WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

Applying to Med School? Get In Or Your Money Back
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Thank you!
Members don't see this ad.
 
More data because doing something productive would be too painful. My ARS score was a 95 (S level), LizzyM=77.

I only included schools where I finished a secondary and then remained in their pool (i.e. didn't withdraw) until I knew they were done interviewing. The numbers will be a little different from my MDapps, but I think these are a more real reflection of my cycle since I initially applied too many places and then withdrew from or didn't finish secondaries for a bunch.

Despite being pushed heavily towards Category 1 schools by the ARS, I seemed to do best with the Category 2 schools. I should've listened about the low yield schools, but oh well.

mscs2014_ARS.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Thanks for the information and congratulations on a very successful cycle!

Just a reminder that this is a tool for constructing school lists in order to give you the best shot at getting into the best school possible, not telling you where you will get interviews/acceptances or in what proportions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
A significant problem that I see is that it gives you a boost for upward trend.... but what if your grades were A's throughout?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
WedgeDawg said:
Thanks for the information and congratulations on a very successful cycle!

Just a reminder that this is a tool for constructing school lists in order to give you the best shot at getting into the best school possible, not telling you where you will get interviews/acceptances or in what proportions.
Click to expand...

Of course. I actually didn't even find the ARS until after I had applied, so I was just looking into this for the sake of extra data. It was pretty accurate for me for getting interviews, and after that I feel the chances rest on a lot of things that a spreadsheet can't measure anyway.

One thought that I had would be that it might make sense to include an MCAT/GPA discrepancy measurement which would lower the stats score. I have a very high MCAT but my GPA was at the 10th percentile for the top 10 schools, and I think that definitely hurt me at a few (not that I would complain about how my cycle went, of course).
 
I think the system works really well and has for me. As for the HYPSM bonus, I agree because more so than prestige/rigor/etc, those are the schools that grab someone a second look or thought (conscious or subconscious). Duke is prestigious and all but when I see Duke, I think "Very nice school", but when I see HYPSM, I go "Wow, nice."
 
tantacles said:
Ok, ok, I'm unstickying it because pre-allo is overloaded with stickies. But I am going to bump it a ton.
Click to expand...
Cyberdyne 101 said:
I think you should re-sticky it because the "School X vs School Y" thread is not gonna be there for much longer.
Click to expand...
WedgeDawg said:
Challenge accepted.

Just kidding - we're working on our sticky thread policy and will have it figured out soon :p:D
Click to expand...

Also please note that whatever valuable advice/resources etc we find, we can add it to the Essential SDN Wisdom sticky. Its aim really is to serve as a directory linking to useful SDN advice without overloading the sticky section
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
i know you are very busy, but i was wandering if there was a projected release date of the updated version? thank you!
 
Here's mine. Only found out about this a couple of days ago and thought I'd give it a try. Pretty neat. Thought I'd try the same spreadsheet system as mscs2014 above.
I'd say my WARS score is ~86, and depending on how lenient you are with Clinical Experiences and my Misc sections, it could go up to the lower 90s. I know during my interviews, some interviewers really highlighted/loved parts of my app and other interviewers at other schools thought the same parts were just okay. So to be conservative, I'd say I barely make it to the S-level.

Also, an important note, I am a re-applicant and an MSTP applicant. I divided this application cycle into All Schools and Non-reapplication Schools. I only considered re-app schools as ones where I submitted secondaries for both cycles. I submitted primaries and not secondaries in the first cycle to NYU, UF, and UC-Irvine. Some schools (like NYU and CWRU explicitly asked in their secondaries if I applied to med school before).
Finally, it gets complicated because I turned down about half of my IIs (for complex reasons) and then withdrew from 2 of the schools at which I interviewed but before decisions were released.

If you strip away all my withdrawals, my total acceptance rate is 3/11 (27%), and if you also strip away my post-interview withdrawals my acceptance rate is 3/9 (33%), similar to mscs2014. But who knows how to play this numbers game. My cycle is funky/unconventional.

WARS.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I guess if you're a re-applicant and making a school list, it is highly advisable to not re-apply to category 1 schools (can't say the same for other categories because I mostly re-applied to category 1).
 
The current one, though it's many months old, will still be mostly accurate in the majority of cases. When I get around to updating, I'll be tweaking stats, which schools are in which category (especially low yield), and possibly modifying weighting a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Big thanks to WedgeDawg for making this, I used it a bit in my early app process. I have attached some of the preliminary results (wl's could still become accepts) of my cycle compared with how this system predicted I should apply.

EDIT: Made a mistake. I missed that BU was under LOW YIELD, and I added to it to HIGH.

qOXdVZi.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Pre II reject from Stony, and an acceptance from Yale...This process truly is crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 users
teeayejay said:
It's literally throwing spaghetti at a wall.
Click to expand...
Nah it's more scientific than that. @mimelim described it best: 1) The process is not random, people just don't know all the details. 2) One can reasonably predict the tier/type of school possible to get into, but which specific school within the tier/type is much more fickle and random. 3) Nothing is random.

That's the strength of this rating system. It's a relatively objective way of yielding proper tiers of schools for applicants in a way that doesn't overpromise or underpromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
avgn said:
Nah it's more scientific than that. @mimelim described it best: 1) The process is not random, people just don't know all the details. 2) One can reasonably predict the tier/type of school possible to get into, but which specific school within the tier/type is much more fickle and random. 3) Nothing is random.

That's the strength of this rating system. It's a relatively objective way of yielding proper tiers of schools for applicants in a way that doesn't overpromise or underpromise.
Click to expand...

Well I was more so talking about schools that are "within your league." It's not surprising if you get rejected from a top 20 with **** stats. And it's not as difficult as people make it out to be as far as finding the right schools. A little common sense (and reading) goes a long way.
 
XxThaDoggxX said:
Pre II reject from Stony, and an acceptance from Yale...This process truly is crazy.
Click to expand...
Makes sense though. Think about it from Stony Brook's perspective: they have the resources to invite 10% of applicants in for an interview. They look at his application and know that he's more than likely going to get an offer elsewhere that he would rather take. So why waste their time when they can snag someone who is more likely to matriculate?

That's the thinking that kept me semi-sane this cycle anyway :unsure:.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This is crazy accurate. I think I actually used this before I sent out my apps but got a really low score (51, E level) and ignored it.

Data: 2/10 GPA (3.52, 31); 3/5 research (lots, no pubs); 2/3 clinical (frequent but not sustained); 3/3 volunteering (lots); 3/3 leadership (lots); 3/4 miscellaneous (trained for 2 years for transcontinental charity bike ride while raising 700k for cancer research); 1/3 undergrad (UT Austin); 1/2 URM; 1/2 GPA trend

Applied to 35 schools (the majority of which will probably fall in Levels 4 and 6 but aren't explicitly on the list), 5 DO (ended up not finishing any AACOMAS secondaries though).
Level 1: 1 -> no interview
Level 2: 2 -> no interview
Level 3: 5 -> no interview
Level 4: 7 -> 1 interview
Level 5: TMDSAS schools (10) -> 2 interviews (not counting TCOM)
Level 6: 6 -> no interview
Level 7: DO schools, TCOM (1) -> 1 interview, 1 acceptance

ProTip: GPA trends are really important. Got called out on "inconsistent" grade trends during one of my state school interviews.
 
Last edited:
What does low yield mean compared to low tier?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
Heisman said:
What does low yield mean compared to low tier?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Click to expand...

Low yield indicates schools that receive so many applications that, regardless of their tier, it may not be a great idea for an applicant trying to save money to apply to. ~10,000 applications for 500 interviews, for example, would be low yield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
@WedgeDawg are you going to add a negative multiplier for downward GPA trends?

I had a downward GPA trend but with your current scoring system, I rank A. If I had followed this scoring system, I'd have went way too top heavy with my list.
 
Ooh ooh ooh I have an idea, @WedgeDawg there should also be a category for the date that you submit your application, i.e. June = 4, July = 3, August = 2, etc.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using SDN mobile
 
Guys remember this is a tool to help you create a school list, not a place that will predict where you will get in. It helps you create an optimized school list based on your application so that you are set up to get the best acceptances you can.

Also, I'm still in school for a couple weeks so don't expect updates until that's over. I'm hoping to do a full update this summer, so if I can find time to do that around my research fellowship, I will. As always, suggestions and comments are appreciated! I'm glad that people still find this tool helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Summerlax2016 said:
4.0 > Upward GPA trend > downward trend
Click to expand...
Of course, but that's not what the algorithm currently reflects, since someone with a 4.0 has a level trend, and is thus docked some points by the last section of WARS (although it's still an amazing and super helpful tool overall!)
 
EODguy said:
Curious about the GPA trend category. If I have a 4.0, I lose a point for not doing poorly the first year?
Click to expand...

I'd count it as an upward trend. Schools understand you can only get so high of grades, it's not like they're sitting there going "hm.. perfect grades, but they didn't keep going up. Do not interview."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Regarding the upward trend multiplier:

Going down a GPA level will generally lose you 5 points total. Having an upward trend will give you an extra 4 points. This means that having a higher GPA consistently will generally be (at least slightly) more favorable than having an upward trend.

And if you're already in the top GPA category, chances are you cannot have an upward trend. 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 (3.9 cumulative) is not significant enough to be called an upward trend here as all those GPAs are still very good. An upward trend would be more like 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.9 or something more drastic with a wider range than the previous example.

Remember also that it's basically impossible to get every point on this scale which is why the thresholds exist. There are just different ways to reach each threshold level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
WedgeDawg said:
Regarding the upward trend multiplier:

Going down a GPA level will generally lose you 5 points total. Having an upward trend will give you an extra 4 points. This means that having a higher GPA consistently will generally be (at least slightly) more favorable than having an upward trend.

And if you're already in the top GPA category, chances are you cannot have an upward trend. 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 (3.9 cumulative) is not significant enough to be called an upward trend here as all those GPAs are still very good. An upward trend would be more like 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.9 or something more drastic with a wider range than the previous example.

Remember also that it's basically impossible to get every point on this scale which is why the thresholds exist. There are just different ways to reach each threshold level.
Click to expand...

So just to clarify, if we have a consistently good GPA throughout college, we should put "1" in upward trend?
 
Mcatbot said:
So just to clarify, if we have a consistently good GPA throughout college, we should put "1" in upward trend?
Click to expand...

No because your GPA is already good and you're already earning more points due to the good GPA than you would with a lower GPA and an upward trend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
WedgeDawg said:
No because your GPA is already good and you're already earning more points due to the good GPA than you would with a lower GPA and an upward trend.
Click to expand...

I thought level 1 in upward trend means no upward trend?
 
WedgeDawg said:
No because your GPA is already good and you're already earning more points due to the good GPA than you would with a lower GPA and an upward trend.
Click to expand...
I have to say I find it tough to believe that someone who gets a 3.4 freshman and sophomore year, followed by a 4.0 junior and senior year, should be considered only 1 WARS point lower overall than someone who maintained a 4.0 every year. 1 point is pretty unlikely to change someone's category (S/A/B/C/D/E), so the difference between a 3.7 and a 4.0 seems much more significant than that 1 point difference in the final score seems to indicate. I could be wrong, and I did choose the most extreme possible example, but that's just my $.02
 
walloobi said:
I have to say I find it tough to believe that someone who gets a 3.4 freshman and sophomore year, followed by a 4.0 junior and senior year, should be considered only 1 WARS point lower overall than someone who maintained a 4.0 every year. 1 point is pretty unlikely to change someone's category (S/A/B/C/D/E), so the difference between a 3.7 and a 4.0 seems much more significant than that 1 point difference in the final score seems to indicate. I could be wrong, and I did choose the most extreme possible example, but that's just my $.02
Click to expand...

I would say that in that case, it's likely that even if the person had a 3.7 all four years, it's still unlikely to really change their ranking - a 3.7 and a 4.o are only separated by a single point on the color-coded stat table in most instances.

From the perspective of someone reading an application, if they saw a 3.4/3.4/4.0/4.0, they would likely see that this applicant figured out what was going wrong and fixed it halfway through college, and, if combined with a high MCAT score and strong application, the two 3.4s likely wouldn't break the applicant at all, particularly if they took difficult classes their last two years. I think that in this case, the difference between the 3.7 and the 4.0 isn't going the be anything highly significant.

However, in a case where the person decided to just take easy classes their junior and senior year to artificially inflate their GPA, it might be looked upon less favorably, again, particularly if their MCAT didn't show they really had mastered the premed material. In this case, I would say it would be disingenuous to say that this applicant has a true upward trend and they should not be awarded the extra points for it. Thus, the 4.0 would be significantly different than the (now inflated) 3.7.

Although this system tries to be objective as possible, having qualitatively defined categories injects some element of subjectivity to the process and thus every person running the calculation won't always make the same choices as another person looking at the same application. That's why I always advise calculating conservatively - "when in doubt, go with the lower number". This definitely holds true for the upward trend points as well.

You bring up a good point that the system is not perfect and it is certainly not intended to be. No algorithm can perfectly create a school list for an individualized applicant. However, combining an initial list created with this system with careful advice in the WAMC forum, an optimal list can be obtained.

I also agree that the weighting of maintained grades vs. upward trend is something that is at least worth looking into and when I go through and do a revamp, I will certainly make sure this is one of the things on the list to look over!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sorry if it has been answered before, but what is your definition of adequate shadowing?
I have about 8 hours from cardio and primary each and about 16 from shadowing doctors abroad.
Would this be 2 or a 1?
 
andrewwiggins said:
Sorry if it has been answered before, but what is your definition of adequate shadowing?
I have about 8 hours from cardio and primary each and about 16 from shadowing doctors abroad.
Would this be 2 or a 1?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask, it's probably not adequate.

EODguy said:
I haven't taken the test quite yet so I was using the average matriculant score as my theoretical on the gpa/mcat chart. In that scenario the results are the same for someone with a 3.7 and someone with a 4.0 (6 points). Then I got to the trend question and noticed that an applicant with a 3.7 + upward trend would get better numbers than me with a flatline 4. Seemed curious enough to merit the question.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you're saying. It's likely I'll end up tweaking the numbers a bit so that there isn't a jump on the table or a flatline in that case. Good point.

Random follow-on: If I go from a 4.0 for 90 credits than slip a bit in Ochem (I've had very smart people tell me they worked their tail off for a B in Ochem), would this count as a downward trend? 4.0-> 3.75 or whatever? What sort of a range qualifies as a upward/downward trend?
Click to expand...

This wouldn't be significant enough. A trend would be like 3.0 to 3.6 to 3.9 to 3.9 or 4.0 to 4.0 to 3.4 to 3.1. Something like 4.0 to 4.0 to 3.8 to 3.7 is pretty normal.

I have a friend who got acceptances at hopkins + harvard 10 years ago use your algorithm and he resulted as a B level applicant. This process is cray-cray and gets crazier every year! With population increase it makes sense that the number of William Hwangs applying to med school grows every year while seats remain relatively stagnant. Sad panda for rubes like me without 1st authorships in nature, silver at the summer games, and a sexy non-profit.

Props on the amount of work you've put into this, it's amazing!
Click to expand...

Differences, especially when it comes to the MCAT, definitely makes it so that applications from a while ago won't be able to come up with an accurate school list for a current app cycle with this algorithm.

And thanks!
 
This is awesome! Thanks for making this.
 
@WedgeDawg
Thought I would give my two cents as to how this turned out for me this cycle. I ended up with a score of an 87 according to your spreadsheet, which put me in the "S" tier. You recommend that "S" applicants submit applications in the following manner: 45% Category 1, 35% Category 2, 15% Category 3, and 5% Category 4-7.

What I actually did:

Category 1: 9 applications (41%); 5 interviews
Category 2: 5 applications (23%); 2 interviews
Category 3: 2 applications (11%); 1 interview
Category 4: 0 applications
Category 5: 1 application (5%), 1 interview
Category 6: 5 applications (23%); 2 interviews

I ended up with more interviews, more waitlists and fewer acceptances than I think your spreadsheet would have predicted. I'm glad that I spent time applying to the Categories 3-7 schools. My overall feedback:
- Stats: Make GPA and MCAT a continuous scale. With a 37/low 3.8, I ended up as an 8 instead of a 10.
- Leadership and Training: I counted working as a Resident Advisor as a 3, though I was a little more unsure about this. It came up at a significant proportion of my interviews in a positive light. There are more impressive things, but I think it's certainly plenty reasonable for an undergraduate to count this as really solid experience.
- Make having a high consistent GPA just as or more important as having an upward trend, it was weird to be penalized for consistently having a 3.7+.
- Your undergraduate school cutoff is probably too stringent. I don't think anyone in admissions differentiates between, say, UPenn or Amherst College vs. Princeton.
- Move of Category 5 (State Schools) to be a Category 0. Applying to only 5% Categories 4-7 schools meant that I would only apply to my state school and no other low-tier / low-yield schools.
- "S" tier applicants should be applying to more than 5% Categories 4-7. It's just too risky to do otherwise in my opinion.

A really cool system. Thanks for making this!
 
Long Way to Go said:
@WedgeDawg
Thought I would give my two cents as to how this turned out for me this cycle. I ended up with a score of an 87 according to your spreadsheet, which put me in the "S" tier. You recommend that "S" applicants submit applications in the following manner: 45% Category 1, 35% Category 2, 15% Category 3, and 5% Category 4-7.

What I actually did:

Category 1: 9 applications (41%); 5 interviews
Category 2: 5 applications (23%); 2 interviews
Category 3: 2 applications (11%); 1 interview
Category 4: 0 applications
Category 5: 1 application (5%), 1 interview
Category 6: 5 applications (23%); 2 interviews

I ended up with more interviews, more waitlists and fewer acceptances than I think your spreadsheet would have predicted. I'm glad that I spent time applying to the Categories 3-7 schools. My overall feedback:
- Stats: Make GPA and MCAT a continuous scale. With a 37/low 3.8, I ended up as an 8 instead of a 10.
- Leadership and Training: I counted working as a Resident Advisor as a 3, though I was a little more unsure about this. It came up at a significant proportion of my interviews in a positive light. There are more impressive things, but I think it's certainly plenty reasonable for an undergraduate to count this as really solid experience.
- Make having a high consistent GPA just as or more important as having an upward trend, it was weird to be penalized for consistently having a 3.7+.
- Your undergraduate school cutoff is probably too stringent. I don't think anyone in admissions differentiates between, say, UPenn or Amherst College vs. Princeton.
- Move of Category 5 (State Schools) to be a Category 0. Applying to only 5% Categories 4-7 schools meant that I would only apply to my state school and no other low-tier / low-yield schools.
- "S" tier applicants should be applying to more than 5% Categories 4-7. It's just too risky to do otherwise in my opinion.

A really cool system. Thanks for making this!
Click to expand...
Isn't his a system for predicting interviews rather than accepts? Since there's no way to control for/score interview performance. I think it worked very well for you regarding where you got IIs and that's all it is meant to!
 
Hi - thanks for your input. This isn't a predictive system, it's a tool for making an initial school list.
 
Help:

I should be an "S" applicant because of my MCAT/GPA, but I don't have scientific research. Every single school in category 1 has (92%-96+% research). If I submit apps to these schools, aren't I just throwing my time and money away?

Additionally, I am more interested in primary care schools. Would it be a good idea to switch out the tiers, then, with the US News's list?

@WedgeDawg, any advice?
 
Last edited:
To be MD said:
Help:

I should be an "S" applicant because of my MCAT/GPA, but I don't have scientific research. Every single school in category 1 has (92%-96+% research). If I submit apps to these schools, aren't I just throwing my time and money away?

Additionally, I am more interested in primary care schools. Would it be a good idea to switch out the tiers, then, with the US News's list?

@WedgeDawg, any advice?
Click to expand...

If you're more interested in primary care heavy schools, apply to schools that emphasize primary care. Your state schools are by far your best bet, especially if you're a strong applicant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm asking does your 'category system' not apply to me because I don't have significant research?
Ex. "Category 6 Do Not Apply."

Is the WD system, awesome as it is, strictly for candidates interested in going into academic powerhouses?
 
I think Wedgie's system just mirrors how the hierarchy works among med schools. For whatever reason, the schools that are "best" by metrics of residency director scores, student body stats, and peer institution ratings, also are loosely in the same order in terms of research. Thus the research powerhouses may still appeal to a very good non-researchy applicant, through the quality of instruction or peers or reputation or location, etc. And vice versa you can still be appealing to them - you'll just have to have some other interesting app narrative that gets you into that 5-10% accepted without research!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

HappyRabbit
Updated Post II Acceptance Rates 2023
2
Replies
95
Views
16K
HappyRabbit
HappyRabbit
D
WedgeDawg's Calculator and School List Discrepancies? Confused!
Replies
3
Views
2K
Goro
Goro
oatmilkplease
Current state of US health system and policy
Replies
3
Views
673
pablo213
pablo213
L
Jan-Feb Interview Invitations
Replies
2
Views
1K
MercifulCamper
MercifulCamper
P
Possible Updated Letter?
Replies
1
Views
290
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top