.

Here is what you and others are saying "OP didn't get love from MD schools because he didn't have research"
Here is what I'm saying "Lacking research isn't the issue but it helps"

See the difference? Research is always beneficial, as it did in your case. That is a fact. But it is by no means necessary unless you're aiming for top tiers/academic medicine powerhouses. Seriously, this is the credo on SDN and it's a shame you guys have to argue about this

 

[slightlygifted]

For the vast majority of MD schools research is a prereq. Just looking at random schools on the MSAR that are not top 20:

Rush > 90% research
FAU >75% research
eastern virginia >80% research
drexel > 80% research
albany > 80% research
UCF >85% research

random unranked schools have over 80% of their class coming in with research experience. And at any school in even like the top 40 its 90%+. By not having research you are automatically in the 10-20th percentile of applicants. Most schools seem to accept more people with no clinical or nonclinical volunteering vs. no research.

 

[Priapism4tooLong]

wtf?? 3.8 and 32 on mcats???.. something doesn't seem right. DONT DO DO IF YOU DONT WANT IT (yes i said doodoo). anyway do a year of research and re apply. your not an idiot just unlucky it seems.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

For the vast majority of MD schools research is a prereq.

Just looking at random schools on the MSAR that are random unranked schools have over 80% of their class coming in with research experience. And at any school in even like the top 40 its 90%+. By not having research you are automatically in the 10-20th percentile of applicants. Most schools seem to accept more people with no clinical or nonclinical volunteering vs. no research.

n/m pointless debate.

 

[destinedtoserve]

wtf?? 3.8 and 32 on mcats???.. something doesn't seem right. DONT DO DO IF YOU DONT WANT IT (yes i said doodoo). anyway do a year of research and re apply. your not an idiot just unlucky it seems.

I think its more than just a year of research. If he managed to get interviews then he probably had the basic "unspoken' requirements. Sometimes its how you present yourself. How did Op prepare for interviews? How did he answer questions? What is it about him that makes him standout. Theres a lot more they look at, in addition to research, EC's and grades.

 

[pietachok]

Long story short, I worked my ass off for 4 years to get a 3.8 GPA at my undergrad university. Took the MCAT and scored a little lower than I wanted (32), but still thought I stood a more than realistic chance at getting into many MD schools.

Well here I am in late March. I have had 2 interviews. Zero acceptances. I applied to 25 MD schools, mostly mid-lower tier ones. And yes, I applied early. I'm still on the waitlist for both schools, but at this point I'm treating them as silent rejections.

Luckily, I have been accepted into one DO school, but my plan all along was to go MD and honestly for the time that I put in during college, DO just doesn't cut it (no offense). I feel like I wasted my time getting A's in my classes just to compete for acceptances with people who have 3.3 GPA/25 MCAT.

There were no red flags in my application that I know of. I am completely baffled. I have begun to get paranoid and I've considered the possibility that maybe one of my recommendation letters was negative. But I really have no idea. It's hitting me that I won't be able to get into an MD program after all the hours I've put in. And to see people with lower stats getting accepted left and right just confuses and annoys me more.

I'm sorry if I came across as an arrogant dingus in this post, but its more pent up anger than anything. I just don't get it.

How do you know your PS isn't terrible?
Some schools (particularly state schools where you are IS) will offer an interview based solely on stats.
I have to say I've read some pretty awful personal statements from people who were here lamenting similar outcomes but had been given the thumbs up by family, professors, & research mentors. I would be happy to give it a quick read.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

See the difference? Research is always beneficial, as it did in your case. That is a fact. But it is by no means necessary unless you're aiming for top tiers/academic medicine powerhouses. Seriously, this is the credo on SDN and it's a shame you guys have to argue about this

No, I don't see the difference because if we go by numbers, everything except the GPA and MCAT minimum are necessary and everything else is unnecessary, but you're not arguing that. You're arguing that out of all EC activities it is research that is unnecessary. Or are you ready to say his problem would not be volunteering if he had none because all that volunteering does is be beneficial but not necessary?

Shame on you only dude.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

It is interesting which direction some of these threads take...



And your last sentence is spot-on.

I think there is a mathematical correlation between amount of butt hurt felt during a discussion and distance veered off topic on any given subject.

I've yet to work the math out, though.

 

[moop]

Don't listen to this person OP. Pls take DO acceptance and be grateful.

OP pls

Yes, of course he should.

But the discussion should go on. OP should respond to more questions about his app to see what went wrong. Why so? Whatever kept him out of med school, if it's a personality or application defect, will come back and bite him up the ass for residency and, frankly, in everything else in life. If he truly wants to be helped at this point, he needs to come forth with these answers so we can see how something went so wrong.

So everyone should quit dicking around if they're not interested in helping. If OP doesn't give more details, we can't do anything for him, and this is stupid and a waste of everyone's time.

 

[gumdrops]

Yes, of course he should.

But the discussion should go on. OP should respond to more questions about his app to see what went wrong. Why so? Whatever kept him out of med school, if it's a personality or application defect, will come back and bite him up the ass for residency and, frankly, in everything else in life. If he truly wants to be helped at this point, he needs to come forth with these answers so we can see how something went so wrong.

So everyone should quit dicking around if they're not interested in helping. If OP doesn't give more details, we can't do anything for him, and this is stupid and a waste of everyone's time.

There were some interesting tangents. I didn't know the whole deal with reapplicants, for example. Sucks to be me and listing it left and right. Reading this makes me wonder how the OP doesn't just take the DO acceptance and collapse with the relief that he doesn't have to apply as a reapplicant ever again.

 

[rain4venus]

That's not the point here.

It is the point if the adcoms picked up that he is an entitled prick and thought their schools were a sure thing

ETA: Sorry - just noticed this was 4 pages long...

 

[WillburCobb]

There were some interesting tangents. I didn't know the whole deal with reapplicants, for example. Sucks to be me and listing it left and right. Reading this makes me wonder how the OP doesn't just take the DO acceptance and collapse with the relief that he doesn't have to apply as a reapplicant ever again.

The reapplicant as a red flag thing is a bit misconstrued on SDN. Yes some schools treat it as such, but many schools don't care, and few (to be honest I only know of one), surprisingly, look at you more favorably .

 

[ninjaman22]

So when are we going to blame this on URMs?