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

[gyngyn]

I was wondering where Monster_Cat had gone.

@Cyberdyne 101 gets credit for the early id, not me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[22031 Alum]

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).

Ah, okay. My bad. What you've heard from family members trumps what I've seen in my years of being an actual physician who has taken care of thousands of patients. Cool. Thanks for educating me.

 

[Sgucci]

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

That's highly unlikely. Though WASHU does use the last few days of their interview cycle to interview diversity candidates with lower mcats/gpa than the norm. Most of them end up rejected or on the waitlist, however because the adcoms have a penchant towards maintaining the high mcats they have.

 

[Sgucci]

@Cyberdyne gets credit for the early id, not me.

OMG Officer farva is him too because he also complains about interviews too.
Your logic doesn't fly anywhere except in law enforcement. We're having a civil conversation so keep on topic, instead of posting blind accusations.

 

[Officer Farva]

OMG Officer farva is him too because he also complains about interviews too.
Your logic doesn't fly anywhere except in law enforcement. We're having a civil conversation so keep on topic, instead of posting blind accusations.

I just wanted to post and say I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just like being extremely honest in my conversations and posts. I am not your usual yesman who will say medicine and admissions and our university system is perfect.

 

[gyngyn]

I just wanted to post and say I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just like being extremely honest in my conversations and posts. I am not your usual yesman who will say medicine and admissions and our university system is perfect.

Neither are we.

 

[Sgucci]

I just wanted to post and say I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just like being extremely honest in my conversations and posts. I am not your usual yesman who will say medicine and admissions and our university system is perfect.

We are people from the same base. Oour opinions are some of the most honest and real on sdn, especially with interviews (the elephant in the room which nobody wants to acknowledge) which is why posters e.g., cyberdyne devolve to name calling rather than acknowledge the validity of what we say.

 

[Officer Farva]

We are people from the same base. Oour opinions are some of the most honest and real on sdn, especially with interviews (the elephant in the room which nobody wants to acknowledge) which is why posters e.g., cyberdyne devolve to name calling rather than acknowledge the validity of what we say.

Amen. Who else enjoys talking about alternative careers, the flaws of our education system, and even something as minute as the quality of food at interviews as much as we do?

 

[johnnytest]

I'd like to jump in on this..

1. More transparency. Weekly updates on school website of the # of: applicants received, interviews offered, interviews left, applicants accepted, seats remaining (post May 1st?), applicants on waitlist (post May 1st), applicants rejected. average stats of applicants for each category would be a plus.

2. Option for skype interviews +1

3. No silent rejections, waitlists, or holds. Explain chances of getting off waitlist/hold. Provide stats from previous years.

4. Monthly batches of acceptances with equal # of acceptances each round.

5. Only offer interviews if acceptances can be offered.

6. If academic stats or any red flags (letters, grades, etc) led to rejection I would inform applicants of this. Otherwise, explaining why competitive applicants were rejected could get messy and time consuming.

7. I would care more about what activities an applicant did and how they intend to contribute to my school. Also, they have to know why at that moment in their life they want to go into medicine. I don't expect a perfect answer to such a question because most probably don't know what it means to be a doctor until actually becoming one. But, a half-assed answer would be looked down upon.

8. I favor holistic review and diversity for medicine. But, there does need to be a cut-off for GPA and MCAT. But, after a certain threshold, GPA (3.5+) and MCAT (30+/510+) would not matter.

9. Relaxed interviews. There will be plenty of stress in med school.

 

[22031 Alum]

I just wanted to post and say I am sorry if I offended anyone, I just like being extremely honest in my conversations and posts. I am not your usual yesman who will say medicine and admissions and our university system is perfect.

I don't think you've offended anyone. I certainly don't think the system is perfect, but I also don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be- mainly because I'm looking at it from the other side, and can see the importance of some of the things you dismiss.

We are people from the same base. Oour opinions are some of the most honest and real on sdn, especially with interviews (the elephant in the room which nobody wants to acknowledge) which is why posters e.g., cyberdyne devolve to name calling rather than acknowledge the validity of what we say.

Not many of us are acknowledging the validity of what you say because most of us think you're wrong.

 

[Sgucci]

Amen. Who else enjoys talking about alternative careers, the flaws of our education system, and even something as minute as the quality of food at interviews as much as we do?

haha. It's so refreshing to see someone else notice these issues after I've been thinking about them for so long and lamenting about them on the tedious dragged-out 8+ hour long interview days and flights delayed 3+ hours because obama decided to make a surprise appearance .

 

[Sgucci]

I don't think you've offended anyone. I certainly don't think the system is perfect, but I also don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be- mainly because I'm looking at it from the other side, and can see the importance of some of the things you dismiss.



Not many of us are acknowledging the validity of what you say because most of us think you're wrong.

Many are, check the first page and you'll see many liked my post and agreed. You're just surrounding yourself by yes men and being too myopic to notice. Saying I'm wrong isn't justification either. You think i'm wrong? Well, then post why and explain, then we'll see if you have any validity in your argument.

 

[Officer Farva]

I'd like to jump in on this..

1. More transparency. Weekly updates on school website of the # of: applicants received, interviews offered, interviews left, applicants accepted, seats remaining (post May 1st?), applicants on waitlist (post May 1st), applicants rejected. average stats of applicants for each category would be a plus.

2. Option for skype interviews +1

3. No silent rejections, waitlists, or holds. Explain chances of getting off waitlist/hold. Provide stats from previous years.

4. Monthly batches of acceptances with equal # of acceptances each round.

5. Only offer interviews if acceptances can be offered.

6. If academic stats or any red flags (letters, grades, etc) led to rejection I would inform applicants of this. Otherwise, explaining why competitive applicants were rejected could get messy and time consuming.

7. I would care more about what activities an applicant did and how they intend to contribute to my school. Also, they have to know why at that moment in their life they want to go into medicine. I don't expect a perfect answer to such a question because most probably don't know what it means to be a doctor until actually becoming one. But, a half-assed answer would be looked down upon.

8. I favor holistic review and diversity for medicine. But, there does need to be a cut-off for GPA and MCAT. But, after a certain threshold, GPA (3.5+) and MCAT (30+/510+) would not matter.

9. Relaxed interviews. There will be plenty of stress in med school.

Just one thing. I have done skype interviews before at Case Western, no bueno. It is kind of awkward, eye contact is difficult between a web camera and monitor, and it is nicer to discuss things in person with another human being. However, I would not mind regional interviews close to home!

 

[Sgucci]

Just one thing. I have done skype interviews before at Case Western, no bueno. It is kind of awkward, eye contact is difficult between a web camera and monitor, and it is nicer to discuss things in person with another human being. However, I would not mind regional interviews close to home!

Skype is weird, but it's easy to get used to. Some medical schools used to do regional interviews, and it honestly baffles me why the hell they don't do it now?!

 

[gyngyn]

Just one thing. I have done skype interviews before at Case Western, no bueno. It is kind of awkward, eye contact is difficult between a web camera and monitor, and it is nicer to discuss things in person with another human being. However, I would not mind regional interviews close to home!

Many of the the most important aspects of an applicant's ability to interact are observed outside the "interview proper."
The opportunity to recruit is almost entirely lost at regional interviews.

 

[22031 Alum]

Many are, check the first page and you'll see many liked my post and agreed. You're just surrounding yourself by yes men and being too myopic to notice. Saying I'm wrong isn't justification either. You think i'm wrong? Well, then post why and explain, then we'll see if you have any validity in your argument.

I think you are wrong because I believe that interpersonal skills are more important in medicine than you do. I believe that in-person interviews, while not perfect, are the best tool we have to even begin to assess those. I believe that if you are consistently getting feedback that you sound scripted, it may be a marker for eventual difficulty handling the nuances and more unpredictable aspects of human interaction, which play a huge role in medicine. It is entirely possible that as an obstetrician, I may be giving more weight to these skills than, say, a pathologist would. But the fact that you are so dismissive of them is concerning to me.

 

[Sgucci]

I think you are wrong because I believe that interpersonal skills are more important in medicine than you do. I believe that in-person interviews, while not perfect, are the best tool we have to even begin to assess those. I believe that if you are consistently getting feedback that you sound scripted, it may be a marker for eventual difficulty handling the nuances and more unpredictable aspects of human interaction, which play a huge role in medicine. It is entirely possible that as an obstetrician, I may be giving more weight to these skills than, say, a pathologist would. But the fact that you are so dismissive of them is concerning to me.

I never said I was consistently getting this feedback. I'm just bringing up issues I've found with the interview system. Interpersonal skills are very important, but honestly interview issues and rejects can boil down more to a difference of opinion, over-generalizations on the part of an interview, miscommunication and just plain bad interviewing, rather than a deficit in inter-personal communication. That's what's the most troubling, and when that is the case, and decisions are made over petty things that reflect very little or mis-impressions and clarification does nothing, there should be:
A) more accommodations for another interview (this simply isn't done)
B) Skype interview - although there are interpersonal qualities more readily visible in-person, look at the astronomical costs of the process to be rejected for nonsensical reasons, and the added insult to injury of being dragged around for another 8+ hrs after that.

There should be more recognition on the fact that interviews aren't objective and it doesnt take much to sink an applicant for the wrong reasons on the part of interviewers.

Your generalization about scriptedness doesn't help, and is just a way of justifying short-sighted biases by adcoms. Interview feedback is almost never uniform, and all being scripted for an interview indicates is you overprepared like studying for a test or had the same questions asked multiple times (look at frequent interviewers who are asked the same questions 20 bajillion times). That has nothing to do with the nuances of human interaction and interpersonal communication. You make it sound like being scripted means you're autistic.

Do professors that give the same damn lecture for 30+ years have deficits in human interaction? hell no, they are in a routine because they did it for so long. Same goes for people in interviews who get asked the same questions a billion times. It is the responsibility of applicants to remedy this (it's quite easy), but If adcoms were more creative with questions instead of asking the same canned questions over and over again this would be a non issue.

 

[22031 Alum]

There should be more recognition on the fact that interviews aren't objective and it doesnt take much to sink an applicant for the wrong reasons on the part of interviewers.

So your argument is that since interviews are subjective, they should at least be cheaper. I don't disagree that the financial burden can be crushing for a lot of applicants. I do disagree that there are rejections happening left and right because of "petty" things at interviews.

On the actual thread topic, I'd like to add that I will sing the praises of rolling admissions until my dying day. I believe you can still put together a balanced class by admitting in batches. Making an earlier decision lets everyone can move on with their lives, and for some, could allow them to save money by withdrawing earlier once they have an acceptance in hand.

 

[Officer Farva]

I never said I was consistently getting this feedback. I'm just bringing up issues I've found with the interview system. Interpersonal skills are very important, but honestly interview issues and rejects can boil down more to a difference of opinion, over-generalizations on the part of an interview, miscommunication and just plain bad interviewing, rather than a deficit in inter-personal communication. That's what's the most troubling, and when that is the case, and decisions are made over petty things that reflect very little or mis-impressions and clarification does nothing, there should be:
A) more accommodations for another interview (this simply isn't done)
B) Skype interview - although there are interpersonal qualities more readily visible in-person, look at the astronomical costs of the process to be rejected for nonsensical reasons, and the added insult to injury of being dragged around for another 8+ hrs after that.

There should be more recognition on the fact that interviews aren't objective and it doesnt take much to sink an applicant for the wrong reasons on the part of interviewers.

I think medical schools should carefully vet interviewers, it is a miracle that some (but not all of course) of these people that interviewed me actually went to medical school. I have been asked very inappropriate, PERSONAL questions about my family that should not be relevant in an interview setting.

And the thing is, you cannot report these people, out of fear they might go out of their way to mess up applications at that school and other schools.

 

[gyngyn]

I think medical schools should carefully vet interviewers, it is a miracle that some (but not all of course) of these people that interviewed me actually went to medical school. I have been asked very inappropriate, PERSONAL questions about my family that should not be relevant in an interview setting.

And the thing is, you cannot report these people, out of fear they might go out of their way to mess up applications at that school and other schools.

Go ahead and report them. It is more likely to improve your odds than hurt them. No admissions dean wants a bad interviewer and they can't get rid of them without a report.

 

[Officer Farva]

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

Isn't it unfair to college seniors and recent grads to measure them up to very accomplished individuals like that who are several years out of school? These young ones have to start somewhere, and should not be penalized for knowing earlier in life that they like medicine. These more accomplished people often had their own careers, why should their second chance at a career be weighed more heavily than the college kid's first chance? Provided that the college kid or grad is very accomplished in their own right of course. I believe that the more years someone is in practice, the more they can contribute to medicine and the good of their patients. My traditional friends feel like they are getting squeezed out by non-trads.

Your most qualified undergrad researcher cannot measure up to even the least accomplished PhD. The best intramural athlete (me) cannot compete against the professional ball player. My guitar and piano playing hobbies cannot compete with the person who was in a band.

Go ahead and report them. It is more likely to improve your odds than hurt them. No admissions dean wants a bad interviewer and they can't get rid of them without data.

To be honest, I am still kind of afraid to do that. I have it ingrained into my head that this possibility, no matter how minute, is in fact possible.

 

[Sgucci]

Go ahead and report them. It is more likely to improve your odds than hurt them. No admissions dean wants a bad interviewer and they can't get rid of them without data.

What do you have to say about admissions deans that don't really care, will do nothing, and are like "there's nothing we can do?" More often than not that's what happens. Also if the interviewer is well-known and has a high-ranking position at the school odds are even worse for applicants

I think medical schools should carefully vet interviewers, it is a miracle that some (but not all of course) of these people that interviewed me actually went to medical school. I have been asked very inappropriate, PERSONAL questions about my family that should not be relevant in an interview setting.

And the thing is, you cannot report these people, out of fear they might go out of their way to mess up applications at that school and other schools.

Seriously.

So your argument is that since interviews are subjective, they should at least be cheaper. I don't disagree that the financial burden can be crushing for a lot of applicants. I do disagree that there are rejections happening left and right because of "petty" things at interviews.

On the actual thread topic, I'd like to add that I will sing the praises of rolling admissions until my dying day. I believe you can still put together a balanced class by admitting in batches. Making an earlier decision lets everyone can move on with their lives, and for some, could allow them to save money by withdrawing earlier once they have an acceptance in hand.

My argument is that interviews can be insanely fair and subjective for the wrong reasons, and there should be some way to lessen the cost for applicants, whether financially or through mechanisms put in place to negate some of the more BS parts of interviews, instead of interviewers words on applicants being taken as fact by adcoms. There's also a huge difference between bombing an interview and being marked down or rejected because of some bs the interviewer assumed and wouldn't listen to when you clarified. The latter is ridiculous and if that's what's going to be done it can easily be done over skype, instead of thousands of miles away.

 

[gyngyn]

What do you have to say about admissions deans that don't really care, will do nothing, and are like "there's nothing we can do?" More often than not that's what happens. Also if the interviewer is well-known and has a high-ranking position at the school odds are even worse for applicants

This has not been my experience. I have plenty of experience to the contrary, in fact. You have no basis for saying that "more often than not that's what happens." Most interviewers are well-meaning volunteers, not "high ranking." Hundreds of faculty observers/interviewers are necessary, not some small evil cadre.

 

[Sgucci]

This has not been my experience. I have plenty of experience to the contrary, in fact. You have no basis for saying that "more often than not that's what happens." Most interviewers are volunteers, not "high ranking."

I have the basis of my experiences in interviews, talking to deans of admissions afterwards, and the experiences of talking to others on the trail who have had similar experiences, and I'm sure officer farva can definitely chime in as well. If you're looking to truly remedy issues such as what I mention you should not decry my points as having no basis because that's more covering up and saving face than remedying the deficiencies of this process.

Not all of my examples are from interviewers higher up on the chain, but one was with the dean of third and fourth year rotations, and it was made so damn obvious that nothing was going to be done because he had such influence over the process. Also, if it is a faculty member or someone in a position of influence on adcom it's even easier for their argument to be rationalized about not wanting a student here. Applicants have no defense against that. If your school MMIs I can see your volunteering comment being the case, but in the traditional format I've seen more faculty, deans, and closely affiliated clinicians than volunteers and clinicians that are farther away from association with the med school. I'm also glad if your school DOES in fact address issues like the ones I mentioned because they should not go unnoticed.

 

[gyngyn]

To be honest, I am still kind of afraid to do that. I have it ingrained into my head that this possibility, no matter how minute, is in fact possible.

Have no fear. You are in a strong position. Use it.

 

[Officer Farva]

I have to stop posting on this thread.

I think admissions should reward passion, not cookie cutting ECs divided between research, volunteering, clinical volunteering, and leadership. Lots of adcoms will themselves say that they want to see passion, however a lot of premeds divided their time time between all those activities.

If you love research, just focus on research. If you love helping the needy, spend all your time volunteering. If you want to get close to patients early, go become an EMT before medical school. If you are the high-school class president type, join all the clubs and be on all the E-boards.

I hope the system evolves into something that in the future rewards applicants finding their own passion over boxchecking. I know I wasn't a fan of all the shadowing and soup kitchen volunteering I did!

 

[Sgucci]

To be honest, I am still kind of afraid to do that. I have it ingrained into my head that this possibility, no matter how minute, is in fact possible.

Just try, you have nothing to lose, and the worst that can happen is nothing will change. IMO it's worse to standby idle because it enables interviewers to continue pulling that sort of BS, even though it can be hard to speak up.

 

[Sgucci]

I have to stop posting on this thread.

I think admissions should reward passion, not cookie cutting ECs divided between research, volunteering, clinical volunteering, and leadership. Lots of adcoms will themselves say that they want to see passion, however a lot of premeds divided their time time between all those activities.

If you love research, just focus on research. If you love helping the needy, spend all your time volunteering. If you want to get close to patients early, go become an EMT before medical school. If you are the high-school class president type, join all the clubs and be on all the E-boards.

I hope the system evolves into something that in the future rewards applicants finding their own passion over boxchecking. I know I wasn't a fan of all the shadowing and soup kitchen volunteering I did!

Agreed 100%. I also hope the system evolves ways of recognizing and reward unique passions. There's no one size fits all, nor should there be.

 

[gyngyn]

Just try, you have nothing to lose, and the worst that can happen is nothing will change. IMO it's worse to standby idle because it enables interviewers to continue pulling that sort of BS, even though it can be hard to speak up.

What's the world coming to when I agree with @mrh125!

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

The Skype Interview problem I have is that remember, interpersonal skills go well beyond being able to converse with an interviewer. Can you interact with your classmates as you would your fellow physicians? Can you interact with higher ups as you would in administration? Are you introverted? Extroverted? I've personally been treated by doctors who are introverts and who are extroverts, and have worked with doctors of both personality types, and let me tell you, I would HATE to work with a doctor who is an introvert.

 

[hopefulERdoc251]

Also, the idea behind standardization is good in theory. I know people who've gotten easy interviews, accepted and vice versa. But your everyday situation won't be "standard" as a physician, whether it's in the ER, in the office as a PCP, or even some specialty such as derm/ortho/ect. Being able to think on the fly, think spontaneously isn't something that can necessarily be concluded from an interview.

 

[NorthOfBroad]

I think interviews should be taped/recorded, would provide more accountability on both sides and would probably help prevent some of the more of the egregious d-baggery I saw on the interview trail. Maybe a reward/punishment system for good interviewers and bad ones, or at least have the interviewer review the "game tape" to help improve interviewing skills.

 

[Sgucci]

The Skype Interview problem I have is that remember, interpersonal skills go well beyond being able to converse with an interviewer. Can you interact with your classmates as you would your fellow physicians? Can you interact with higher ups as you would in administration? Are you introverted? Extroverted? I've personally been treated by doctors who are introverts and who are extroverts, and have worked with doctors of both personality types, and let me tell you, I would HATE to work with a doctor who is an introvert.

you've probably dealt with introverts who act extroverted and the reverse, and didn't notice the difference. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be and people can learn and act differently in diff environments.

 

[Optimus-Prime]

Matriculation should involve a thunderdome, it would make things much easier

 

[GrapesofRath]

Two things I think that I would like to see

1) Get rid of useless regulations and rules on specifically what you can and cant use as a LOR ie you "need" 2 LOR from science faculty and 1 LOR from non science faculty to be considered. More flexibility should be allowed for being able to get LORs from people who truly can evaluate you and your work the best and for whom we dont place restrictions on for this.

By requiring faculty LORs and placing the heaviest weight on those, even if you know such faculty very well, you are making a significant part of your recommendation based off "Academic credentials". Even if the professor knows you very well, even if you TA for them, this is the driving force of the LOR more times than not. But your transcript already can show your academic credentials to a large degree. More important is having LOR writers who can vouch for aspects like accountability+responsibility and working in a team setting which are where you find people struggling once clinical years arive. In an ideal world, I would often put more weight in a LOR from a boss, be it a PI, summer internship boss, boss for a job even if its not a clinical job(ie consulting/IB) than I would a professor LOR as these people are people who are truly relying on you and depending on you/have alot vested in you. They are the ones who can really tell you about an applicants credentials for a "working environment" in terms of accountability/dependeability which is what Ms3 and beyond is about.

2) Instead of interviews that span the length of hours, spending 10-20 minutes calling a LOR/reference writer or two can provide a different persepctive. There simply are things that an LOR writer says over the phone you cant gleam about an applicant otherwise.

 

[Spinach Dip]

Sigh. Sure, some people are doing volunteer work because they're supposed to. Some of us are doing it because we value service to others. Many of my classmates (both undergrad and med school, including me) went far beyond the point of diminishing returns for med school admissions. Many of us (again, including me) have continued to do these kinds of activities in med school despite the fact that it will make little to no difference when it comes to applying for residency, and plan to keep doing so throughout our careers.

If you don't care to spend your time volunteering to do tasks you see as menial or unimportant, that's fine. And absolutely, there are people who do this just because it looks good on a resume. But you don't need to accuse the rest of us of lying to argue against that mindset.

Many many years ago, someone went on a mission trip to Africa because they honestly wanted to help the less fortunate.

Then everyone realized this was a great way to act like they cared and within a few years thousands went to third-world nations on week-long vacations which included a couple hours of handing out condoms or taking blood pressures in a free clinic. Thus, the few who actually wanted to help people were vastly outnumbered by those who desired only to pad their resumes.

Mission trips have fallen out of favor recently (yay!), but they have been replaced by volunteering closer to home--gigs where those who are truly passionate about helping are far outnumbered by those who are merely padding their numbers. (If you are one of the few exceptions, I appologize for binning you with the others and I legitimately thank you for all you have done.)

I have heard dozens of premeds ask how they can make themselves look better to adcoms. I have NEVER heard one ask how they can help more people.

 

[Sgucci]

Two things I think that I would like to see

1) Get rid of useless regulations and rules on specifically what you can and cant use as a LOR ie you "need" 2 LOR from science faculty and 1 LOR from non science faculty to be considered. More flexibility should be allowed for being able to get LORs from people who truly can evaluate you and your work the best and for whom we dont place restrictions on for this.

By requiring faculty LORs and placing the heaviest weight on those, even if you know such faculty very well, you are making a significant part of your recommendation based off "Academic credentials". Even if the professor knows you very well, even if you TA for them, this is the driving force of the LOR more times than not. But your transcript already can show your academic credentials to a large degree. More important is having LOR writers who can vouch for aspects like accountability+responsibility and working in a team setting which are where you find people struggling once clinical years arive. In an ideal world, I would often put more weight in a LOR from a boss, be it a PI, summer internship boss, boss for a job even if its not a clinical job(ie consulting/IB) than I would a professor LOR as these people are people who are truly relying on you and depending on you/have alot vested in you. They are the ones who can really tell you about an applicants credentials for a "working environment" in terms of accountability/dependeability which is what Ms3 and beyond is about.

2) Instead of interviews that span the length of hours, spending 10-20 minutes calling a LOR/reference writer or two can provide a different persepctive. There simply are things that an LOR writer says over the phone you cant gleam about an applicant otherwise.

OMG I hate LORs. It's terrible having to go google 40+ diff LOR requirements because even the msar isn't accurate about them and there's no real database of LOR that is up-to-date.
Such a pointless waste of time, that shouldn't even exist. They need to make a comprehensive database of LOR requirements that's up-to-date or just give universal requirements across all med schools.

Also a snide/bad LOR can sink you and because of confidentiality agreements admissions often won't tell you more than "one of your LORs had an issue". They need to change the confidentiality requirements, so medical schools can at least tell us a certain LOR is bad. People shouldn't be able to sink someone's application with no consequences and this process jut encourages people to find ways to read their own LORs given the substantial costs not doing so can have on your application. Imagine spending thousands of dollars all for some stupid LOR to sink you.

What's even worse is that you can be incomplete and not considered forever because the AAMC and medical schools won't tell you a LOR has no header and you have no chance of ever finding out due to confidentiality agreements (even if you remind the prof or w.e constantly it's still common to be left out). It's some of the dumbest **** ever.

 

[CowboyNiceguy]

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.

I could be wrong here, but I thought MCAT was the best predictor of step 1 score? To say it doesn't it's not valuable is silly. Of course there are always exceptions, but a test based on bio, chem, physics, reading comprehension is naturally going to be an indicator of how well they learn these topics later on.

 

[Sgucci]

I could be wrong here, but I thought MCAT was the best predictor of step 1 score? To say it doesn't it's not valuable is silly. Of course there are always exceptions, but a test based on bio, chem, physics, reading comprehension is naturally going to be an indicator of how well they learn these topics later on.

Aside from the biosci section, what on the old mcat was indicative of the step 1 and had good correlational coefficient? The writing section was trash so it was scrapped, VR was a total crap shoot both in its current iteration and previous iterations because most of those passages have absolutely nothing to do with medicine and the scoring is ridiculous. Biochem - good Social sci - hell yes physiology - yes, gen chem - ehhh, o-chem - yes, physics - not really. It's more of an easy way to weed people out than anything.

 

[Optimus-Prime]

I would sneak hidden cameras into the waiting area to see how they interact... I always felt like I was being watched

 

[gyngyn]

Aside from the biosci section, what on the old mcat was indicative of the step 1 and had good correlational coefficient? The writing section was trash so it was scrapped, VR was a total crap shoot both in its current iteration and previous iterations because most of those passages have absolutely nothing to do with medicine and the scoring is ridiculous. Biochem - good Social sci - hell yes physiology - yes, gen chem - ehhh, o-chem - yes, physics - not really. It's more of an easy way to weed people out than anything.

You feel this way because you did worse on the re-take.

 

[22031 Alum]

VR was a total crap shoot both in its current iteration and previous iterations because most of those passages have absolutely nothing to do with medicine

I may be wrong but I thought VR was actually the best predictor. Also, red flag that you don't think being able to understand passages that aren't about medicine might be a useful skill...

 

[Sgucci]

You feel this way because you did worse on the re-take.

No, I got one mcat. I feel this way because missing 2 questions is enough to drop you 2-3 points. It's stupid.

 

[Officer Farva]

I would sneak hidden cameras into the waiting area to see how they interact... I always felt like I was being watched

"By the way guys, I am not with admissions and I do not affect the admissions process at all!"

Does that sound familiar to you? hahaha

 

[Sgucci]

I may be wrong but I thought VR was actually the best predictor. Also, red flag that you don't think being able to understand passages that aren't about medicine might be a useful skill...

Art history passages - naw. Social sciences - some. In its current form without the science passages, ehhh doubtful. The scoring is also goofy.

 

[CowboyNiceguy]

No, I got one mcat. I feel this way because missing 2 questions is enough to drop you 2-3 points. It's stupid.

I took ~8-10 practice MCATs and the real thing and my score never varied more than +-1.5 (with an upward trend).

I don't remember exactly how many you had to miss to lose points, but it's graded on a curve so it worked out fine.

 

[22031 Alum]

Art history passages - naw. Social sciences - some. In its current form without the science passages, ehhh doubtful. The scoring is also goofy.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you can't read a passage about art history, use context clues, make inferences, and extract the relevant points, you're not going to magically become more skilled at that just because the passage is about protein structure.

 

[gyngyn]

No, I got one mcat. I feel this way because missing 2 questions is enough to drop you 2-3 points. It's stupid.

It was a 4 point drop in VR as I recall.
Now who's not being honest?

 

[Sgucci]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you can't read a passage about art history, use context clues, make inferences, and extract the relevant points, you're not going to magically become more skilled at that just because the passage is about protein structure.

apples and oranges. that's a big assumption to make on your part, even with a general heuristic you identified.

I took ~8-10 practice MCATs and the real thing and my score never varied more than +-1.5 (with an upward trend).

I don't remember exactly how many you had to miss to lose points, but it's graded on a curve so it worked out fine.

look at the cutoffs for old mcat FLs and you'll see how variable it is.

 

[CowboyNiceguy]

look at the cutoffs for old mcat FLs and you'll see how variable it is.

Even if you think that it's unfair, I don't think a getting a 35 instead of a 37 (which is the kind of score i would expect from someone making these complaints) is going to cause too many schools to reject an applicant. Maybe it would even avoid some yield protection rejections.