What would you change if you worked in medical school admissions?

[Sgucci]

First of all, I'd be very frank about whether or not holistic review is real at my school. If we are just going to screen for metrics and then look back at the application, I'd disclose this information. There's no reason not to disclose this sort of information. I'm not going to pander to idealism and the idea that everyone has a chance. This isn't an equal-opportunity meritocracy, tragically.

Secondly, I'd standardize the interview system better as in I'd plant students from med school in interviews without the interviewer knowing, so we can see who's a bad interviewer and who actually listens. So much of the interviewer process boils down to a passing opinion of an applicant by an interviewer who could mark the applicant down for any reason, and that's just messed up considering all the costs involved. When bad interviewers are found out I'd blacklist them from interviewing and make a database of bad interviewers that is visible to all medical schools.

As an interviewer I'd be very upfront on how I evaluate applicants, open to listen, rather than just claiming I am and marking the applicant down, and be very up front about the applicant's perceived weaknesses so the applicant can clarify.

I'd also truncate interview days because they are too bloody long for their own good, especially when applicants who are being rejected or waitlisted are still being strung around the whole day, which is salt in their wounds. I'd also cut out a lot of the less meaningful discussions, such as about financial aid boiling down to "get loans or you're screwed", and talks of how unique our pbl/lecture-based curriculum is (it's very uniform). I also wouldn't mark applicants down for having to leave early because of travel accommodations, which schools do all too frequently.

When applicants are rejected or waitlisted post-interview, I'd be very upfront about why because hiding behind the idea that the application process is too complicated is a farce at best. Applicants invest so much time and money into this process, and we're looking to create future doctors, not future physician burn-outs. I also would never tell applicants to go talk to their premed advisor in a rejection because way too often premed advisors are absolutely useless.

As for interpretation of how ECs are viewed, I wouldn't care about hours or numbers. If a person has one main shadowing activity and another main community service activity and they learned lessons critical to medicine and can articulate it well, then that's perfect.

I'd also weight physics and math far less than other premed courses because they are less important in medical school than fundamental bioscis, biochem, or physiology.

These are just my thoughts. What would you do?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted407021]

I'd screen for secondaries. I'll tell you what, these schools that send secondaries to every bloody applicant can be ridiculously slow.

 

[Mansamusa]

.

 

[wagonwheel23]

I'd lobby for eliminating US News rankings.

 

[bananafish94]

I feel similarly. If I were running the show somewhere, I would just increase the amount of transparency. There are a few schools that I applied to in July that I have not heard from once, for example. There are schools that will not give you updates on your application, schools that throw phrases like "hold" and "in progress" without telling you what it means. The applicants already know you hold all the cards. There is no reason to keep everyone in the dark. Just let people know where they stand. Tell them what it means if you're on the waitlist. Tell them roughly how many interview spots are left. Just my two cents.

EDIT: I would also not want my secondaries to be obscenely expensive. Charge a reasonable price for the secondary and make it rigorous...something that really, truly tells you about the quality and mission of the applicant. Not something that needlessly eliminates qualified applicants on the basis of their financial status. I know scores of people who have told me, "I would have applied to XSOM, but I ran out of money," myself included.

 

[Sgucci]

I'd screen for secondaries. I'll tell you what, these schools that send secondaries to every bloody applicant can be ridiculously slow.

OMG AMEN. Also I'd make screening for secondaries more meaningful. Secondary screening for schools like WMU and quinnipiac is also meaningless and says nothing because the metric cutoffs they use are super low. There's a lot of money to be saved for applicants if these metrics are adjusted and more schools pulled a vanderbilt and did real screening.

 

[gyngyn]

I'd screen for secondaries. I'll tell you what, these schools that send secondaries to every bloody applicant can be ridiculously slow.

This won't help without a limit on the number to which one can apply. The only thing that keeps people from applying to every MD program is the inconvenience of secondaries.

 

[Sgucci]

I'd lobby for eliminating US News rankings.

Ranking in general for medical schools is ridiculous imo. It's just an unneeded pissing contest when getting into medical schools is already is as hard as it is. If you get into a top school congrats, if you don't still congrats on your acceptance.

 

[bananafish94]

This won't help without a limit on the number to which one can apply. The only thing that keeps people from applying to every MD program is the inconvenience of secondaries.

Right. That and the fact that they cost $100 each....

 

[Sgucci]

This won't help without a limit on the number to which one can apply. The only keeps people from applying to every MD program is the inconvenience of secondaries.

What # would you set as a cap for the number of schools a student can apply to? I'm against this especially for CA applicants, when numbers of schools needed to apply to being unfathomably high is the norm.

 

[gyngyn]

Right. That and the fact that they cost $100 each....

It could be free with a cap.

 

[Officer Farva]

First of all, I'd be very frank about whether or not holistic review is real at my school. If we are just going to screen for metrics and then look back at the application, I'd disclose this information. There's no reason not to disclose this sort of information. I'm not going to pander to idealism and the idea that everyone has a chance. This isn't an equal-opportunity meritocracy, tragically.

Secondly, I'd standardize the interview system better as in I'd plant students from med school in interviews without the interviewer knowing, so we can see who's a bad interviewer and who actually listens. So much of the interviewer process boils down to a passing opinion of an applicant by an interviewer who could mark the applicant down for any reason, and that's just messed up considering all the costs involved. When bad interviewers are found out I'd blacklist them from interviewing and make a database of bad interviewers that is visible to all medical schools.

As an interviewer I'd be very upfront on how I evaluate applicants, open to listen, rather than just claiming I am and marking the applicant down, and be very up front about the applicant's perceived weaknesses so the applicant can clarify.

I'd also truncate interview days because they are too bloody long for their own good, especially when applicants who are being rejected or waitlisted are still being strung around the whole day, which is salt in their wounds. I'd also cut out a lot of the less meaningful discussions, such as about financial aid boiling down to "get loans or you're screwed", and talks of how unique our pbl/lecture-based curriculum is (it's very uniform). I also wouldn't mark applicants down for having to leave early because of travel accommodations, which schools do all too frequently.

When applicants are rejected or waitlisted post-interview, I'd be very upfront about why because hiding behind the idea that the application process is too complicated is a farce at best. Applicants invest so much time and money into this process, and we're looking to create future doctors, not future physician burn-outs. I also would never tell applicants to go talk to their premed advisor in a rejection because way too often premed advisors are absolutely useless.

As for interpretation of how ECs are viewed, I wouldn't care about hours or numbers. If a person has one main shadowing activity and another main community service activity and they learned lessons critical to medicine and can articulate it well, then that's perfect.

I'd also weight physics and math far less than other premed courses because they are less important in medical school than fundamental bioscis, biochem, or physiology.

These are just my thoughts. What would you do?

Basically everything you said about interviews for me as well. I dealt with too many crazies. The days are too long. Traveling is expensive.

Also, I would stop the special-snowflake selection process of finding applicants who are ex-gold medal athletes or broadway performers. And just focus on the brightest aspiring doctors or researchers. Not everyone has to be a researcher of course. But I trust a scientific mind more clinically than a special snowflake.

 

[gyngyn]

What # would you set as a cap for the number of schools a student can apply to? I'm against this especially for CA applicants, when numbers of schools needed to apply to being unfathomably high is the norm.

All IS publics could count as one.

 

[Sgucci]

Basically everything you said about interviews for me as well. I dealt with too many crazies. The days are too long. Traveling is expensive.

Also, I would stop the special-snowflake selection process of finding applicants who are ex-gold medal athletes or broadway performers. And just focus on the brightest aspiring doctors or researchers. Not everyone has to be a researcher of course. But I trust a scientific mind more clinically than a special snowflake.

Amen. It grants diversity to the process, but honestly walking into every one of my interview days and seeing almost every applicant there was either an ivy leaguer or "special snowflake" like you said left me jaded. If they're going for unique snowflakes they should look at diversifying their selection meaning less ivy leaguers.

 

[Lawpy]

First of all, I'd be very frank about whether or not holistic review is real at my school. If we are just going to screen for metrics and then look back at the application, I'd disclose this information. There's no reason not to disclose this sort of information. I'm not going to pander to idealism and the idea that everyone has a chance. This isn't an equal-opportunity meritocracy, tragically.

Secondly, I'd standardize the interview system better as in I'd plant students from med school in interviews without the interviewer knowing, so we can see who's a bad interviewer and who actually listens. So much of the interviewer process boils down to a passing opinion of an applicant by an interviewer who could mark the applicant down for any reason, and that's just messed up considering all the costs involved. When bad interviewers are found out I'd blacklist them from interviewing and make a database of bad interviewers that is visible to all medical schools.

As an interviewer I'd be very upfront on how I evaluate applicants, open to listen, rather than just claiming I am and marking the applicant down, and be very up front about the applicant's perceived weaknesses so the applicant can clarify.

I'd also truncate interview days because they are too bloody long for their own good, especially when applicants who are being rejected or waitlisted are still being strung around the whole day, which is salt in their wounds. I'd also cut out a lot of the less meaningful discussions, such as about financial aid boiling down to "get loans or you're screwed", and talks of how unique our pbl/lecture-based curriculum is (it's very uniform). I also wouldn't mark applicants down for having to leave early because of travel accommodations, which schools do all too frequently.

When applicants are rejected or waitlisted post-interview, I'd be very upfront about why because hiding behind the idea that the application process is too complicated is a farce at best. Applicants invest so much time and money into this process, and we're looking to create future doctors, not future physician burn-outs. I also would never tell applicants to go talk to their premed advisor in a rejection because way too often premed advisors are absolutely useless.

As for interpretation of how ECs are viewed, I wouldn't care about hours or numbers. If a person has one main shadowing activity and another main community service activity and they learned lessons critical to medicine and can articulate it well, then that's perfect.

I'd also weight physics and math far less than other premed courses because they are less important in medical school than fundamental bioscis, biochem, or physiology.

These are just my thoughts. What would you do?

I will make myself ADCOM for Life and proceed to enforce a nationwide cap on the number of schools applicants can apply, thereby saving a lot of money and improving efficiency.

 

[Officer Farva]

Amen. It grants diversity to the process, but honestly walking into every one of my interview days and seeing almost every applicant there was either an ivy leaguer or "special snowflake" like you said left me jaded. If they're going for unique snowflakes they should look at diversifying their selection meaning less ivy leaguers.

Random sidenote, my PI who is an MD/PhD scientist at a top 10 med school, has been complaining of the quality of med students in her lab in recent years. Apparently, she would rather have the smart cookie cutter bio major over the person with a PhD in literature or the ex-banker.

 

[bananafish94]

It could be free with a cap.

I could absolutely get behind that. It removes the financial burden and forces people to only apply places where they have a chance and want to go.

 

[Sgucci]

I will make myself ADCOM for Life and proceed to enforce a nationwide cap on the number of schools applicants can apply, thereby saving a lot of money and improving efficiency.

Also if my med school highly discriminated against OOS students, I'd put a giant warning that OOS students are seldom considered and say which schools are. It's atrocious that schools like University of Kentucky claimed holistic review for OOS students only to reject them solely based off of a metric in actuality during screening.

I could absolutely get behind that. It removes the financial burden and forces people to only apply places where they have a chance and want to go.

yea, no more OOS people applying to morehouse. Morehouse is literally swimming in $ for OOS students who have the misfortune to apply there.

 

[musicalfeet]

Basically everything you said about interviews for me as well. I dealt with too many crazies. The days are too long. Traveling is expensive.

Also, I would stop the special-snowflake selection process of finding applicants who are ex-gold medal athletes or broadway performers. And just focus on the brightest aspiring doctors or researchers. Not everyone has to be a researcher of course. But I trust a scientific mind more clinically than a special snowflake.

Uhh..in regards to the nontrad stuff...have you ever thought maybe there's a REASON the ex-gold medal athletes get picked out? Who's to say they don't have a scientific mind? Just wanted to point out that one doesn't reach the pinnacle of another craft without character traits that are also needed to excel in medicine. That's probably why adcoms do seek out people who've accomplished a lot in other fields. I don't regret my pursuit of music at all--it's taught me a lot of things and honed a lot of skills that are transferrable to medicine...in fact, I'm pretty sure I am better off going into medicine this way than had I went the traditional route.

The term special snowflake is demeaning because you imply it takes "less effort" to get there. Let me tell you, tons of people get into medical school, but I guarantee you the rate of people who have ever made it to the pinnacle of music is much less than people who get admitted to medical school. Even less are the people who actually get admitted to the top music conservatories in the country, and less than 1/2 of those students will even get to come out with a concertizing career. I do not doubt that it is the same for athletes, as well as getting cast in a major broadway production in New York City. The character traits that it takes to reach that level in those fields are the same character traits that will make sure someone gets through medical school and has the discipline to continue learning and growing as a physician.

 

[Spinach Dip]

Here's a list:


1. More clarity in the app process. I sent a couple secondaries to schools in july/august, and haven't heard anything yet. Get your act together. It does not take you 6 months to click "send rejection" on your email server.

2. Vastly simplify secondaries. There is no conceivable reason I should need to type out my prereqs again and again, or write 5x500 word essays on prompts which look like they were devised by a clinical psychiatrist solely so I can be ignored for 6 months.

3. Make everything cheaper. I think the best way to do this is everyone gets to apply to 10 schools for free (...or for a single low fee, like $100). If you want to apply to more, break out dad's credit cards. This would greatly benefit those who are of lower SES and can only apply to a couple schools in the current system, or those who are forced to apply only to schools within driving distance because they cannot afford to fly across the country.

4. Wanting to see something interesting from applicants is ok. Selecting someone because they are a rhodes scholar or olympic medalist or concert violinist is fine because there are so few applicants who have achieved something like that... But for God's sake STOP caring about how many hours Jane spent at the local soup kitchen or how many days Bob picked up trash from the side of the road or how many summer camps for deaf children Cait worked at. NOBODY is doing these things out of the kindness of their heart. They are doing them solely because adcoms like you WANT to see them. Put an end to the institutionally validated falsification.

5. Place more value on things which cannot be falsified or half-assed. Such as: speaking multiple languages, publications, advanced degrees, employment, poster presentations, etc.

6. It is freaking HARD to shadow physicians without being born into a family which knows a bunch of physicians. NEWSFLASH: Wanting to see shadowing of multiple physicians from several different specialties is straight up impossible for 90% of premeds. And most who shadow a physician for 40 hours learn next to nothing about actually being a physician from that experience. (I could learn more watching 40 hours of youtube videos made by physicians.) Requiring this only selects for the wealthy and well-connected.



Give me a few minutes to think and I'll have more...

 

[whatever5]

If it were me, I'd just do skype interviews and save everyone time and money. If you want to tour the school and meet faculty and all, great, but I think it makes more sense to do that after you're accepted.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

For the love of god why are interviews so damned expensive. there should be an interview FAP

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

If I were at Wash U or Penn, I'd adopt Duke's GPA and MCAT standards.

 

[RuggerMD]

My only request would be to reject me when I'm rejected. Silent rejections seem pointless for both parties.

 

[NotWayneBrady]

I could absolutely get behind that. It removes the financial burden and forces people to only apply places where they have a chance and want to go.

Exactly. A cap on the # of schools an applicant can submit for would solve so many issues for adcoms and applicants alike.

 

[CBFutureHelper14]

Not even close to applying to med school, but I can think of PLENTY of things I would change if I was an Admissions person:

1. Secondary applications must have Financial Assistance programs. Those secondaries are way too expense for many people to be able to pay. As alluded to in earlier posts, people with less money may only be able to afford to apply to one school beacause the app fees cost too much.
2. Skype interviews save time and money. No one really wants to fly across the country for an interview.
3. Don't put too much emphasis on shadowing. There are so many hoops to jump through, just to get a doc to allow you to shadow them, especially if they work in the hospital.
4. I would make the pre med curriculum more broad. Yes Bio and organic chem are necessary for med school, but is general chem and physics really necessary. Pre meds should take psychology, sociology, and criminal justice courses also.
5. I would not dismiss an applicant solely because of a less than perfect interview. Not everyone does well on interviews.
6. I think nontrads bring great diversity to the med school class and they aren't "special snowflakes" Not everyone can be the cookie cutter undergrad to med student.
7. GPA and MCAT scores can't really tell how well someone does in med school. You can have a perfect GPA and next to perfect MCAT score and flunk out of med school your first year. It is defenitely possible.
8. Technical standards should not be so vague. If an applicant has a disability such as ADHD, it doesnt mean they can't be a great doctor. I have read many stories where people with disabilities had to go to Carribean schools because U.S. schools would not take them because of the tight technical standards.

 

[Dr. Death]

Ban non-rolling admissions from the earth. Especially ones that don't tell their accepted students until March effing 15th

 

[Sgucci]

Not even close to applying to med school, but I can think of PLENTY of things I would change if I was an Admissions person:

1. Secondary applications must have Financial Assistance programs. Those secondaries are way too expense for many people to be able to pay. As alluded to in earlier posts, people with less money may only be able to afford to apply to one school beacause the app fees cost too much.
2. Skype interviews save time and money. No one really wants to fly across the country for an interview.
3. Don't put too much emphasis on shadowing. There are so many hoops to jump through, just to get a doc to allow you to shadow them, especially if they work in the hospital.
4. I would make the pre med curriculum more broad. Yes Bio and organic chem are necessary for med school, but is general chem and physics really necessary. Pre meds should take psychology, sociology, and criminal justice courses also.
5. I would not dismiss an applicant solely because of a less than perfect interview. Not everyone does well on interviews.
6. I think nontrads bring great diversity to the med school class and they aren't "special snowflakes" Not everyone can be the cookie cutter undergrad to med student.
7. GPA and MCAT scores can't really tell how well someone does in med school. You can have a perfect GPA and next to perfect MCAT score and flunk out of med school your first year. It is defenitely possible.
8. Technical standards should not be so vague. If an applicant has a disability such as ADHD, it doesnt mean they can't be a great doctor. I have read many stories where people with disabilities had to go to Carribean schools because U.S. schools would not take them because of the tight technical standards.

2 is perfect. I've been saying skype interviews forever. Flights are so expensive, and if flights are cancelled or delayed you're ****ing boned. there's so much unnecessary stress, and interviews are based off of such small impressions and assumptions that having a skype interview would greatly cut both the financial and emotional costs. Otherwise it's often times a colossal waste of time. Law schools which require just as much interpersonal skills can do skype, so why are med schools still stuck in the stone age about this? They should also stop the gimmicky interviews like MMIs. They're just goofy, and basically a round-robin popularity contest. Even though in MMIs adcoms claim you dont have to know anything about the topics to do well, it's so obvious they take points off if you don't. Just do two simple and short interviews and you can request a third if you feel you weren't well represented or something.

Another thing - stop taking off points from people for being scripted. It's so subjective and people with certain demeanors may appear scripted. I get medical schools want to see who we really are, but when interviewers can flatly read questions off of a piece of paper, what's the issue with having a prepared answer? Most schools ask the same exact questions anyway, so it's hard not to be scripted if you do multiple interviews, and schools literally reject people for being scripted. So at that point you're basically getting rejected for being too damn prepared, which is utter bull.

3 is also good. Shadowing also isn't really interactive or hands-on. In like a day you could pretty much get an idea of most basic medical disciplines, which means a lot of sitting around being bored and doing nothing. Also it's totally different from actually interactive hands-on experience, which imo is way more needed to get an idea of what medicine is like.

4, I agree 100%.

5. EXACTLY and interviewers can be so myopic and so assuming, it basically means you flew across the country for something shows nothing about your capacity to succeed in medicine. There also needs to be better ways to deal with bad interviewers. Like the times where I complained about bad interviewers I just got boned because adcoms often take interviewer impressions as a "100% concrete objective word of god" and the admissions people didn't want to deal with the issue or put more effort into the process than just "go interview and we'll evaluate you". **** that!
7. I agree especially when mcat scores are so over emphasized. WTF is the real difference between a 29 and 30? one ****ing point and yet it is overemphasized beyond belief in this process. It's meaningless statistics that show nothing.
8. SO ****ING TRUE. Also if you mention ADHD or having a learning disability in your app they'll reject you or assume you're making excuses. Medical school admissions needs to develop some serious tolerance and understanding for this ****.

 

[anonymous123456789]

Not even close to applying to med school, but I can think of PLENTY of things I would change if I was an Admissions person:

1. Secondary applications must have Financial Assistance programs. Those secondaries are way too expense for many people to be able to pay. As alluded to in earlier posts, people with less money may only be able to afford to apply to one school beacause the app fees cost too much.
2. Skype interviews save time and money. No one really wants to fly across the country for an interview.
3. Don't put too much emphasis on shadowing. There are so many hoops to jump through, just to get a doc to allow you to shadow them, especially if they work in the hospital.
4. I would make the pre med curriculum more broad. Yes Bio and organic chem are necessary for med school, but is general chem and physics really necessary. Pre meds should take psychology, sociology, and criminal justice courses also.
5. I would not dismiss an applicant solely because of a less than perfect interview. Not everyone does well on interviews.
6. I think nontrads bring great diversity to the med school class and they aren't "special snowflakes" Not everyone can be the cookie cutter undergrad to med student.
7. GPA and MCAT scores can't really tell how well someone does in med school. You can have a perfect GPA and next to perfect MCAT score and flunk out of med school your first year. It is defenitely possible.
8. Technical standards should not be so vague. If an applicant has a disability such as ADHD, it doesnt mean they can't be a great doctor. I have read many stories where people with disabilities had to go to Carribean schools because U.S. schools would not take them because of the tight technical standards.

Some valid points, others are less thought out.

1. From what I understand, students that qualify for FAP also have waived secondary fees. I'd agree that secondary application fees are a bit exorbitant.

5. While a less-than-perfect interview may not be a good thing, it may be a way to discriminate among many very qualified applicants. There are thousands of people vying for a seat at any given medical school, and if schools gave too much leeway here or there then there would be no effective way to distinguish between applicants. The interview is important precisely for the reason you listed it as a problem: because not everyone does well on them.

7. GPA and MCAT (MCAT moreso than GPA) are good for predicting success on Step 1, Step 2 and Step 3 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.6500&rep=rep1&type=pdf, http://www.internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon et al (2007) Acad Med.pdf).

Medical schools don't want to take any chances on an applicant passing the boards. Why would they? The mission of many medical schools, especially public state institutions, is to train physicians for the good of public health. Their missions are essentially forfeit if you can't pass the boards, and it makes little sense to invest resources and time into an applicant that is less likely to pass Step 1 when many other qualified applicants exist.

Caveat: It is worth noting that if we only consider PASSING Step 1 as an important goal to reach, then there is a certain point past which a higher GPA/MCAT doesn't really matter (https://www.aamc.org/download/434596/data/usingmcatdata2016.pdf, see page 52). Notably, at GPA 3.8-4.0, scoring anywhere between a 27-35 on the MCAT doesn't do much to improve the pass rate of Step 1. However, it likely has an effect on score of Step 1 which is still vastly important for medical schools as they like to boast about their match lists. Also while most students will EVENTUALLY pass Step 1 (<90%), the schools likely have to invest a sizable amount of resources in making the students who retake Step 1 successful. Not really worth it when you have plenty of applicants that are a safe bet.

While it certainly is possible for someone with a high GPA/MCAT to flunk out of medical school, it is less likely than the low GPA/MCAT counterparts (See above link, page 50).

 

[JessebenBenjamin]

Not even close to applying to med school, but I can think of PLENTY of things I would change if I was an Admissions person:


7. GPA and MCAT scores can't really tell how well someone does in med school. You can have a perfect GPA and next to perfect MCAT score and flunk out of med school your first year. It is defenitely possible.

Not very likely though...

 

[CBFutureHelper14]

Not very likely though...

It may not be likely but still possible.

 

[jqueb29]

Come up with some sort of commitment to practice in the state for OOS applicants desiring to live in that state in order for their application to be considered the same as an IS applicant with the same stats. My wife and I are from different states, and we very much want to end up in her home city. My stats were definitely not stellar enough for an OOS but would have been just fine for an IS student. But since there was no way for me to put my money where my mouth was as far as staying and practicing in that state, I pretty much had no shot.

 

[22031 Alum]

Another thing - stop taking off points from people for being scripted. It's so subjective and people with certain demeanors may appear scripted. I get medical schools want to see who we really are, but when interviewers can flatly read questions off of a piece of paper, what's the issue with having a prepared answer? Most schools ask the same exact questions anyway, so it's hard not to be scripted if you do multiple interviews, and schools literally reject people for being scripted. So at that point you're basically getting rejected for being too damn prepared, which is utter bull.

I was wondering where Monster_Cat had gone.

 

[anonymous123456789]

It may not be likely but still possible.

Plenty of things are possible but still very VERY unlikely. If you follow that link I sent you, you'll see that ONLY 0.9% students with the average accepted MCAT and GPA (~32 and 3.7) were dismissed/withdrew from medical school. This is in direct opposition to the 4.7% who withdrew/dismissed with a GPA of 3.2-3.59 and MCAT 24-26.

Don't make this about something being possible or not. Instead, think of not completing medical school as being FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY with a lower GPA/MCAT.

 

[CBFutureHelper14]

Plenty of things are possible but still very VERY unlikely. If you follow that link I sent you, you'll see that ONLY 0.9% students with the average accepted MCAT and GPA (~32 and 3.7) were dismissed/withdrew from medical school. This is in direct opposition to the 4.7% who withdrew/dismissed with a GPA of 3.2-3.59 and MCAT 24-26.

Don't make this about something being possible or not. Instead, think of not completing medical school as being FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY with a lower GPA/MCAT.

Understandable, but my point is still valid. That 0.9% is still people dropping/flunking with high GPA/MCAT. Although they could have flunked out for a number of reasons: family issues, burnout, bad study habits.

 

[gyngyn]

I was wondering where Monster_Cat had gone.

No, It's mrh125.
Edit: You are also right, Monster-Cat was one of his incarnations.

 

[Spinach Dip]

Not even close to applying to med school, but I can think of PLENTY of things I would change if I was an Admissions person:

1. Secondary applications must have Financial Assistance programs. Those secondaries are way too expense for many people to be able to pay. As alluded to in earlier posts, people with less money may only be able to afford to apply to one school beacause the app fees cost too much.
2. Skype interviews save time and money. No one really wants to fly across the country for an interview.
3. Don't put too much emphasis on shadowing. There are so many hoops to jump through, just to get a doc to allow you to shadow them, especially if they work in the hospital.
4. I would make the pre med curriculum more broad. Yes Bio and organic chem are necessary for med school, but is general chem and physics really necessary. Pre meds should take psychology, sociology, and criminal justice courses also.
5. I would not dismiss an applicant solely because of a less than perfect interview. Not everyone does well on interviews.
6. I think nontrads bring great diversity to the med school class and they aren't "special snowflakes" Not everyone can be the cookie cutter undergrad to med student.
7. GPA and MCAT scores can't really tell how well someone does in med school. You can have a perfect GPA and next to perfect MCAT score and flunk out of med school your first year. It is defenitely possible.
8. Technical standards should not be so vague. If an applicant has a disability such as ADHD, it doesnt mean they can't be a great doctor. I have read many stories where people with disabilities had to go to Carribean schools because U.S. schools would not take them because of the tight technical standards.

Well said. I agree more or less with 7/8ths of these.

I only disagree with #7. If anything, MCAT and Last45 GPA should mean MORE than they do currently. They should outweigh every piece of shadowing and volunteer activity because they are FAR better predictors of long-term success.

 

[Okazaki Frag Grenade]

I'd give interviews to everybody in that "oh no I don't have an interview" thread

 

[Sgucci]

@Cyberdyne 101 - so how's your premed **** working out for you since you're obviously far more invested in liking sdn conspiracy theories than anything? time to learn some time management man. See you in the reapplicants forum better be bring a tinfoil hat to your interviews so at least you get points for being appropriately dressed when you start muttering insane conspiracy theories.

 

[HybridEarth]

@Cyberdyne 101 - so how's your premed **** working out for you since you're obviously far more invested in liking sdn conspiracy theories than anything? time to learn some time management man. See you in the reapplicants forum better be bring a tinfoil hat to your interviews so at least you get points for being appropriately dressed when you start muttering insane conspiracy theories.

Lol

 

[Sgucci]

No, It's mrh125.
Edit: You are also right, Monster-Cat was one of his incarnations.

Do you believe in ancient aliens creating humanity too?

 

[22031 Alum]

@Cyberdyne 101 - so how's your premed **** working out for you since you're obviously far more invested in liking sdn conspiracy theories than anything? time to learn some time management man. See you in the reapplicants forum better be bring a tinfoil hat to your interviews so at least you get points for being appropriately dressed when you start muttering insane conspiracy theories.

I see why you'd want to stay on-script.

 

[Sgucci]

I see why you'd want to stay on-script.

*why he would. Because without it cyberdyne would be floundering like a fish out of water.

 

[Officer Farva]

Uhh..in regards to the nontrad stuff...have you ever thought maybe there's a REASON the ex-gold medal athletes get picked out? Who's to say they don't have a scientific mind? Just wanted to point out that one doesn't reach the pinnacle of another craft without character traits that are also needed to excel in medicine. That's probably why adcoms do seek out people who've accomplished a lot in other fields. I don't regret my pursuit of music at all--it's taught me a lot of things and honed a lot of skills that are transferrable to medicine...in fact, I'm pretty sure I am better off going into medicine this way than had I went the traditional route.

The term special snowflake is demeaning because you imply it takes "less effort" to get there. Let me tell you, tons of people get into medical school, but I guarantee you the rate of people who have ever made it to the pinnacle of music is much less than people who get admitted to medical school. Even less are the people who actually get admitted to the top music conservatories in the country, and less than 1/2 of those students will even get to come out with a concertizing career. I do not doubt that it is the same for athletes, as well as getting cast in a major broadway production in New York City. The character traits that it takes to reach that level in those fields are the same character traits that will make sure someone gets through medical school and has the discipline to continue learning and growing as a physician.

Call me old fashioned, but if I am a patient I would care little about the qualifications of my doctor outside of the field of medicine. If my doctor plays ten instruments or acted on Broadway, my response would be "Huh, cool good for you buddy". At the end of the day, when I am the patient (which is hopefully almost never), I want the expert, not the person with an eclectic variety of skills from a past career. I want my doctor to be an expert in his/her field, and I would care very little, if anything, beyond that. More often than not, that expert will be the science-geek (whether that person does research or not, I don't care) who is well-read in current treatments and is a leader in their respective field.

 

[virchow?]

Plenty of things are possible but still very VERY unlikely. If you follow that link I sent you, you'll see that ONLY 0.9% students with the average accepted MCAT and GPA (~32 and 3.7) were dismissed/withdrew from medical school. This is in direct opposition to the 4.7% who withdrew/dismissed with a GPA of 3.2-3.59 and MCAT 24-26.

Don't make this about something being possible or not. Instead, think of not completing medical school as being FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY with a lower GPA/MCAT.

Conversely, people with higher stats are only 1.04 times more likely to graduate than those with lower stats.
I kid, but it remains that if you have the chance to go to medical school, you will probably be okay. That doesn't mean your stats are poor indications of how you will rank within your med school class, though, especially in the first years.

 

[22031 Alum]

Call me old fashioned, but if I am a patient I would care little about the qualifications of my doctor outside of the field of medicine. If my doctor plays ten instruments or acted on Broadway, my response would be "Huh, cool good for you buddy". At the end of the day, when I am the patient (which is hopefully almost never), I want the expert, not the person with an eclectic variety of skills from a past career. I want my doctor to be an expert in his/her field, and I would care very little, if anything, beyond that. More often than not, that expert will be the science-geek (whether that person does research or not, I don't care) who is well-read in current treatments and is a leader in their respective field.

Most patients -who are laypeople, by the way- also like physicians who are able to relate to them on some level other than quoting studies and science-geek talk. Do you think that maybe those non-science interests could be a proxy for that? It seems really tough for you to grasp the concept that lots of people out there are able to be well-read in the current literature of their field, be widely considered leaders in said field, and still maintain other interests. Too bad if you aren't able to do that, but don't begrudge the people out there who aren't one-dimensional.

 

[Sgucci]

Most patients -who are laypeople, by the way- also like physicians who are able to relate to them on some level other than quoting studies and science-geek talk. Do you think that maybe those non-science interests could be a proxy for that? It seems really tough for you to grasp the concept that lots of people out there are able to be well-read in the current literature of their field, be widely considered leaders in said field, and still maintain other interests. Too bad if you aren't able to do that, but don't begrudge the people out there who aren't one-dimensional.

Science majors can still do that quite easily. Not everyone who majors in sciences and wants to go to medical school is an obtuse myopic individual who just spouts the latest scientific jargon and is unable to relate to human beings on an emotional level. In fact, most science majors are capable of that, and there is training put into the more difficult aspects of this e.g., handling death and dying with patients in medical school, thus making the playing field even more equal.

 

[Dr.TonySoprano]

Call me old fashioned, but if I am a patient I would care little about the qualifications of my doctor outside of the field of medicine. If my doctor plays ten instruments or acted on Broadway, my response would be "Huh, cool good for you buddy". At the end of the day, when I am the patient (which is hopefully almost never), I want the expert, not the person with an eclectic variety of skills from a past career. I want my doctor to be an expert in his/her field, and I would care very little, if anything, beyond that. More often than not, that expert will be the science-geek (whether that person does research or not, I don't care) who is well-read in current treatments and is a leader in their respective field.

hahahah "good for you buddy"

 

[musicalfeet]

Call me old fashioned, but if I am a patient I would care little about the qualifications of my doctor outside of the field of medicine. If my doctor plays ten instruments or acted on Broadway, my response would be "Huh, cool good for you buddy". At the end of the day, when I am the patient (which is hopefully almost never), I want the expert, not the person with an eclectic variety of skills from a past career. I want my doctor to be an expert in his/her field, and I would care very little, if anything, beyond that. More often than not, that expert will be the science-geek (whether that person does research or not, I don't care) who is well-read in current treatments and is a leader in their respective field.

Lol I think my point went straight over your head...so why don't I simplify it.

Someone who is highly accomplished in another field often has the character traits and desired personality to become an accomplished physician--not because they actually know other things, but that the skills and traits needed to become highly successful in another field are exactly the same one needs to become a great physician. So yes, often times these no traditionals will often also possess all the traits you want in a physician, perhaps even more so than someone who went in the traditional route

 

[Officer Farva]

Most patients -who are laypeople, by the way- also like physicians who are able to relate to them on some level other than quoting studies and science-geek talk. Do you think that maybe those non-science interests could be a proxy for that? It seems really tough for you to grasp the concept that lots of people out there are able to be well-read in the current literature of their field, be widely considered leaders in said field, and still maintain other interests. Too bad if you aren't able to do that, but don't begrudge the people out there who aren't one-dimensional.

To the contrary, family members of mine have said they would want the science geek without a personality that could cure them/treat them most effectively over the suave smooth-talker. They aren't looking for new best friends or a shoulder to cry on. Believe it or not, patients usually like being healthy and enjoying life!

Also, everyone has interests. Who doesn't maintain their interests? I love my friends, my video games, I play an instrument, and I am a huge football fan (American and soccer).