WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
take it outside you two
Fair enough.

Allow me to expound upon my relevant point, then:
Given my feedback on this forum, as well as my low gpa, I would expect to be steered towards mostly 3s and 4s, with a large school list.
Instead, I was pointed by this system towards 1s and 2s, with a smallish list.

My highest scores were in clinical and undergraduate institution ranking, if that helps. My lowest was in stats.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why is FIU on there???
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Generally good though fine tuning would be of benefit. I think the research categorization is misleading, for instance. Level 5 says "first author publication, publication in a high-impact journal, and/or presentation at a major conference." with that "and/or" seeming to imply that having a presentation at a major conference alone puts you at highest level, that you can have this, this, OR presented at a conference. Even major conferences are pretty easy to get into, so I don't think that really separates a Level 4 from a 5.
 
Last edited:
It's important to note that @WedgeDawg metric is only supposed to give you a general sense of where you should apply. Taking the metric as the absolute truth will only lead to disasters, since it is difficult to quantify subjective measures like EC evaluation. That said, overdissecting the metric for failing to include whatever is not recommended.

The WedgeDawg metric and simpler LizzyM score are relative measures and should be treated as such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Re undergrad schools.

No liberal arts colleges in there.

Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, and the Nescac schools are listed in the top school list for matriculating students at many competitive schools.

Re personal experience with Mit students: smart as heck, awkward as fark.

Sorry! I had Williams on there and for some reason they didn't make it onto the final list (to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why - probably negligence on my part). Now I would be cautious here because although many of these schools are perceived as "prestigious", I am not sure that confers a bump in medical school admissions.

Additionally, some (or much?) of the "bump" these schools get is from the opportunities that the school provides. LACs don't contain some of the high-powered research centers that could potentially get undergrads at schools like Columbia and Harvard letters of rec or great lab names on their resume. The reason that schools like these get some sort of bump somehow in med school (and other professional school) admissions may never be known. I'm just trying to distill this list down to schools that actually (again for whatever reason) get a bump vs. similarly "prestigious" schools that might not. Again, all input is great, so if you have data/experiences to share, that would be wonderful.

by your metric i am a cat D applicant but accepted to type 1, 2, and 6 schools

i may be wrong here but this seems to be the entirety of your validation method. your weighing of various factors is arbitrary and is held to the standard of consistency with sdn suggestions. so really, it means nothing. while i have no doubt premeds will flock to this because you throw lots of numbers at them and fancy sounding stuff like "python", the truth is there is no actual hard data to back any of this formula up.

ultimately, med school admissions is a fuzzy science. no matter how hard you or anyone else tries to quantify the process there will and always will be a large number of outliers. the formula imo is really pretty much this:

meet gpa/mcat standards --> have a cool thing or two that matches what your reviewer is looking for --> don't be weird in the interview --> randomize --> get in.

No, validation can only come from large-scale data mining, which will never happen. So all we will have is an anecdote-based validation which isn't validation at all. Personally I'd rather not have a flawed tool that implies quantification of a non-quantifiable process but that's just me.

Thank you very much for your input. I would like to comment on your statement and say that this is just something that I've pulled together in my spare time as an additional tool that might help new applicants start to create a school list. I never suggested that this is an end-all-be-all for any particular applicant in terms of creating a school list. I 100% agree that it is very difficult to determine how med schools evaluate applicants or where applicants should apply - this is very clearly shown by what you and others have said about how this classified you and them and how those results proved to be contrary to what this showed (if I recall correctly, you attend a Category 1 school).

My intention is definitely not to "throw lots of numbers and fancy sounding stuff" at people, my intention is to help people who aren't sure where to start quickly and easily come up with a preliminary list of schools to apply to. If you think that there is no merit to this system at all, I strongly encourage you to recommend against it, but I even more strongly encourage you to help improve it so that applicants might benefit from an additional tool to add to their repertoire in a highly complex and often confusing process.

There is a lot in this system that is arbitrary, I agree - however, many of the arbitrations that can be found in this algorithm seem to elicit results that at least in part are accurate. One of the reasons I've so intently tried to solicit community feedback is to try and fine-tune the algorithm and thus reduce the arbitrary parts and increase the evidence-based parts.

Again, this is just something I came up with in my spare time based on what I've seen throughout my cycle and in the WAMC as well as the pre-allo forum in general. If people do not thing this is a useful tool, I have no problem scrapping it - at worst, it would be an interesting experiment that kept me from being bored on a long bus ride. However, if people see merit in it and wish to devote time and effort to continually improving it for the benefit of future applicants, I am of course all for that as well. It is now up to you to decide whether you would like to see this project scrapped or if is worth investing yourself in. Either way is fine with me.

I very much appreciate your input regardless of whether or not you choose to invest in this project.

hate to say it, but i like where you're going with this. sure, it may need some more refinements, but it's just a guide.

the idea of trying to develop an optimal list of say, 20-30 schools, for any applicant to apply to is pretty cool. the shotgunning approach is too costly for many applicants, and it probably puts a strain on some adcoms (although some may like it so they can talk about their low acceptance rates). but, giving guidance to applicants to narrow their focus and get the best bang for their application buck$ is what those WAMC threads are all about.

hope you continue to be receptive to others trying to help you improve this.

Thank you for your input! This is ultimately a tool to help applicants come up with a preliminary list of schools. As has been brought up, the amount of variability in this process is so great that it is essentially impossible for a single algorithm to account for everything. My goal is for the community to improve upon this tool so that it can be useful as a starting point for new applicants. Receptivity to improvement and community feedback are what will keep this project going.

Agreed. Trying to quantify the way ~150 different schools will view one individual is too complicated for a single equation (no matter how much applicants wish they could reduce it to a single equation).



As for other factors, let's add:

-LoRs
-Primary submission date
-Personal Statement
-Whether or not you play video games for a living, and,
-Being the grand-nephew of the dean of admissions

Hi there! Thanks for your feedback. I definitely agree that all the factors are too complex to reduce to a single equation. This is merely a tool to help people figure out how to start making a school list. I wish that medical school admissions were formulaic, but that would probably make for very boring med school classes. Generalizing based off of available data is the only method we currently have for advising current and future applicants.

As for the other factors, I don't think that the first three should be included as they vary greatly between applicants and applicants themselves (as well as anyone who reads LoRs and PSs) are not great judges of how adcoms will perceive these things. As such, I think that this tool would be most useful for choosing where to apply based on factors that are more quantifiable than these subjective things. For the last two, I don't think these are things that apply to very many applicants, but if they are important enough to list, my feeling is they could go under Misc at levels 2, 3, or 4.

@WedgeDawg

Here's a thought that might help incorporate school specific preferences that might change your school list. If you score at an A or S level and your research score is also a 5, then the percentage breakdown might change to include more top research schools, like from 45% to 60% or something like that. Similarly if you score at a B or C level and your volunteer or clinical experience levels are at the highest level, you might recommend applying to an even higher percentage of schools like creighton and other schools that emphasize service. Does that make sense?

My hope is that the overall formula will already take this into account rather than having to adjust it after getting your ARS score and level. The research category of 5 is reserved for people with truly outstanding research achievements and thus have a good shot at top research schools (which will hopefully be reflected by the score). Additionally, Category 1 and 2 schools are more interchangeable than schools in any other category, so if a Level A applicant has strong research activity and chooses to apply to more Category 1 schools than 2 schools, that is entirely their prerogative. The applicant should modify these values in order to best fit their own profile - these are merely initial guidelines to start building a school list. If you have ideas to help ensure that as many of these suggestions are encompassed by the formula prior to it giving a score and Level, I would be very happy to hear them!

Generally good though fine tuning would be of benefit. I think the research categorization is misleading, for instance. Level 5 says "first author publication, publication in a high-impact journal, and/or presentation at a major conference." with that "and/or" seeming to imply that having a presentation at a major conference alone puts you at highest level, that you can have this, this, OR presented at a conference. Even major conferences are pretty easy to get into, so I don't think that really separates a Level 4 from a 5.

Very interesting point - I think that if major conferences are that easy to get into, then perhaps they could be listed as a level 4. However, these are just examples of accomplishments that people in those categories have achieved; but, if it is thought that certain examples best fit a level 4 rather than a level 5, then it would be definitely worth changing the descriptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cool breakdown, should definitely be helpful for future applicants, but only to get some idea of a school list. Makes me realize that I had a pretty crappy school list, totally dropped the ball there. I could've had a better cycle if I applied to the right schools. Whatever.

But your list of undergrads is pretty small. Are you telling me that going to Berkeley buys you nothing compared to the guy who went to New Mexico State?
 
Cool breakdown, should definitely be helpful for future applicants, but only to get some idea of a school list. Makes me realize that I had a pretty crappy school list, totally dropped the ball there. I could've had a better cycle if I applied to the right schools. Whatever.

But your list of undergrads is pretty small. Are you telling me that going to Berkeley buys you nothing compared to the guy who went to New Mexico State?
Agreed. Also I was trying to figure out your distinction of schools and it looked like top 15/16 undergrad but Northwestern is not on that list, and it's consistently ranked higher than Brown, Cornell, and WashU. How come?

For me this algorithm would have been nice just to know not to apply to all those low yield schools. That was such a waste of money!! I had %'s close to what is outlined as well. Overall great idea!
 
Last edited:
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 users
I think it's a great tool for potential applicants to assess where they stand, so thanks @WedgeDawg for creating this. I'll report back at the end of this coming cycle vis a vis my own results.

I think there are a couple of small details that could be included, like rising grade trend giving a plus .5 to stats, and having a good postbac or SMP as giving another .5 to stats (the .5 is arbitrary).

sGPA isn't really included, so maybe average of cGPA and sGPA to consider your GPA, effectively penalizing those who have a low sGPA or low cGPA.

Finally, I agree with the above idea that top liberal arts programs should get a bit of a bump. Maybe if it's in the top 10 liberal arts program then it joins tier 2? i.e. Amherst, Carleton, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Williams, and whatever else US news puts on there.

I feel like there are some intangibles that might be harder to assess, like LOR's and PS's, but that will remain the same under almost any system. You could potentially add a bonus for legacy/ big donor/ connections, as that probably plays a role as well.

But moral of the story, awesome job!
 
Agreed. Also I was trying to figure out your distinction of schools and it looked like top 15/16 undergrad but Northwestern is not on that list, and it's consistently ranked higher than Brown, Cornell, and WashU. How come?

For me this algorithm would have been nice just to know not to apply to all those low yield schools. That was such a waste of money!! I had %'s close to what is outlined as well. Overall great idea!
Probably because US News doesn't really match with reputation in med admissions, eg Hopkins being ranked 10-20 but being a much bigger name in terms of rep for rigor compared to several other 10-20s. Vandy is also missing despite average test scores > Columbia, Penn, Stanford, Duke, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown

There's never enough access to data to really pursue testing this stuff :( great model though Wedgie
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To be honest, I like the idea! I will say however, my results were inconsistent with the tool. Although I was an applicant level E, I received interviews from schools in categories 1 and 2. Also, I am a California resident, so applying to all of my state schools would not be an advantage, because they are all difficult to get into. Like people have mentioned before, I think it should be used as a relative guide and not as something set in stone.

I can tell that it has been well-thought out, and I'm sure with all the input it will be an even better tool. Good work!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I would have a score of an 85 but was only offered to interview at one category 3 and accepted to multiple category 4 schools. the algorithm seems a bit off to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sorry! I had Williams on there and for some reason they didn't make it onto the final list (to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why - probably negligence on my part). Now I would be cautious here because although many of these schools are perceived as "prestigious", I am not sure that confers a bump in medical school admissions.

Additionally, some (or much?) of the "bump" these schools get is from the opportunities that the school provides. LACs don't contain some of the high-powered research centers that could potentially get undergrads at schools like Columbia and Harvard letters of rec or great lab names on their resume. The reason that schools like these get some sort of bump somehow in med school (and other professional school) admissions may never be known. I'm just trying to distill this list down to schools that actually (again for whatever reason) get a bump vs. similarly "prestigious" schools that might not. Again, all input is great, so if you have data/experiences to share, that would be wonderful.

Big difference between undergrad and grad school labs. If the LACs weren't strong in research, they wouldn't do so well when placing students into PhD programs in the hard sciences. Some of them get lots of funding even though their focus is on undergrads. Lots more of these schools in Cali as well ( ex Claremont consortium) and then bowdoin etc.

How these schools are perceived by lay people is very different than their reputation in academic circles.

Just food for thought.


Do you have an opinion regarding Cal tech?

Nope, haven't interacted with any of their alums, but my comments were from having recently interviewed a few mit kids that did the most hilarious stuff during the course of an interview such as opening up their laptop to work on a paper during an interview info session and question session.

I'm obviously being hyperbolic, since I have a good friend that's an alum and her friends are some of the most awesome people I've met. None of them are interested in medicine though. The strange interactions I've had were mostly related to those folks. I think the schools environment breeds a very certain type of neuroticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
How these schools are perceived by lay people is very different than their reputation in academic circles.
Which is good, I imagine it would be unfathomably sucky if being from, say, Harvey Mudd got a blank stare from adcoms as well as laypeople
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Fairly close for me, but I felt it overrated me a bit.
 
Nice system, but not accurate for me. Not even close really. A lot of the schools the system says I should have applied for I would have had no business applying at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you have an opinion regarding Cal tech?

MIT of the west. Harvey Mudd also.
Echo the "need more liberal arts schools" sentiment

@RogueUnicorn - I'd agree that it's not possible to accurately model something as complex as this. But I'd argue that the tool is nonetheless valuable for measuring 'relative competitiveness' for most of the people, most of the time. Further tweaking will further improve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Tried it. With my perceptions on my ECs, borderline A-B. With outside perceptions, maybe more like a B-C.

But I'm a Texas Resident and won't get interviews OOS anyways so WEEEEEEEE CLASS 5 SCHOOLS!!!!
 
I think this is an interesting med school tool but at the end of the day you cannot put a metric on personality, humanism, empathy, ethical sense, communication skills and integrity. Also different schools have different "feels" and mission statements for what they value in a candidate. I think this should be used only as far as a ballpark estimate for where it's worth applying to and chances of receiving and II, but not a means to measure where students actually get accepted.

Kind of like using BMI as a ballpark estimate of body type and health status, even though individuals with the same BMI can have extremely different body builds and health status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Sorry! I had Williams on there and for some reason they didn't make it onto the final list (to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why - probably negligence on my part). Now I would be cautious here because although many of these schools are perceived as "prestigious", I am not sure that confers a bump in medical school admissions.

Additionally, some (or much?) of the "bump" these schools get is from the opportunities that the school provides. LACs don't contain some of the high-powered research centers that could potentially get undergrads at schools like Columbia and Harvard letters of rec or great lab names on their resume. The reason that schools like these get some sort of bump somehow in med school (and other professional school) admissions may never be known. I'm just trying to distill this list down to schools that actually (again for whatever reason) get a bump vs. similarly "prestigious" schools that might not. Again, all input is great, so if you have data/experiences to share, that would be wonderful.

I think you're overestimating the importance of letter writer reputation (vs letter content) and underestimating research opportunities at these schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The school I'll be attending is in a higher category than I am--but it was mentioned to apply to 10% of the higher schools, so it could have worked out! I'm also MD/PhD so that's a big wrench in everything and my low categories (like Teaching/Olympic Athlete/Shadowing) may not have mattered as much.

EDIT: But also way cool! You put so much thought into this and it's a wonderful thing.
 
Ultimately, I think @RogueUnicorn is correct but it's nice to see a thread like this instead of the usual

1. "Am I really screwed if I go to the Caribbean for Med school? Are you sure?"

2. "Just got 3 acceptances to DO schools, should I turn them down and apply MD next year?"

3. "Just found out I'm black. Am I URM?!"

Great job OP. Love the effort :thumbup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18 users
1. Perhaps a section on Post-Baccs and upward grade trends? I think this has been mentioned
2. I think for this method to become better, you will have to break up the sections into more levels. I would consider graduate degrees other than JD and such to be worth something. For example, my MS in engineering is pretty neat, definitely worth more than a BS.

Do not ask me what to break the levels up into, your system looks pretty spot on, however, the inputs are subjective and based on the user's perceptions, not someone who is rational lol.
 
So I tried it and pretty spot on in regards to interviews and acceptances. Good job man.
 
I will also say that some people might use this and find it to not work out for them, but I think by and large this is the best rating system I have seen. A model will only capture some of the data, and there will almost always be some level of outlier.

Oh, you might want to include a section for red flags, and how that would also drop your score, depending on the nature of the red flag. Again, not sure how to quantify that exactly. Like IA's vs minor things.
 
Most red flags are universally lethal.

I will also say that some people might use this and find it to not work out for them, but I think by and large this is the best rating system I have seen. A model will only capture some of the data, and there will almost always be some level of outlier.

Oh, you might want to include a section for red flags, and how that would also drop your score, depending on the nature of the red flag. Again, not sure how to quantify that exactly. Like IA's vs minor things.
 
An honest evaluation of my app gives me a score of 89 using this scale, and I only applied to Category 1 and 2 schools (and Emory). I got offered interviews at only 7 out of 15 schools.

As others have mentioned, I think the current weighting of factors is problematic. I have little doubt that had I come from a top undergrad (lame state school here) I would have received many more interviews, though obviously not necessarily more acceptances.

Edit: Messed up the formula the first time
 
The problem is that schools have different weighting on these ECs. The top schools care more about research, and actually have lower rates of volunteering than lower tier schools. Top tier schools also care more about pedigree, although I would say this is more restricted to the absolute top (HYPSM) going into top 10 for ex.

If you have great EC, but don't smash the MCAT you shouldn't apply to WUSTL. Similarly if you smash the MCAT but don't have good clinical EC you shouldn't apply to a lot of "lower tier schools" because of yield protect + they're less interested in research.

That's why I think the LizzyM system is good. It's not perfect, but it's up-front about it. It gives you an extremely general idea of which schools you should apply to which is all you need.

As uncomfortable as this is, I really think there are too many variables (interview, LoR, proximity to home, demonstrated interest in area etc.) and if I had to guess a lot of it comes down to being academically qualified + the overall app "resonating" with the ad com.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I ran this on my application from the most recent application cycle and it worked perfectly for predicting where I got interviews and ultimately where my acceptances came from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
NYMC is generally considered to be low-yield. Brown and Dartmouth are oddly categorized given that both are looking for non-trads with specific backgrounds: I find any rating system where Brown is in the same group as Temple to be suspect.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
Sorry! I had Williams on there and for some reason they didn't make it onto the final list (to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why - probably negligence on my part). Now I would be cautious here because although many of these schools are perceived as "prestigious", I am not sure that confers a bump in medical school admissions.

Additionally, some (or much?) of the "bump" these schools get is from the opportunities that the school provides. LACs don't contain some of the high-powered research centers that could potentially get undergrads at schools like Columbia and Harvard letters of rec or great lab names on their resume. The reason that schools like these get some sort of bump somehow in med school (and other professional school) admissions may never be known. I'm just trying to distill this list down to schools that actually (again for whatever reason) get a bump vs. similarly "prestigious" schools that might not. Again, all input is great, so if you have data/experiences to share, that would be wonderful.
The opportunities are definitely different, but they're still there. Perhaps you don't get 'great lab names' on your resume (though I would argue that such a thing is hardly par at HYPS either) but you can start research, and by that I mean individual student research projects, from freshman fall. So I really doubt that the research LORs suffer...and then remember, the professors at an LAC tend to know every student by name. Which LOR do you think will have a bump, the one from a prestigious professor who usually has TAs teach, but met the student in a few office hours, or the one from a great professor who knew the student well both in and out of their 5-student classroom, maybe even had them over for Thanksgiving dinner, and can really write a personalized statement? (Note: the answer is, as always 'the prestigious professor who knew the student well both in and out of the classroom, but I digress).
Finally, I agree with the above idea that top liberal arts programs should get a bit of a bump. Maybe if it's in the top 10 liberal arts program then it joins tier 2? i.e. Amherst, Carleton, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Williams, and whatever else US news puts on there.
!
If you're going to go by ranking, Forbes actually mixes them all together. Why not just take the colleges that have been at or above HYPS on the list as Tier 1, and the ones at or above the Tier 2 programs on here as Tier 2? Sorry, but it just seems a bit odd to me that schools which have more than once been ranked #1 or #2 when compared to all others end up as second tier, below those they beat on the rankings. If we're going to try to be objective about things, why not use the already-established metrics, however flawed they may be, as a jumping-off point?
 
I think people are reading way too much into the undergrad ranking. No one is saying that HYPS, etc. are the only schools that are well-regarded, but I think it is true that the schools WedgeDawg listed carry a bit more cache in some circles. It's not like that means adcoms think all other schools are the same, just that top LAC applicants might not get the same bump that Ivy League grads seem to get. And if they do and you know it, just give yourself a 2 when you fill that out! This isn't some definitive assessment of your value as a human being; it's a tool for you to use however you see fit.

Great stuff, WedgeDawg. I think this will be really useful for people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think people are reading way too much into the undergrad ranking. No one is saying that HYPS, etc. are the only schools that are well-regarded, but I think it is true that the schools WedgeDawg listed carry a bit more cache in some circles. It's not like that means adcoms think all other schools are the same, just that top LAC applicants might not get the same bump that Ivy League grads seem to get. And if they do and you know it, just give yourself a 2 when you fill that out! This isn't some definitive assessment of your value as a human being; it's a tool for you to use however you see fit.

Great stuff, WedgeDawg. I think this will be really useful for people.
Fair enough, fair enough.
I've just known people who were literally hired off the street (well, the NYC subway) after their school sweatshirt from their top LAC started a conversation which revealed that they had majored in a relevant field. It went: "Oh, you went to [LAC]? What a great school! What are you doing in NYC?" "Thanks! Just moved, actually, I'm looking to apply to jobs in the area." "What did you do in college?" "Math major" "Tell you what, we're hiring, why don't you come in for an interview?" And we're talking nice job.
Between that and the acceptance stats for med schools at some of these places, I just think people tend to underestimate the prestige those schools hold in certain circles. :shrug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Fair enough, fair enough.
I've just known people who were literally hired off the street (well, the NYC subway) after their school sweatshirt from their top LAC started a conversation which revealed that they had majored in a relevant field. It went: "Oh, you went to [LAC]? What a great school! What are you doing in NYC?" "Thanks! Just moved, actually, I'm looking to apply to jobs in the area." "What did you do in college?" "Math major" "Tell you what, we're hiring, why don't you come in for an interview?" And we're talking nice job.
Between that and the acceptance stats for med schools at some of these places, I just think people tend to underestimate the prestige those schools hold in certain circles. :shrug:
That's awesome. I should start wearing my college sweatshirt everywhere in the off-chance that I run into alumni who are hiring.

But yeah, I think the point in Wedge's system is that MIT has more universal recognition than Williams, though I bet if you luck out and there's a Williams grad on the admissions committee that'd be an even bigger bump since in my experience there's much more school pride/sense of community among alumni of smaller schools.
 
That's awesome. I should start wearing my college sweatshirt everywhere in the off-chance that I run into alumni who are hiring.

But yeah, I think the point in Wedge's system is that MIT has more universal recognition than Williams, though I bet if you luck out and there's a Williams grad on the admissions committee that'd be an even bigger bump since in my experience there's much more school pride/sense of community among alumni of smaller schools.
It was actually flip-flops, now that I think back...we had been giving her crap because her school's flip flops are really ugly. Then after this incident, we didn't get to do that anymore. :laugh:

I'd agree on universal recognition if you mean the Average Joe on the street.
I would disagree if you mean any graduate school admissions or most competitive hiring situations (well, excepting something MIT-specific like engineering).
And yeah, for most small schools if there's an alum (or often even one from another LAC...they're pretty collegial), you start thanking your lucky stars.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hi everyone,

Thank you again for your interest in this project, and thank you to everyone who has given feedback.

One thing I wanted to clarify that might not have come through properly is that this is not a tool to predict acceptances to any given school or group. It is a tool to give an applicant an initial structure for applying to schools. The ARS has three major goals:
  1. Give the applicant the best chance of success
  2. Give the applicant the best chance of being accepted to the best school realistically possible
  3. Minimize time, effort, and money spent on applications to schools that the applicant shouldn't be applying to

This is why S Level applicants should still apply to some Category 3 and 4/5 schools and why C Level applicants should apply to some Category 1 schools. Additionally, your application profile will most likely not fit your acceptance profile! Mine sure didn't! Just because you're applying to 45% Category 1 schools doesn't mean you will be accepted to those schools in the same proportion!

And again, this DOES NOT take into account subjective aspects of the application like the PS, LORs, etc, nor how individual adcoms will perceive certain activities - it just gives the applicant a profile of schools to apply to based on the objective portions of their app. It's really a formulaic version of what is already suggested in the WAMC forums. No one there is evaluating PS, LORs, etc and self-evaluations are dubious at best. Additionally, most applicants will have their school list more or less settled by the time they write their personal statement. I have never heard of someone saying, "Gee, my PS really sucks so I shouldn't apply to my reaches anymore" (though I'm sure it has happened at one point or another...). Please keep this in mind when thinking about this system!

I will be responding to individual posts again soon, and I will also be compiling a list of suggested changes from throughout the entire thread before implementing them.

Thank you all again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
To be honest, I like the idea! I will say however, my results were inconsistent with the tool. Although I was an applicant level E, I received interviews from schools in categories 1 and 2. Also, I am a California resident, so applying to all of my state schools would not be an advantage, because they are all difficult to get into. Like people have mentioned before, I think it should be used as a relative guide and not as something set in stone.

I can tell that it has been well-thought out, and I'm sure with all the input it will be an even better tool. Good work!

I would have a score of an 85 but was only offered to interview at one category 3 and accepted to multiple category 4 schools. the algorithm seems a bit off to me.

Nice system, but not accurate for me. Not even close really. A lot of the schools the system says I should have applied for I would have had no business applying at.

Thanks for letting me know! Would any of you mind giving me more information (either here or via PM) on your applications and what you put into the ARS/what it output? I think it would be great to see at what point the system breaks down!

I think this is an interesting med school tool but at the end of the day you cannot put a metric on personality, humanism, empathy, ethical sense, communication skills and integrity. Also different schools have different "feels" and mission statements for what they value in a candidate. I think this should be used only as far as a ballpark estimate for where it's worth applying to and chances of receiving and II, but not a means to measure where students actually get accepted.

Kind of like using BMI as a ballpark estimate of body type and health status, even though individuals with the same BMI can have extremely different body builds and health status.

Yes! It's a generalized guide for getting started!

Ultimately, I think @RogueUnicorn is correct but it's nice to see a thread like this instead of the usual

1. "Am I really screwed if I go to the Caribbean for Med school? Are you sure?"

2. "Just got 3 acceptances to DO schools, should I turn them down and apply MD next year?"

3. "Just found out I'm black. Am I URM?!"

Great job OP. Love the effort :thumbup:

I chuckled. Thank you!

An honest evaluation of my app gives me a score of 89 using this scale, and I only applied to Category 1 and 2 schools (and Emory). I got offered interviews at only 7 out of 15 schools.

As others have mentioned, I think the current weighting of factors is problematic. I have little doubt that had I come from a top undergrad (lame state school here) I would have received many more interviews, though obviously not necessarily more acceptances.

Edit: Messed up the formula the first time

"Only" 7 interviews at Category 1 and Category 2 schools? Sounds like you applied well to me. You had an outstanding application and iirc you garnered at least one very solid acceptance. I don't intuitively think that your application breakdown was wrong at all, even if perhaps the results were not in the same proportions as the applications.

The problem is that schools have different weighting on these ECs. The top schools care more about research, and actually have lower rates of volunteering than lower tier schools. Top tier schools also care more about pedigree, although I would say this is more restricted to the absolute top (HYPSM) going into top 10 for ex.

If you have great EC, but don't smash the MCAT you shouldn't apply to WUSTL. Similarly if you smash the MCAT but don't have good clinical EC you shouldn't apply to a lot of "lower tier schools" because of yield protect + they're less interested in research.

That's why I think the LizzyM system is good. It's not perfect, but it's up-front about it. It gives you an extremely general idea of which schools you should apply to which is all you need.

As uncomfortable as this is, I really think there are too many variables (interview, LoR, proximity to home, demonstrated interest in area etc.) and if I had to guess a lot of it comes down to being academically qualified + the overall app "resonating" with the ad com.

Once you have your initial structure, it is then on the applicant to figure out which schools they think they fit best. Of course there will be differences between each school even within categories (that's why they are different schools), but the goal of the categories system is to provide the applicant with a general breakdown of what level they should be applying to, not which individual schools to pick. That is where all these intangible factors come into play.

NYMC is generally considered to be low-yield. Brown and Dartmouth are oddly categorized given that both are looking for non-trads with specific backgrounds: I find any rating system where Brown is in the same group as Temple to be suspect.

Dartmouth actually does accept quite a few students straight out of school. Their median age is 26-27, but if you look at lot of schools, particularly in Category 1 and 2, you will see median ages of 25 and 26, which are not that much lower. I honestly think that the perception that Dartmouth accepts almost exclusively non-trads is overemphasized and somewhat misleading. If the applicant doesn't think they fit Dartmouth's profile, then they should choose other Category 3 schools to apply to.

This categorization is based on selectivity. Brown is in the "low yield" group because they only interview 3% of their applicants. The Low Yield group is named as such because most applicants will be wasting time, effort, and money applying there when they could be instead investing in schools more likely to pay off. At its essence, this system is to promote efficiency.

And I have not seen NYMC listed as low-yield before, but I will check on it and see if it's worth moving!

Thank you all for your input!
 
Here are the changes I'm considering:

  • Peace Corp and Military Service to Misc Level 3 (I know that it was suggested that Military be level 4, but there is often an aspect of leadership to military service, so increasing that number would make up the difference)
  • Strong upward trend adding +1 or +.5 to your stat score
  • Changing the undergrad rating system to Level 3 = HYPS (maybe M), Level 2 = all other "prestigious" schools, Level 1 = all other schools OR removing level 3 entirely and making Level 2 be "prestigious" schools, broadly defined
I do not want this thread to devolve into one of the as-of-late ubiquitous "which school is better for premed?" threads. As such, I think that leaving it to the applicant or rater to decide whether a school is Level 1 or Level 2 is the best solution. If you think that a school, thinking conservatively, will offer some sort of boost to an application based on name alone, then list level 2. Otherwise choose level 1. Remember that this tool is to promote your own success (if you're the applicant). Fudging the results by artificially inflating the perceived prestige of your school and then applying to a profile that doesn't actually fit your application will only hurt you in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
ARS.png


I'm still figuring out what information to post as far as how each student's cycle went.

A few criticisms of your methods.
#1 Your undergrad tiers. There is tremendous East coast bias. There are only a handful of schools across the country that have automatic name recognition and will help you in any appreciable way. Your 'Level 2' schools include places like Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, Cornell and Williams that easily could be considered equivalent to a large number of other schools to a very large number of admissions committee members. Regional benefits over others in the area? Absolutely. But, that is no different than a ton of other schools. I know that people are enamored with the Ivys on the East coast, but outside of your HYP, outside of the North East, their influence drops off considerably. Brown/Cornell vs. UCLA/Rice/Northwestern/Berkeley/Emory/Michigan etc? Absolutely no way that you can make an argument for a bonus in medical school admissions.
#2 Undergrad multiplier. Goes along with the levels, but a 4 multiplier that indicates that this has more influence than any other thing on your application other than your stats? No. I played around with people's numbers and every single person if you changed their school up or down would raise or lower their level. The undergrad that you go to does not affect things nearly to that degree.
#3 Shadowing. Levels 1 and 2 are the same thing. You either have it or you don't. You either know what you are talking about when you say, "I want to go into medicine" or you don't.
#4 Letters of recommendation. These are as relevant as shadowing/volunteering/leadership&teaching/undergrad school. Having extremely strong advocates can change your application profile more than any of those other things. Is it hard for a student to figure this out ahead of time? Yes. But, given that it's multiplier would be significantly higher than any of those, it is relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
"Only" 7 interviews at Category 1 and Category 2 schools? Sounds like you applied well to me. You had an outstanding application and iirc you garnered at least one very solid acceptance. I don't intuitively think that your application breakdown was wrong at all, even if perhaps the results were not in the same proportions as the applications.
After seeing many very similar applicants in previous cycles (and this current one) receive interviews at places that I clearly wasn't even one of their top ~700 most desirable applicants, yeah I was surprised I didn't get more interviews. Maybe I got unrealistic expectations from SDN, but I really thought my application was strong enough that more of the top schools would at least want to meet me in person before waitlisting or rejecting me.

For perspective, look at all my similar-stat contemporaries on SDN this cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Very nice work, @Wedgedog. Two things that pop out to me:

-First, it might be interesting to investigate whether or not this system systematically over- or underestimates non-trad applicants. A good number of non-trads (longtime paramedics, teachers, ex-military, etc.) will score highly the leadership and life experience categories, but these don't give as much weight to the weighted total as they (intuitively) seem to give to applications. Also, there doesn't seem to be any way of doubling up in categories: if you're a former professional athlete who also has a Ph.D, that seems to (intuitively) count for more than merely being a professional athlete (or Ph.D) alone, but your system assigns them the same value.

-Secondly, you emphasize that this is just a tool to guide your applications, just like the LizzyM score was. It might be interesting to investigate whether or not it's any better at guiding applications than LizzyM scores alone were; perhaps people who are posting how well the formula fits their application experience could also comment on how well the LizzyM score fit.

Personally, my score was a bit low compared to where I received interview invites (B level student, but a good amount of love from Cat 1 and 2 schools). I'm a non-trad, and I suspect this discrepancy is due to lowish ugrad GPA with a strong post-bacc, so the upward trend/post-bacc multiplier could address this. My LizzyM score, with the unoffical +5 for former military, was accurate for my application cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
View attachment 191271

I'm still figuring out what information to post as far as how each student's cycle went.

A few criticisms of your methods.
#1 Your undergrad tiers. There is tremendous East coast bias. There are only a handful of schools across the country that have automatic name recognition and will help you in any appreciable way. Your 'Level 2' schools include places like Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, Cornell and Williams that easily could be considered equivalent to a large number of other schools to a very large number of admissions committee members. Regional benefits over others in the area? Absolutely. But, that is no different than a ton of other schools. I know that people are enamored with the Ivys on the East coast, but outside of your HYP, outside of the North East, their influence drops off considerably. Brown/Cornell vs. UCLA/Rice/Northwestern/Berkeley/Emory/Michigan etc? Absolutely no way that you can make an argument for a bonus in medical school admissions.
#2 Undergrad multiplier. Goes along with the levels, but a 4 multiplier that indicates that this has more influence than any other thing on your application other than your stats? No. I played around with people's numbers and every single person if you changed their school up or down would raise or lower their level. The undergrad that you go to does not affect things nearly to that degree.
#3 Shadowing. Levels 1 and 2 are the same thing. You either have it or you don't. You either know what you are talking about when you say, "I want to go into medicine" or you don't.
#4 Letters of recommendation. These are as relevant as shadowing/volunteering/leadership&teaching/undergrad school. Having extremely strong advocates can change your application profile more than any of those other things. Is it hard for a student to figure this out ahead of time? Yes. But, given that it's multiplier would be significantly higher than any of those, it is relevant.

1. I think that an argument could be made, but for the purposes of this system, I think that in general they should be on the same level, which is why I'm amending that portion to be more inclusive.

2. My solution to this would be make UG a two tiered system - either you get a boost (+4) or you don't (+0). While the multiplier remains the same, the cap becomes lower so the overall impact lessens as well.

3. Fair point.

4. While I agree that LORs are hugely important in garnering interviews and acceptwnces, I don't think that they will change where people will be applying. This tool is not meant to predict acceptances to a particular group or school, just to give the applicant an optimal profile of schools to apply to. Adding on the difficulty of predicting truly how good your LORs are, I think that adding them into this system would skew self-evaluation to the extent that people would be saying "well my stats aren't great but my LOR writers love me so I'm going to apply mostly to Harvard-level schools" which would be counterproductive.

Thank you for giving such detailed feedback!
 
After seeing many very similar applicants in previous cycles (and this current one) receive interviews at places that I clearly wasn't even one of their top ~700 most desirable applicants, yeah I was surprised I didn't get more interviews. Maybe I got unrealistic expectations from SDN, but I really thought my application was strong enough that more of the top schools would at least want to meet me in person before waitlisting or rejecting me.

For perspective, look at all my similar-stat contemporaries on SDN this cycle.

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.
 
I think my post wasn't clear. @WedgeDawg what I meant was that this assumes that all schools are looking for similar applicants, and that the better schools just get the best ones. In reality the better schools often actively prioritize stats/research over clinical EC, which the current ranking system doesn't consider.

A LizzyM 80 applicant with strong research, but minimal other activities honestly probably has a higher % chance of being interviewed/accepted to tier 1/2 than tier 3/4.
 
Top