2004 AAMC applicant/matriculant data now out

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
19,000 out of 35,000 not matriculated, that's harsh.

800 instate matriculants for 4200 applicants, sucks to live in Cali.
 
Wow, look at the last one, the one with the school totals. UCLA had 720 students apply to med school last year! 😱 Talk about competition. Only two people are applying from my school (~7500 students).
 
Holy crap!! 47,000 applicants in 1997! 😱 Now that was some stiff competition.
 
Pinkertinkle said:
19,000 out of 35,000 not matriculated, that's harsh.

800 instate matriculants for 4200 applicants, sucks to live in Cali.
I have a question though. When you say, 19K out of 35K, you are talking about students matriculating in M.D. schools in the U.S. That doesn't include D.O. stats (which is 21 or so schools) or the Carib schools. So, while those numbers are daunting if you are totally M.D. zealous, they are less daunting if you "just want to be a doctor."
 
Well I'd assume the 35,000 people who applied to MD schools are mostly interested in an United States MD degree. DO schools should not be a "backup" for allopathic applicants, as the philosophy is quite different.
 
Pinkertinkle said:
Well I'd assume the 35,000 people who applied to MD schools are mostly interested in an United States MD degree. DO schools should not be a "backup" for allopathic applicants, as the philosophy is quite different.

That isn't necessarily so. I have met many people who have applied DO as either a backup, or because they want to be a physician and don't care whether they are a DO or an MD and end up picking the school they like best.
 
Code Brown said:
Wow, look at the last one, the one with the school totals. UCLA had 720 students apply to med school last year! 😱 Talk about competition. Only two people are applying from my school (~7500 students).


UM's up there, too. Almost 1 in every 10 kids is a premed, no wonder this place is so hostile!
 
did i read this right? about 1/2 of applicants dont matriculate?! that sucks!
 
Medikit said:
Math and statistics majors kick ass but there are so few of them. Thank goodness.

Does computer science fall in this category?
 
me3 said:
Does computer science fall in this category?

I'm going to guess no, as it clearly says Math and Statistics only. It'd probably be in the Other category.


I learned from this that it's comforting being from a state where the majority of applicants get in somewhere each year, however slight that majority is. Also, don't be a Bio major if you can help it.
 
opinionkitten said:
did i read this right? about 1/2 of applicants dont matriculate?! that sucks!
Imagine the money and time and a year on the emotional rollercoaster for nothing, it's awful. 🙁
 
Tiddly of Winks said:
UM's up there, too. Almost 1 in every 10 kids is a premed, no wonder this place is so hostile!


Hooray for psycho michigan premed math majors !!!

🙂


(hmm...stats actually do explain a lot of the crazyness around here)
 
well it is a lot better than what people told me about only 11 or so % make it into medical school.
 
opinionkitten said:
did i read this right? about 1/2 of applicants dont matriculate?! that sucks!
yeah, but 1/2 DO make it into med school 🙂
 
DrHopeless said:
well it is a lot better than what people told me about only 11 or so % make it into medical school.
Well its about 11% tops for any particular medical school.
 
Arkansas only had 10 out of state matriculants (3.1%), beating only puerto rico. Wow sucks for me lol..

Interesting stats..
 
about 16K out of 36K is accepted to med school? this doesn't seem right. that's only a bit lower than half to get in. i thought it would be much harder... something around 10%. i mean, its about 50-50 chance to become a doc? strange...
 
i77ac said:
about 16K out of 36K is accepted to med school? this doesn't seem right. that's only a bit lower than half to get in. i thought it would be much harder... something around 10%. i mean, its about 50-50 chance to become a doc? strange...

10% is probably per school, everyone applies to 10-20 schools if they're on top of things, so that's how it works out to be about half. There are 16k spots for sure, 100+ med schools with 100+ spots each.

If 90% of applicants got nothing but rejections, that'd just be sad.
 
i77ac said:
its about 50-50 chance to become a doc? strange...

For any given person, it's not a 50/50 chance to become a doctor. Many of the rejected applicants have poor GPAs, MCAT scores, or other mitigating factors and they would have <50% chance of getting in regardless. There are those people who will receive multiple acceptances (~30% of applicants), those who will receive only one (~20%), and those who receive none (~50%). (This is older data from a previous year's MSAR) In summary, you can't really say it's 50/50. Now imagine if those who got multiple acceptances only got one? Would that mean that the people who didn't get in will now get in? No, because the number spots remains the same.


Jason
 
engineers fall in the physical science major category i assume? anyone have any stats on double majors?
 
geez, we need medical schools to either expand their class sizes or get more medical schools, especially with the primary practice deficiency. our population keeps growing, but the # of medical school graduates is the same. (of course, this is where international doctors come in)
 
calstudent said:
geez, we need medical schools to either expand their class sizes or get more medical schools, especially with the primary practice deficiency. our population keeps growing, but the # of medical school graduates is the same. (of course, this is where international doctors come in)

A recent study found that 25% of all practicing physicians in the U.S. is foreign born.
 
Jason110 said:
A recent study found that 25% of all practicing physicians in the U.S. is foreign born.

yah, i read some great stuff in the NEJM a few months ago about this, especially in terms of not having enough generalist physicians.
 
calstudent said:
geez, we need medical schools to either expand their class sizes or get more medical schools, especially with the primary practice deficiency. our population keeps growing, but the # of medical school graduates is the same. (of course, this is where international doctors come in)


i think there's some conspiracy theory that the US doesn't produce that many doctors in order to keep the profession in a prestigious position.

that, and also it's important that doctors are well trained.
 
jammin06 said:
engineers fall in the physical science major category i assume? anyone have any stats on double majors?

this stuff can be found at http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/mcatgpabymaj1.htm

sorry i couldn't find the stuff on double majors on the website. maybe someone else will...
it might be in AMSAR. i'll try to check when i get back to college.
 
BAM! said:
i think there's some conspiracy theory that the US doesn't produce that many doctors in order to keep the profession in a prestigious position.

that, and also it's important that doctors are well trained.

Here's an excerpt (though condaluted) from my health economics textbook (The Economics of Health and Health Care by Folland et al.):

The Donor Preference Hypothesis by Hall and Lindsay (Journal of Law and Economics 23: 55-80.):
"In summary, we may say that organized medicine historically exerted considerable influence over the supply of trained physicians. Such influence is consistent with a view of the profession as one seeking above-normal returns by trying to control entry of new physicians. However, data in recent decades indicate that medical shcool enrollments are responsive to market forces. These data further suggest that continuing to view medical education as controlled by a monolithic of conspiratorial medical profession is somewhat implausable."

Victor Fuchs' alternative argument (in his book Who Shall Live?):
"In 1974, Victor Fuchs wrote that 'most economists believe that part [of physicians' high incomes] represents a monopoly return to physicians resulting for restrictions on entry to profession and other barriers to competition' (p. 58). Fuchs refers to the claim that physicians restrict entry to their profession in order to drive up prices for their srervices and thus themselves maker larger incomes [...] Kessel argued that monopoly power was attained by organized medicine in several ways, two of the most important being licensure and control of access to medical education. Kessel believes that control over medical education exerted by physicians is primarily through the American Medical Association."



Thoughts???
 
Childe said:
Arkansas only had 10 out of state matriculants (3.1%), beating only puerto rico. Wow sucks for me lol..

Interesting stats..


Why would that suck for you? You listed AR as your home state on Mdapplicants-as long as you are an Arkansas resident, it does not matter if you left the state to go to school. You should have a great shot at getting in there.
 
WOW!!

According to those numbers I am the luckiest SOB on the planet.

I bow deeply to those who posses the numbers that bring up the average from me.

By the way - to those who are worried about the less than 50% thing...this doesn't account for reapplication. I bet with reapplication, the percentage goes up. IT is a good thing that admission doesn't work like divorce.

heheheheheheh
S
 
Jason110 said:
Here's an excerpt (though condaluted) from my health economics textbook (The Economics of Health and Health Care by Folland et al.):

The Donor Preference Hypothesis by Hall and Lindsay (Journal of Law and Economics 23: 55-80.):
"In summary, we may say that organized medicine historically exerted considerable influence over the supply of trained physicians. Such influence is consistent with a view of the profession as one seeking above-normal returns by trying to control entry of new physicians. However, data in recent decades indicate that medical shcool enrollments are responsive to market forces. These data further suggest that continuing to view medical education as controlled by a monolithic of conspiratorial medical profession is somewhat implausable."

Victor Fuchs' alternative argument (in his book Who Shall Live?):
"In 1974, Victor Fuchs wrote that 'most economists believe that part [of physicians' high incomes] represents a monopoly return to physicians resulting for restrictions on entry to profession and other barriers to competition' (p. 58). Fuchs refers to the claim that physicians restrict entry to their profession in order to drive up prices for their srervices and thus themselves maker larger incomes [...] Kessel argued that monopoly power was attained by organized medicine in several ways, two of the most important being licensure and control of access to medical education. Kessel believes that control over medical education exerted by physicians is primarily through the American Medical Association."




Thoughts???


I believe it is the second criterion, but I don't think that it is as sinister as fuchs makes it appear. First and foremost, I think the limited entry into medicine is fueled by the pretense that only the brightest and the best can be doctors. Whereas in reality, the best doctors would be more people oriented, rather than book oriented. Secondly, those who have become doctors feel they deserve the pay (After over 10 years of education, I think it is warranted). So if they were to let too many people into the field the result would be watered down pay.

And in regards to the post...
50/50 odds, is that really that bad, I was checking out this stuff from when only the 2003 data was available. When I saw 50% of applicants were accepted I was doing cartwheels. You must also realize that the 25% that don't get accepted have scored a 20 for the MCAT and have 2.7's for their GPA. Sorry to say it, but there are a lot of applicants that are rather delusional.

Think of it in these terms, if you have a 3.3 GPA and a 24.7 MCAT score, your scores are better than 34% of the first year medical students from last year.
 
Top