WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

[markymark71990]

great system

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Interestingly, this gave me a list extremely close to the list I am actually planning on applying to. It did tell me to through in a few more reaches than I am planning, but the bulk of my list was near identical.

Not sure if that is a testament to the accuracy of the model or the fact that I spend too much time on SDN.

 

[missmd123]

Interestingly, this gave me a list extremely close to the list I am actually planning on applying to. It did tell me to through in a few more reaches than I am planning, but the bulk of my list was near identical.

Not sure if that is a testament to the accuracy of the model or the fact that I spend too much time on SDN.

Probably a little of both

 

[El-Rami]

Why do you consider shadowing not clinical experience? As far as I know, there are schools that do consider it clinical experience.

 

[ChrisMack390]

Why do you consider shadowing not clinical experience? As far as I know, there are schools that do consider it clinical experience.

There is a difference between following a doctor around and asking him questions and actually doing something yourself in a clinical setting.

 

[MrChance2]

It is an excellent framework and probably the most thought out thing I've seen posted on SDN in a awhile. It could use some tweaks in my opinion though:

I think it gives too much stregnth to ECs. It would have someone with a 4.0 and a 33 MCAT with minimal shadowing and volunteering and not much else special about them applying to D.O. Schools only when really they have a great shot at most MD schools. The extremes of some of the ECs have issues too. Is being a minority really worth more than being an Olympic athlete or world class musician to adcoms? I'd assume the number of Olympic athletes and world class musicians entering medical school each year is <10. If the public recognizes your name for something positive I'd guess that's probably worth something like 40 points to some schools. I also don't think HYPS is worth double what UChicago or Duke or plenty of other schools are worth and "all other schools" is kind of a big range.

 

[ChrisMack390]

It is an excellent framework and probably the most thought out thing I've seen posted on SDN in a awhile. It could use some tweaks in my opinion though:

I think it gives too much stregnth to ECs. It would have someone with a 4.0 and a 33 MCAT with minimal shadowing and volunteering and not much else special about them applying to D.O. Schools only when really they have a great shot at most MD schools. The extremes of some of the ECs have issues too. Is being a minority really worth more than being an Olympic athlete or world class musician to adcoms? I'd assume the number of Olympic athletes and world class musicians entering medical school each year is <10. If the public recognizes your name for something positive I'd guess that's probably worth something like 40 points to some schools. I also don't think HYPS is worth double what UChicago or Duke or plenty of other schools are worth and "all other schools" is kind of a big range.

4.0/33 with no shadowing, volunteering, or excellent ECs will definitely not get into "most MD schools".

They'll get a crap ton of secondaries, and probably a lot of interviews, and then they will put the interviewer to sleep...

 

[HCHopeful]

Why do you consider shadowing not clinical experience? As far as I know, there are schools that do consider it clinical experience.

There is a difference between following a doctor around and asking him questions and actually doing something yourself in a clinical setting.

It's not as cut and dry as that. In a rural setting, for instance, where clinical volunteering is scarce, there is an understanding in that state that increased shadowing hours could somewhat compensate for the clinical volunteering or a clinical job.

There is always the option of getting a CNA or phlebotomy certification, which would provide sufficient patient exposure, but for some people this isn't a possibility.

I've heard firsthand that shadowing can make up for lack of clinical volunteering at certain schools. I believe the higher-tier or maybe just private schools are probably a little more strict regarding this, though. Especially if you're located in an urban area with many opportunities, it is probably not as easily overlooked.

 

[El-Rami]

There is a difference between following a doctor around and asking him questions and actually doing something yourself in a clinical setting.

Yes, but I believe it also depends on what happened during those experiences, too. You can shadow a physician (as well as his/her colleagues) for an extended period of time (years) and still gain some very valuable experiences. For example, you will definitely interact with administrators, nurses, and other staff. During this time you can observe less pleasant aspects of medicine (death and dying, stress), playing a part in comforting grieving families, interacting with patients, etc. I would argue that extensive shadowing can give you a lot more than merely volunteering at a hospital help desk or folding laundry. There are limits to what you can do, obviously, for legal reasons. Then again, unless you have some sort of certification (CNA, EMT, etc) you will not be able to gain anything you couldn't otherwise obtain through extensive shadowing in multiple fields (surgery, ER, etc.).

From what I have heard from pre-med advisers, medical students, and representatives of some medical schools, it does not seem to be a major issue if someone lacks clinical work/volunteering as long as they have volunteered (i.e. non-medical) for an extended period of time as well as plenty of shadowing (showing that you know what you're talking about when you say you want to be a doctor). Sure, it might be great to have medical volunteering/work, but I feel that if an applicant has great stats and great experiences from shadowing/non-medical volunteering that they can include in their personal statement, all should be well as far as applying (especially if they have strong research experience and internships).

FYI I'm one of those applicants, and I have always been told not to worry about it. I have a pretty solid application, and I believe I have plenty of experiences to talk about. I COULD get a volunteer position over the summer, but since I am applying this cycle I feel that it is not a good idea.

 

[halcyonpage]

Hi @WedgeDawg ,
Can you clarify what "adequate" shadowing means? Is it in terms of hours? Like 100+?

I'm closer to 80 hours, but should be up to 100 by the end of the summer. Additionally, I shadowed 3 physicians for 3 hours each, then did sustained shadowing with 2 other physicians. Not sure if this can change the "adequacy" of the shadowing experience or not.

Also, I'm not sure if my UG school is considered a 1 or a 2 - it's a Big Ten or "public ivy"

Finally, do you think it is possible to do something similar for MDPhD programs? I think other attempts have been made to collect this data but no attempt has been made to make it helpful to the application process like this.

THANK YOU! You smartypants, you.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Hi @WedgeDawg ,
Can you clarify what "adequate" shadowing means? Is it in terms of hours? Like 100+?

I'm closer to 80 hours, but should be up to 100 by the end of the summer. Additionally, I shadowed 3 physicians for 3 hours each, then did sustained shadowing with 2 other physicians. Not sure if this can change the "adequacy" of the shadowing experience or not.

Adequate is enough to show adcoms you know what you're getting yourself into and you still want to do it.

Also, I'm not sure if my UG school is considered a 1 or a 2 - it's a Big Ten or "public ivy"

When in doubt, be conservative.

Finally, do you think it is possible to do something similar for MDPhD programs? I think other attempts have been made to collect this data but no attempt has been made to make it helpful to the application process like this.

THANK YOU! You smartypants, you.

I'm sure that it is possible, but I don't have the knowledge to do so currently. It's probably fairly similar, but with heavier emphasis on research (obviously), a slightly changed school profile, and overall higher stats.

 

[Follow_my_blog]

This is a great system, nice work!

 

[sunshine02]

Some people have a hook that sticks out, maybe their PS or one of their letters. At a certain point, you essentially get to flip a coin to see if you get an interview or not. The undergrad game is similar... only a few people get into all the Ivies every year, but many of them get into a top school.

They might have just liked someone with a similar app to yours over you. It happens. I applied to 45 schools and got 7-8 interviews. I was expecting to get interviews at about a quarter of places I applied to and I got a couple less. The timing of some of those interviews really surprised me as well since it felt like I was on the cusp for a lot of schools and many passed me over till the very last minute, including the school where I will likely be matriculating.

45??!! Oh my. How did you handle all those secondaries?? Props to you!

 

[Syns]

@MrChance2 Considering OP's explanation about how the ranking system was established, it sounds like it is based on adcom preferences. It is pointless to dissect her/his argument with anecdotal evidence or disagreement about the rating given to specific undergraduate institutions. At this point, statistical compilations are necessary to refute, amend or accept this system as predictive.

I have retroactively used this to "predict" interview invites for two close friends who applied last cycle and their experiences are consistent with the prediction. n+2 (conservative application of the EC section was the best predictor for II.)

 

[remzremz]

ategory 6 (LOW YIELD): BU, Brown, Georgetown, Temple, Jefferson, GWU, Drexel, Penn State, Tufts, Tulane

Can someone explain why schools like BU, Brown, and Georgetown are in Category 6?

 

[ChrisMack390]

Can someone explain why schools like BU, Brown, and Georgetown are in Category 6?

Those schools are the definition of category 6 (low yield).

The reason is that they are schools that are in great locations and are not exactly "elite" which means that everyone wants to go to them, the applicants who are mostly applying to top tier schools assume they are "safe", and applicants who aren't especially competitive think they are reasonable reaches. The end result is those schools getting inundated with applications, effectively decreasing the probability of getting in down near 1%.

 

[Gandyy]

According to this, I have a score of a 70, but I'm still applying to a lot of DO schools because even with a score of 70, I dont think my chances will be that great for MD honestly.

My LizzyM is a 66 lol.

Edit: Honestly you probably need a 75 score on this system to be confident about 1 MD acceptance.

 

[emraldragon]

Those schools are the definition of category 6 (low yield).

The reason is that they are schools that are in great locations and are not exactly "elite" which means that everyone wants to go to them, the applicants who are mostly applying to top tier schools assume they are "safe", and applicants who aren't especially competitive think they are reasonable reaches. The end result is those schools getting inundated with applications, effectively decreasing the probability of getting in down near 1%.

As someone who is proud and excited to be starting Penn State next month, I have doubts as to whether I would consider Hershey a "great location"

 

[ChrisMack390]

As someone who is proud and excited to be starting Penn State next month, I have doubts as to whether I would consider Hershey a "great location"

Yeah I more meant Boston/DC. The bit about everyone and their mother applying still stands though.

 

[Stagg737]

Not trying to be a downer, but according to this I'm either a 65 or a 43 (not sure if you multiply stuff like shadowing by the 'multiplier' or simply replace it, but a 37 point swing is pretty massive for anything other than stats and I find it extrememly hard to believe shadowing is a 17 point swing...). Either way, I apparently did far better in terms of interviews I pulled in than this says I should have, but I'm just n=1.

I also think there are still too many major factors missing (as you said) for a lot of people, non-trads in particular, for this to be solid yet. For example, how do you measure people who took the MCAT more than once? Use their highest score? Take the average? It's already been said, but with the number of people doing post-baccs/grad school before med school, how do you factor that in? Especially if their GPA is significantly different than in undergrad? Would that just fall in the upward trend section? How does a person with 6 in-state schools apply vs. a similar applicant with 0 in-state schools?

I think what you're trying to do is pretty interesting, but there are so many factors that can vary with each school so much that it is extremely difficult to make something like this which is useful for anything beyond generalizations. Good luck with it though, and it'll be interesting to see where this little project goes.

4.0/33 with no shadowing, volunteering, or excellent ECs will definitely not get into "most MD schools".

They'll get a crap ton of secondaries, and probably a lot of interviews, and then they will put the interviewer to sleep...

He said 'minimal' shadowing, volunteering, etc. Someone with no EC's and stats like that wouldn't get into most DO schools either, but with minimal they'd still stand a shot at plenty of MD schools. You may be underestimating just how important those stats are to schools...

 

[M12B]

n=1, but looking back, this system holds pretty true for my application season.

Based on this system, I am a 65 (with very conservative score estimations) which puts me in Category D.
(additional points of interest: I am "non-trad" and I took the MCAT twice but used only the most recent score for my calculations)

I completed applications for 15 MD schools:
Category 1: 1 (7% compared to recommended 0%, I know I know haha)
Category 2: 0 (0% compared to recommended 5%)
Category 3: 0 (0% compared to recommended 10%)
Category 4: 9 }
Category 5: 2 } > (93% compared to recommended 80%)
Category 6: 3 }

I ended up with 3 interviews resulting in:
1 Category 5 waitlist
1 Category 5 acceptance
1 Category 4 acceptance

I'll be curious to see what becomes of of Wedgedawg's ARS. I think it makes a wonderful additional tool!

 

[WedgeDawg]

Hello everyone! I have updated the OP with the newest old MCAT to new MCAT score conversions! The excel document (version 1.2) has also been updated to reflect this. Thank you all for your input and comments.

[redacted]

 

[awared2]

As someone who is proud and excited to be starting Penn State next month, I have doubts as to whether I would consider Hershey a "great location"

I think it's in the eye of the beholder. I came from an urban undergrad and hated it- Hershey is awesome.

 

[aesklepi]

.

 

[Willy38]

Hello everyone! I have updated the OP with the newest old MCAT to new MCAT score conversions! The excel document (version 1.2) has also been updated to reflect this. Thank you all for your input and comments.

If anyone is curious, here are the conversions for each old MCAT score:

40+ = 523-528
39 = 522
38 = 521
37 = 519-520
36 = 518
35 = 516-517
34 = 515
33 = 514
32 = 512-513
31 = 510-511
30 = 509
29 = 507-508
28 = 505-506
27 = 503-504
26 = 501-502

Score conversions based on percentiles. I used the old score percentile as the minimum for the new score percentile so if
32 = 90th percentile
510 = 89th percentile
511 = 90th percentile
512 = 91st percentile,
then 32 = 511-512 (these numbers are made up)
You would have had a 521 and I would have had a 518.

Are you sure these are accurate ?

Do we have hard numbers for percentiles on the new MCAT ? In the online estimates/hypotheticals from
AAMC the percentiles would be
~90th = 33 = 511 and 99th = 38 = 526 etc.

 

[Holmwood]

Hello everyone! I have updated the OP with the newest old MCAT to new MCAT score conversions! The excel document (version 1.2) has also been updated to reflect this. Thank you all for your input and comments.

If anyone is curious, here are the conversions for each old MCAT score:

40+ = 523-528
39 = 522
38 = 521
37 = 519-520
36 = 518
35 = 516-517
34 = 515
33 = 514
32 = 512-513
31 = 510-511
30 = 509
29 = 507-508
28 = 505-506
27 = 503-504
26 = 501-502

Score conversions based on percentiles. I used the old score percentile as the minimum for the new score percentile so if
32 = 90th percentile
510 = 89th percentile
511 = 90th percentile
512 = 91st percentile,
then 32 = 511-512 (these numbers are made up)
You would have had a 521 and I would have had a 518.

It's not minimum, it's upper bound.
"Prior versions of these tables (pre‐2012), as well as current score reporting systems maintained by AMCAS report the "Percentile Rank Range" in these columns rather than a single percentile rank. The percentile rank columns in the current tables correspond to the upper bound of the percentile rank ranges provided in these other versions." https://www.aamc.org/students/download/430684/data/finalpercentileranksfortheoldmcatexam.pdf

I would use efle's chart as reference just to be able to visualize this better.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...centile-comparison-conversion-tables.1143689/

The 2008 chart is still pretty close to the 2014 chart and includes ranges, which will also help elaborate on this further: https://www.aamc.org/students/download/85332/data/combined08.pdf

 

[WedgeDawg]

I see - thanks for the clarification! I've updated the OP for the new conversions.

Here are the new conversions:

I double checked them with @efle's thread so they should be accurate:

39-45 = 523-528
38 = 521-522
37 = 519-520
36 = 518
35 = 516-517
34 = 515
33 = 513-514
32 = 511-512
31 = 509-510
30 = 507-508
29 = 505-506
28 = 504
27 = 502-503
26 = 500-501

 

[ZedsDed]

@WedgeDawg You might want to consider adding state of residence as a factor (i.e. Ca is a negative, while Fl/Tx are a plus.) This is a huge factor in admissions. Just a suggestion...

 

[WedgeDawg]

@WedgeDawg You might want to consider adding state of residence as a factor (i.e. Ca is a negative, while Fl/Tx are a plus.) This is a huge factor in admissions. Just a suggestion...

Good suggestion! I thought about potentially doing something like this, but there aren't too many states where this would be a major factor (Texas being the biggest positive and NY/CA being the biggest negatives), so it would be hard to ascribe a point value to them. It also wouldn't really change your applicant level, just how hard your IS schools are to get into. An 'A' applicant from CA is still an 'A' applicant, regardless of how selective their IS schools are.

 

[ZedsDed]

Good suggestion! I thought about potentially doing something like this, but there aren't too many states where this would be a major factor (Texas being the biggest positive and NY/CA being the biggest negatives), so it would be hard to ascribe a point value to them. It also wouldn't really change your applicant level, just how hard your IS schools are to get into. An 'A' applicant from CA is still an 'A' applicant, regardless of how selective their IS schools are.

I'll just add that their are many (well, like 8-9) states that are considered "lucky". In other words, your low stats won't keep you out of the home state med school. One of the best examples would be university of Mississippi, where the 10th percentile GPA is something like 3.2 and nearly half of her applicants get in! So yes, OOS odds do not change significantly from state to state (excluding tx). But, the odds of getting into a school do. The caveat is that you must be a resident to these states for some years before applying, obviously. I'd wager that they aren't stupid either, and that moving 12 months before application time is going to raise some eyebrows.

Edit: Just thought I would throw in this quote from UMC's website for anyone that gets any funny ideas lol

"Strong preference is given to applicants who are legal residents of Mississippi; in recent years, nonresidents have not been admitted. This medical school is committed to training health care providers for Mississippi. Moving to this state alone does not signify a commitment to practice in Mississippi. Applicants who recently move to Mississippi will be evaluated by the medical school admissions committee for their motivation to move and possible ties to this state."

 

[WedgeDawg]

I'll just add that their are many (well, like 8-9) states that are considered "lucky". In other words, your low stats won't keep you out of the home state med school. One of the best examples would be university of Mississippi, where the 10th percentile GPA is something like 3.2 and nearly half of her applicants get in! So yes, OOS odds do not change significantly from state to state (excluding tx). But, the odds of getting into a school do. The caveat is that you must be a resident to these states for some years before applying, obviously. I'd wager they aren't stupid either, moving 12 months before application time isn't going to fool anyone.

A very fair point, but it still wouldn't necessarily change the distribution of schools that you should apply to with your stats, other than perhaps making it so that you apply to fewer schools overall.

 

[ZedsDed]

A very fair point, but it still wouldn't necessarily change the distribution of schools that you should apply to with your stats, other than perhaps making it so that you apply to fewer schools overall.

Very true, as your system seems to be mainly designed for constructing an OOS list anyway.

 

[Holmwood]

Pretty much all the schools in my list correspond to wedgedawg's rating system! Very cool.

Will let you know the success of my OOS choices in the near future. : )

 

[jagster92]

S-Level applicant and my list ended up closely matching what your system put together for me. Only difference was mostly due to my residency status that has me applying to a couple cat 6 schools.
My percentages ended up being:
1: 45%
2: 25%
3: 15%
4: 5%
6:10%

I'll update once the cycles over!

 

[LuluLovesMe]

Are you going to add notes on particular schools?

For example Tufts really likes Tufts undergrads so for them, that is not a low yield school

 

[WedgeDawg]

Are you going to add notes on particular schools?

For example Tufts really likes Tufts undergrads so for them, that is not a low yield school

That level of specificity is outside the purview of this system, which is very general. You should generally always apply to your home institution.

 

[FutureBenCarson]

What about SES status? for instance myself, I scored a 525 (100th)percentile mcat with a 3.99gpa. But I lived at 50% of the US poverty line, so I had to work full time, and take full time classes simultaneously. I'm applying this cycle, but I'm hoping schools may take my low SES combined with high stats with an extra grain of salt. You have URM on here, but not SES disadvantaged status is my point; they don't always correlate together. I think/I'm hoping, schools take low SES as a serious consideration.

btw @Goro, do you know whether low SES is actually even looked at or not?

 

[Goro]

Based upon the wise @LizzyM's posts, SES is looked in the prism of how did it affect the applicant prior to college. My own school doesn't consider it as a factor; but people do seem to have a soft spot for the "first one in the family to go to college" and it in our DNA to like rags-to-riches" stories.

What about SES status? for instance myself, I scored a 525 (100th)percentile mcat with a 3.99gpa. But I lived at 50% of the US poverty line, so I had to work full time, and take full time classes simultaneously. I'm applying this cycle, but I'm hoping schools may take my low SES combined with high stats with an extra grain of salt. You have URM on here, but not SES disadvantaged status is my point; they don't always correlate together. I think/I'm hoping, schools take low SES as a serious consideration.

btw @Goro, do you know whether low SES is actually even looked at or not?

 

[WedgeDawg]

@FutureBenCarson

Could be useful if we could figure out how exactly it affects admissions. As @Goro implied, it looks like schools view it differently, but if anyone has any data as to how much it alters a decision (to the extent that we can quantify it accurately on average), then I could add it in somewhere.

 

[deleted393595]

I'll just add that their are many (well, like 8-9) states that are considered "lucky". In other words, your low stats won't keep you out of the home state med school. One of the best examples would be university of Mississippi, where the 10th percentile GPA is something like 3.2 and nearly half of her applicants get in! So yes, OOS odds do not change significantly from state to state (excluding tx). But, the odds of getting into a school do. The caveat is that you must be a resident to these states for some years before applying, obviously. I'd wager that they aren't stupid either, and that moving 12 months before application time is going to raise some eyebrows.

Edit: Just thought I would throw in this quote from UMC's website for anyone that gets any funny ideas lol

"Strong preference is given to applicants who are legal residents of Mississippi; in recent years, nonresidents have not been admitted. This medical school is committed to training health care providers for Mississippi. Moving to this state alone does not signify a commitment to practice in Mississippi. Applicants who recently move to Mississippi will be evaluated by the medical school admissions committee for their motivation to move and possible ties to this state."

Anyone who moves to Mississippi is doing so out of pure altruism. True story

 

[randommedstudent8]

Is averaging your sGPA and cGPA actually how Adcoms view your gpa?

 

[WedgeDawg]

Is averaging your sGPA and cGPA actually how Adcoms view your gpa?

No. This is just the most all-encompassing method to generalize your numerical competitiveness for use in this particular algorithm.

 

[Lawpy]

Bumping this with the @WedgeDawg 2015 MCAT correction for the LizzyM score!

Alright guys, I have a proposed conversion for you all. The formula is:

(GPA-1)*10 + (MCAT-500) = Score

The max score (4.0/528) comes out to 58. I've gone through and made correlates between the old LizzyM score and the new one (which can be seen in the chart below). Examples:

Old 76 (i.e. 3.8/38 or 3.9/37) is new 50. This is generally the number to shoot for for top schools.

Old 73 (i.e. 3.8/35 or 3.9/34) is new 45. This is generally a good number for mid tiers while possibly being competitive for some top tiers.

Old 70 (i.e. 3.7/33 or 3.9/31) is new 40. This is generally where a "competitive" applicant for med school falls around.

Old 67 (i.e. 3.6/31 or 3.7/30) is new 35. This is around the accepted applicant median.

Old 65 (i.e. 3.6/29 or 3.7/28) is new 30. This is highly competitive for DOs and marginal for MD.

I didn't continue my color coordination after this, but you get the idea.

This score not only is easy to calculate, but provides convenient benchmarks for comparing scores to old LizzyM scores (down by 5's from 50 for new, down by 3's from 76 for old). It does break down at the MCAT extremes, but so did the old score (45/3.1 still gave you 76, for example).

Here are some spot checks:

3.7/32 is 69 old, which should be around 39ish new. Formula gives, for 3.7/512, 39, spot on!

3.4/38 is 72 old, which should be around 43-44 new. Formula gives, for 3.4/522, 46, so it's a little high, but it's also an extreme MCAT place.

3.9/32 is 71 old, which should be around 41-42 new. Formula gives, for 3.9/512, 41, right on!

3.3/36 is 69 old, which should be about 38-39 new. Formula gives, for 3.3/518, 41, so again, a little high.

This seems to work best the more "matched" the GPA and MCAT are, and gives slight favor to higher MCAT scores at the opposing extremes, but overall should be a decent estimate.

Obviously you can make it more accurate (by doing exact percentile conversions), but that would inevitably take away the simplicity of the calculation, which is the whole point. Also, because the new MCAT has multiple scores per old MCAT score, you're going to be hard pressed to find an algorithm that perfectly fits everything.

As we move away from old MCAT scores entirely, the conversion factor equality becomes far less important, and the balance between MCAT and GPA becomes the most important thing (here GPA is weighted out of 30 while MCAT is weighted out of 28, and the overall score can go as low as -32 if you have a 468 MCAT and 0.00 GPA). One MCAT point is still equivalent to 0.1 GPA points, just like the old scale.

See what you guys think!

And yeah I did it because my signature can allow up to only 5 links, and this stuff is important.

 

[musicalfeet]

Not sure how much this helps, but I was not recommended to apply to any of the low yield schools via this spreadsheet, but 2/4 of my II so far are from Gtown + BU..two low yield schools.

Other than that though, I think my distribution of schools is relatively similar of what is given.

 

[NotASerialKiller]

Not sure how much this helps, but I was not recommended to apply to any of the low yield schools via this spreadsheet, but 2/4 of my II so far are from Gtown + BU..two low yield schools.

Other than that though, I think my distribution of schools is relatively similar of what is given.

Well these systems are good for informing your application choices, not dictating them. When it says "do not apply", it's not saying that you won't get interviews. I believe it just means that you will most likely not have to apply to them because you're projected get enough IIs from higher-yield schools (which you might very well find to be true later in the cycle).

 

[musicalfeet]

Well these systems are good for informing your application choices, not dictating them. When it says "do not apply", it's not saying that you won't get interviews. I believe it just means that you will most likely not have to apply to them because you're projected get enough IIs from higher-yield schools (which you might very well find to be true later in the cycle).

Got it! Thanks for the clarification! I thought it was saying not to apply because they were low-yield. (Although I haven't gotten any II or feedback from any of the higher category schools so far. But it is too early to say anything definitively so I'll hop back in and update later!)

 

[ChrisMack390]

Meh you could post on SDN with a 4.0, 43, and a nobel prize and everyone would yell at you for applying to Georgetown/Tufts/BU.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Meh you could post on SDN with a 4.0, 43, and a nobel prize and everyone would yell at you for applying to Georgetown/Tufts/BU.

Lol, would you apply to BU, Tufts, and/or G-town with those credentials?

 

[p0gono]

Bumping this with the @WedgeDawg 2015 MCAT correction for the LizzyM score!.

Are we calling it the @WedgeDawg score? Speak now or forever hold your peace.
;-)

 

[Lawpy]

Are we calling it the @WedgeDawg score? Speak now or forever hold your peace.
;-)

Nah. It's still called the LizzyM score, because the generalized version isn't any different from the classical version. WedgeDawg provided a specific correction term. All listed in my signature