WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I have a question, I noted that you only considered HYP, stanford and MIT as tier 1.
However, what about other ivies that are just as difficult ( or arguably more than HYP), see Cornell, Columbia ecetera?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I have a question, I noted that you only considered HYP, stanford and MIT as tier 1.
However, what about other ivies that are just as difficult ( or arguably more than HYP), see Cornell, Columbia ecetera?
Prestige/reputation, not rigor. Some super rigorous high quality schools have never been heard of by most app readers (think Harvey Mudd) so they don't get brownie points. HYPSM gets more wow factor than a place like Cornell, so higher tier
 
Prestige/reputation, not rigor. Some super rigorous high quality schools have never been heard of by most app readers (think Harvey Mudd) so they don't get brownie points. HYPSM gets more wow factor than a place like Cornell, so higher tier
We love Mudders, but here is an example of a school with no pre-med advising!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Prestige/reputation, not rigor. Some super rigorous high quality schools have never been heard of by most app readers (think Harvey Mudd) so they don't get brownie points. HYPSM gets more wow factor than a place like Cornell, so higher tier

I still think Columbia, Penn, and Berkeley should at least be in the same tier as HYPSM in regards to prestige/reputation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The different opinions in the last few posts illustrate how varied perspectives can be regarding specific schools. Across the board, the big three, stanford, and MIT seem to be the most universally recognized as prestigious which is why they're in their own category. This may vary at individual schools who have schools they view as "feeder" schools. One example I can give is in Yale's most recent graduating class, 66 of their students (out of around 105) were from Duke, Stanford, MIT, Ivies. If you take away Duke and the lower Ivies, it still is around 30-45% of their class (I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, I was looking this up from my own post history, and I got these numbers from Yale on interview day - a current Yale student or someone who retained their interview packet may have more accurate information than I do).

Remember that individual schools are going to have individual preferences. I did my best to come up with categories that would be most applicable across the board, and I did so conservatively, as it is my opinion that it's better to advise applicants while erring on the side of caution. I don't want to over-inflate the importance that someone places upon their undergrad, so my highest level for UG school only has those that are most likely across the board to be viewed as prestigious. Remember that the goal here is not to tier undergraduate schools, but to help the applicant come up with an appropriate list of schools to apply to. By giving questionable boosts for something as nebulous as prestige, we move away from this goal, which is why I am not going to move any other schools into the top tier category for undergraduate schools. In the future, I may make this category binary and lump all "prestigious schools" together (and adjust the bonus accordingly) to make things simpler. However, due to medical school being medical school, I wouldn't expect major changes to occur until Thanksgiving at the earliest (though I am still reading every reply in this thread and doing my best to respond). Keep the ideas coming, but please make peace with the fact that just because a school isn't as high on a list here as you might think it deserves to be doesn't mean it's not a fantastic school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I don;t necessarily agree with you, I've seen and heard from Harvard students that Columbia and Cornell's work is just as hard if not worse than theirs. However, I respect your reasoning, and understand your thought process. I hope I will have better luck in this cycle. Your applicant system is certainly interesting.
 
I don;t necessarily agree with you, I've seen and heard from Harvard students that Columbia and Cornell's work is just as hard if not worse than theirs. However, I respect your reasoning, and understand your thought process. I hope I will have better luck in this cycle. Your applicant system is certainly interesting.
Again, not rigor. Harvard is inflated to parody levels, Cornell is generally known to be the most deflated/toughest Ivy for science majors and premeds. The thing is that prestige is not rigor. The layperson can recognize a name like Harvard better because it's more famous, much less likely that they know all the members of the Ivy League. Doesn't say anything about difficulty of the schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The layperson can recognize a name like Harvard better because it's more famous, much less likely that they know all the members of the Ivy League.

This is true, but members of adcoms definitely aren't laypeople when it comes to knowing which schools are more "prestigious" pre-med schools. I am biased towards Duke because that's my UG school, and yet still I know that many laypeople don't even know that Duke is a Top 10 UG, while EVERYONE knows Harvard is. But I am 99% confident that the VAST majority, if not all, adcom members know the relative "prestige" and difficulty of each UG school.

Now if you have data to suggest that adcom members still bias towards HYP/Stanford/MIT over other Ivies and Duke, even though I think they know quite well that it can actually be more difficult to get a high pre-med GPA at some of the other Ivies/Duke, then that's that.

We shouldn't be concerned about what "we" think are the most prestigious/difficult schools, or what we think "laypeople" think are the most prestigious/difficult schools, or even what actually are the most prestigious/difficult schools. We should only be concerned with the thoughts/biases of adcom members if we want the best algorithm possible.
 
This is true, but members of adcoms definitely aren't laypeople when it comes to knowing which schools are more "prestigious" pre-med schools. I am biased towards Duke because that's my UG school, and yet still I know that many laypeople don't even know that Duke is a Top 10 UG, while EVERYONE knows Harvard is. But I am 99% confident that the VAST majority, if not all, adcom members know the relative "prestige" and difficulty of each UG school.

Now if you have data to suggest that adcom members still bias towards HYP/Stanford/MIT over other Ivies and Duke, even though I think they know quite well that it can actually be more difficult to get a high pre-med GPA at some of the other Ivies/Duke, then that's that.

We shouldn't be concerned about what "we" think are the most prestigious/difficult schools, or what we think "laypeople" think are the most prestigious/difficult schools, or even what actually are the most prestigious/difficult schools. We should only be concerned with the thoughts/biases of adcom members if we want the best algorithm possible.
Here's a small piece of evidence from Doktermom (she's an adcom right?) Bryn Mawr is above Wustl Hopkins Vandy Berkeley and UCLA...wouldn't have expected that

The 'Wow Factor' is multi-level and is basically driven by competitiveness / selectivity --
At the very top level are clearly HYPSM + I would add Cal Tech.
Next level, the other Ivies, U of Chicago, Duke, West Point and Naval academies and some of the other big-name private schools (Amherst, Bowdoin, Bryn Mawr, Julliard, etc.).
Next level would be the very top publics (Berkley, UNC?) and well-known private LACs (edit - clarified) and private research universities. (Wash U St L, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt)
UCLA would be in the next tier, which is still really good--
 
Here's a small piece of evidence from Doktermom (she's an adcom right?) Bryn Mawr is above Wustl Hopkins Vandy Berkeley and UCLA...wouldn't have expected that

Not an AdCom, and that's not exactly what I meant...

To clarify, surveys have shown that AdComs from private medical schools consider the selectivity of an applicant's undergrad school as a very important factor in admissions. AdComs from public medical schools report that they do not. (Makes sense really. If you're a selective private, you might reasonably think they're better than public schools; if you're at a public school, you'd reasonably think that's snobby nonsense.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Not an AdCom, and that's not exactly what I meant...

To clarify, surveys have shown that AdComs from private medical schools consider the selectivity of an applicant's undergrad school as a very important factor in admissions. AdComs from public medical schools report that they do not. (Makes sense really. If you're a selective private, you might reasonably think they're better than public schools; if you're at a public school, you'd reasonably think that's snobby nonsense.)
Oh my bad, are you in fact a dokter and a mom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
@WedgeDawg is shadowing really this important? It's the difference between me being a high B applicant and an S applicant haha
 
@WedgeDawg is shadowing really this important? It's the difference between me being a high B applicant and an S applicant haha
According to the adcoms that frequent the boards, yes it is important that you've actually witnessed a "day in the life" type of thing before diving into med school. They also say it has rapidly diminishing returns once you can say you know what you're getting into - having 1000 hours doesn't make you that much more attractive than 100 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You might consider adding a bump for people who did not study biology, biochemistry, chemistry, etc. Schools seem to be very interested in people who studied history, engineering, business, etc. over the traditional 'pre-med majors.'
 
They also say it has rapidly diminishing returns once you can say you know what you're getting into - having 1000 hours doesn't make you that much more attractive than 100 hours.
So I've done four sessions for roughly 30 hours shadowing one doctor, which included two surgeries. Would you know if thats a 1 or 2 on Wedgedawg's form?
 
You might consider adding a bump for people who did not study biology, biochemistry, chemistry, etc. Schools seem to be very interested in people who studied history, engineering, business, etc. over the traditional 'pre-med majors.'

Not at all. Major doesn't matter. The experiences pursued do matter, and that has been already addressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You might consider adding a bump for people who did not study biology, biochemistry, chemistry, etc. Schools seem to be very interested in people who studied history, engineering, business, etc. over the traditional 'pre-med majors.'

What you studied doesn't matter enough to include it here.

@jaxon that's a 2, you're fine. As long as you can demonstrate that you know at least somewhat what you're getting yourself into, you've done your job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think Miami should be listed somewhere, as they aren't especially IS only. They even state something sassy on their website about how Florida doesn't fund them so they don't care about residency.

Also its slightly silly that the system is set to DO NOT APPLY for BU, Brown, Georgetown, Temple, etc. This is more of an issue I have with SDN culture in general, but I really don't think it's inadvisable for anyone to ever apply to those places.

Overall this thing is great and a big help!
 
I think Miami should be listed somewhere, as they aren't especially IS only. They even state something sassy on their website about how Florida doesn't fund them so they don't care about residency.

Also its slightly silly that the system is set to DO NOT APPLY for BU, Brown, Georgetown, Temple, etc. This is more of an issue I have with SDN culture in general, but I really don't think it's inadvisable for anyone to ever apply to those places.

Overall this thing is great and a big help!

I mean obviously the system is set to give recommendations, but people are free to go ahead and apply to those schools if they want to. In my experience, I only applied to two schools on the "DO NOT APPLY" list, and those are my only two rejections so far. So I feel like it would have served me well not to waste the app fees so I could try my hand somewhere else.
 
it's probably been answered but what does "Low Yield" mean?
 
I mean obviously the system is set to give recommendations, but people are free to go ahead and apply to those schools if they want to. In my experience, I only applied to two schools on the "DO NOT APPLY" list, and those are my only two rejections so far. So I feel like it would have served me well not to waste the app fees so I could try my hand somewhere else.

Students attend those institutions. I find it funny that if you punch in data as if you were a 4.0/39/Olympian/PHD who has been teaching health classes in Detroit and working on a suicide hotline for 6 years, you still get DO NOT APPLY for those schools.
 
it's probably been answered but what does "Low Yield" mean?

Tons of applicants (e.g. > 12,000, such as Georgetown, BU), so it's hard to stand out in the pack. Or for some places like Brown, they highly favor their own undergrads, and so the numbers for outsiders are misleading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Tons of applicants (e.g. > 12,000, such as Georgetown, BU), so it's hard to stand out in the pack. Or for some places like Brown, they highly favor their own undergrads, and so the numbers for outsiders are misleading.

But then why do they favor category C and D? Like why are higher categories advised not to apply
 
But then why do they favor category C and D? Like why are higher categories advised not to apply

I think because if you fall in A/B, you have solid shots at the schools that are not Low Yield (e.g. middle tier, lower tier that do not get tons of applicants, etc). But if you're in the C/D range, then your numbers may give you less of a chance at those higher tier schools, so it is still worth a go at the Low Yield schools because you can't be as picky. Did I get at what you're asking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think because if you fall in A/B, you have solid shots at the schools that are not Low Yield (e.g. middle tier, lower tier that do not get tons of applicants, etc). But if you're in the C/D range, then your numbers may give you less of a chance at those higher tier schools, so it is still worth a go at the Low Yield schools because you can't be as picky. Did I get at what you're asking?

Yup makes sense!! Thanks!!

Side note this is strangely accurate at least for my interview invitations. I classified as type C and got 1 category 3 interview, 3 category 5 interviews, and 2 category 6 interviews! I didn't apply to any of the category 4, definitely would have if I saw this before hand!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Trying to serve as an anecdotal, external validation (but of course, just n=1) of WARS here, so I have a question...

How should I differentiate between clinical and shadowing for the sake of this system?

I completed 320 hours (over 8 weeks, so 40 hours per week) of an undergraduate surgical internship at my local hospital as an undergrad. First week was an orientation to 'how the hospital works', and then each week after that I switched to a new specialty, working with a select few physicians in the operating room on various cases.

I not only 'observed' (shadowed), but I was also allowed to scrub in and assist with care. I even got to hold a patient's heart, which was an amazing experience considering I was only 20 years old at the time.

1) Would this be considered a '3' for clinical or a '2'? I know level 3 says its generally sustained for well over a year, but I would certainly say that my clinical endeavor exposed me to much much more than the average applicant.

2) Would my internship also count as 'shadowing', or because I never exclusively shadowed outside of this internship, should I still mark that as a '1'?
 
I would put it as 2 for clinical and 2 for shadowing. When in doubt, be conservative. With clinical, getting do to cool things doesn't mean it's a better experience. The purpose of clinical work is to make sure you are going to be happy working with patients in the long term. The two most important things (in general) are how sustained your effort was and how much responsibility you had.
 
Why is MIT second tier?

MIT students are just as good (arguably better) than those at HYPS.

I partially agree with you but maybe this is what adcoms think:

Way easier to get into if you're a girl. Especially Caltech.

Also, for the college admissions process let's say there's a pool of 10K elite high schoolers with a good shot at HYPS.

Only like 30% of that pool (3k) will apply to MIT...because not everyone wants to be a STEM major / like being in a school and culture with 100% STEM majors.
 
I'll offer some feedback, since I suspect my interview season is over. I was rated a low S-level (87) and applied to a list very close to what WedgeDawg's system recommends:

Category 1: applied to 9, invited to interview at 6
Category 2: applied to 9, invited to interview at 6
Category 3: applied to 2, invited to interview at 1
Category 4: applied to 0
Category 5: applied to 2, invited to interview at 2
Category 6: applied to 1, invited to interview at 1
Category 7: applied to 0

Overall: 23 applications, 16 interview invites. I'd say the system works pretty darn well!

Updated 6/2016: Wound up getting another very unexpected Category 1 interview in January!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Would hospital volunteering count as volunteering and clinical? Would shadowing also count as shadowing and clinical? Would a first freshmen semester filled with a B and A minuses followed by straight A's count as an upward trend? Does a year of tutoring at the university 250+ hours (a total of 25+ students and still ongoing) count as significant teaching/tutoring experience?
 
Accurate enough for me. I'm at C level:
5 cat 4 interviews--> 3 acceptances, 1 waitlist, 1 pending
1 cat 6 interview coming up
2 OOS public school interviews--> 1 acceptance, 1 I withdrew

@WedgeDawg Would you classify non-listed state schools for which you are OOS as cat 5?
 
In theme with the last post, I wanted to share my results. I am a non-trad with significant clinical experience and a strong post-bac.

I was rated at 53, E level. Per the program it would have me apply to DO schools and low tier schools (which is not wrong, but just limiting). I think that it would be hard to adjust such a tool for an abnormal applicant.

Category 1: applied to 1, invited to interview at 0
Category 2: applied to 6, invited to interview at 0
Category 3: applied to 3, invited to interview at 3
Category 4: applied to 10, invited to interview at 4 (including most TX schools)
Category 5: applied to 3 , invited to interview at 0 (other CA schools)
Category 6: applied to 2, invited to interview at 0
Category 7: applied to 7, invited to interview at 6
 
I'll offer some feedback, since I suspect my interview season is over. I was rated a low S-level (87) and applied to a list very close to what WedgeDawg's system recommends:

Category 1: applied to 9, invited to interview at 5
Category 2: applied to 9, invited to interview at 6
Category 3: applied to 2, invited to interview at 1
Category 4: applied to 0
Category 5: applied to 2, invited to interview at 2
Category 6: applied to 1, invited to interview at 1
Category 7: applied to 0

Overall: 23 applications, 15 interview invites. I'd say the system works pretty darn well!

Glad it worked well for you!

Would hospital volunteering count as volunteering and clinical? Would shadowing also count as shadowing and clinical? Would a first freshmen semester filled with a B and A minuses followed by straight A's count as an upward trend? Does a year of tutoring at the university 250+ hours (a total of 25+ students and still ongoing) count as significant teaching/tutoring experience?

Hospital volunteering would count as both. Shadowing does not count as clinical in this system. That would not count as an upward trend. I would put that as a 2 out of 3 for tutoring experience.

Accurate enough for me. I'm at C level:
5 cat 4 interviews--> 3 acceptances, 1 waitlist, 1 pending
1 cat 6 interview coming up
2 OOS public school interviews--> 1 acceptance, 1 I withdrew

@WedgeDawg Would you classify non-listed state schools for which you are OOS as cat 5?

Yes, I would probably classify those as Category 5 schools, but in my next update (which I will be working on over my winter break) I will be updating the school list extensively so keep a look out!

In theme with the last post, I wanted to share my results. I am a non-trad with significant clinical experience and a strong post-bac.

I was rated at 53, E level. Per the program it would have me apply to DO schools and low tier schools (which is not wrong, but just limiting). I think that it would be hard to adjust such a tool for an abnormal applicant.

Category 1: applied to 1, invited to interview at 0
Category 2: applied to 6, invited to interview at 0
Category 3: applied to 3, invited to interview at 3
Category 4: applied to 10, invited to interview at 4 (including most TX schools)
Category 5: applied to 3 , invited to interview at 0 (other CA schools)
Category 6: applied to 2, invited to interview at 0
Category 7: applied to 7, invited to interview at 6

As non-traditional applicants inherently have more variables to take into account, it's harder to use an algorithm to create a school list. Applicants like you would be more likely to benefit from personalized and unique advising rather than a system like this.
 
I think that I may have overestimate my research or clinical experience, or my small private school acted as a -1 as it were. At the time I completed this, I was considered Category A, but even with Category B, I am not quite sure why the results are as they currently stand
Category 1: applied to 4, invited to interview at 0
Category 2: applied to 4, invited to interview at 0
Category 3: applied to 4, invited to interview at 0
Category 4: applied to 2, invited to interview at 1
Category 5: applied to 3 , invited to interview at 3
Category 6: applied to 1, invited to interview at 0
Category 7: applied to 0, invited to interview at 0

I have not received many II, but I also have not been rejected at many schools, even those that reject pre-interview. So that may mean that I had the right stats to be in the maybe pile.
My best luck has been with OOS publics, though I have a feeling that when you make the changes, one of my category 5 will be moved to Category 3.
 
Just realized that 17/28 of my apps were to low yields or category 1-2.

I have good stats but only 4 interviews (my state school, another state school, a 2 and a 3). I guess I know what to change if I need to reapply next year.
 
Low S level

Category 1: applied to 6, interviewed at 4
Category 2: applied to 10, interviewed at 6
Category 3 and on: applied to 6, interview invite at 3, rejected at 3

(wish I found this before I applied!)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
High B level (78) and this is how my cycle has gone so far:

(invited for interview/applied to)
Category 1: 0/2
Category 2: 3/3
Category 3: 2/2
Category 4: 2/2
Category 5: 2/3

Question: In practice, would an applicant with, for example, a 3.9 GPA and an upward trend have a stronger application than an applicant with a 4.0 GPA, all other things being equal? That's a difference of 4 points in this system.
 
High B level (78) and this is how my cycle has gone so far:

(invited for interview/applied to)
Category 1: 0/2
Category 2: 3/3
Category 3: 2/2
Category 4: 2/2
Category 5: 2/3

Question: In practice, would an applicant with, for example, a 3.9 GPA and an upward trend have a stronger application than an applicant with a 4.0 GPA, all other things being equal? That's a difference of 4 points in this system.

No, that would not be an upward trend. An upward trend would consist of an initial period of poor or mediocre performance followed by a consistent period of stellar performance. A 3.9 is functionally equivalent to a 4.0 in most circumstances. An example of an upward trend would be:

Freshman GPA - 3.1
Sophomore GPA - 3.6
Junior GPA - 4.0
Senior GPA - 4.0
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
which tier would you put CCLCM in?

I would probably consider CCLCM in Category 2, same as Case. It is probably more competitive than Case, and has the added consideration that they are going to weigh your research experience more heavily than most other schools, but yeah. I think it would count as Category 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
what are the categories based on? cclcm is affiliated with cleveland clinic, has a year of research, and is pretty competitive with a small class size
 
I'm actually going to be doing a total revamp of categories over my winter break, so don't worry about that too much right now.
 
Top