Interesting discussion here. Might I add my two cents -
People are upset about the admissions at Utah because of the lack of accurate transparancy in the process. They "attempt" to make it clear up-front what is expected by having the magical 8 categories of what is important, even going so far as to give the average amounts of ECs of typical applicants. This plays into the admissions decision, but its main purpose is to qualify for an interview, which is ultimately what determines who gets accepted or not. Should the interview, which is subject to a high degree of variability, be the main determining factor?? A family friend was accepted with a marginal resume a couple of years ago after having a great interview with a faculty member. He had an odd hobby, which the interviewer just happened to also participate in. They talked about that the entire interview.
There is not perfect way to determine who will be most successful in med school and who will become the best doctors. However, like it or not, the MCAT and one's GPA are probably some of the best single predictors available (but not exclusively the only ones), representing largely one's ability to comprehend complex scientific problems, and one's dedication and work ethic related to academic and professional pursuits. This is probably why so many other schools put greater emphasis on those variables. It is still surprising that they keep these application standards considering their track-record with board scores and residency placements.
There is a stigma among BYU students (which isn't necessarily true, but not altogether without good reason) that they are discriminated against. A large portion of BYU applicants are white, male, having served a mission. It's hard to differentiate among them when selecting for a limited number of spots. Additionally, when I was applying to Utah, they had some of the "worst" stats as far as diversity and URMs went (probably because they had less of those applicants overall). Given that the U has a larger incentive to accept URMs, it's natural to think that being white male, you will be looked at even more less favorably compared to other schools that have more URMs applying.
To finish off this post that is way too long, I'll speak from personal experience, in the most humble way I can but still get the point across. I applyed to an average amount of schools, got interview invites from most of them, and got accepted everywhere I interviewed including multiple "top-tier" schools ... except for the U, where I was rejected early in January. I had a very well-rounded application, with exceptional "scores", and I don't believe that my interviewing skills were too horrible, all things considered. I'm now happily at a "top-ten" school (if that's important to anyone reading this,but which I personally don't put much weight in), which consistently produces some of the best leaders in medicine all around. The fact that my story isn't an isolated one should be alarming, and that is what I believe upsets people the most. I know that people who attend the U med school are great people and will be good doctors, but I don't think they accept the best students out of their application pool. Whether that's by choice, or an unfortunate result of the overly subjective application process, I don't know. But the fact that more people are upset about the application process at the U than any other school I know about should raise a red flag - and the fact that they don't do anything to change it should be a signal to the type of organization they are running.
