- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,424
- Reaction score
- 0
No snow here, but I feel a rejection coming as well. Oh well, guess CA wasn't meant to be.
2010-2011 Stanford University Application Thread
- Thread starter ksmi117
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 0
Haha, yeah! Can you believe the Metrodome ceiling collapsed, too?
I'm also waiting for any news pre-interview, complete 9/19.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry to hear that, but it seems you are doing very well this application cycle. So, congrats!
I do have a questions regarding the rejection. Not sure if this question has already been asked, but is there a status update on the online website to reflect the denial to interview?
I am currently not at my home address, and have not told my parents to expect rejection mails :X
Thanks! Yeah I am not that bummed out, it's just that I was hoping to stay in California and with every rejection, that seems less and less likely to happen.
Stanford will send emails to those invited for interview; the rest will get rejected via snail mail.
hi i'm new to this discussion but i've mosdef been following it (like a stalker, am i right?)! i seriously thought i had no shot at getting into stanford, but every day i don't receive a rejection letter hope grows...terrible! sometimes i feel like a freak because i check my email every 5 seconds and look for the mail man to drop off the inevitable letter of sadness haha--but then i read this thread and it makes me feel a little better that other people do ish like that too. so thanks 😛
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 555
- Reaction score
- 5
Heh. I know the feeling. I have admit that I don't quite get the reasoning behind only providing snail mail rejections. I appreciate the "personal touch" aspect, but as someone who has been complete since 8/19 I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time weighing the chance that I have been rejected and the letter lost by the USPS against the chance that no decision has been made in 4 months.
The whole application process is clearly an elaborate scheme to make me think as much like Vizzini as possible.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
I was complete about the same time and only received my rejection letter about a week ago. If you haven't received it yet, I say you're still in the running. 👍
yeah the snail mail waiting game sucks, but you gotta admit it's better than the way ucsf rejects people. haha i didn't even know i got rejected until i read somewhere that they post PDFs of rejection letters on the admissions site!! anyhoo best of luck to everyone!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 64
You are right!. There was someone from last year's thread who wrote an update letter to Stanford in january (after not hearing any news from them). He is already in med school (Class of 2014) but he is STILL waiting for his rejection letter from Stanford. 😱
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 2
I think that happens a lot. My girlfriend is a MS1 and she didn't get her rejection mail last year from Stanford either. She just assumed rejection after the interview window elapsed. According to her, it happened to a few of her friends too.
I'm hesitant to put the blame on USPS because I really don't think they lose that many pieces of mail (I deal with USPS a lot as part of a student group which sends out mass mailings). Maybe Stanford is also not so good at keeping track of all the people who they rejected and making sure they get paper notices?
(still holding out here, but not going to be able to check mail for 3 weeks from today, so who knows what will happen, haha)
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 62
Just a note to all of you waiting for admissions decisions to continue to remember that Stanford's admissions cycle is much later than most other schools. The most likely reason that you haven't received a rejection or interview invite is that your application is still being actively considered and no final decision has been made.
Stanford has only interviewed less than a third of the 450 or so people intended to be invited to campus so far. While we're just at the beginning of our interview cycle, most of our peer institutions are closer to the end of their cycle...and I'm sure many of you have finished up most of your interviews at the other schools you applied to. Thus, while it may seem as though "all hope is lost" because it's been so much time since you've submitted...do continue to remember that the Stanford process is much longer than most other schools. In the past, interviews extended as late as early April. Although that won't be the case this year....it's a general precedent that the admissions process is not pressured to be rushed here. Being a broken record....patience is a virtue. While it's certainly true that the interview invite is the biggest hurdle to get through in the Stanford Med admissions process, December is by no means the time to be "throwing in the towel".
Happy Holidays.
Stanford has only interviewed less than a third of the 450 or so people intended to be invited to campus so far. While we're just at the beginning of our interview cycle, most of our peer institutions are closer to the end of their cycle...and I'm sure many of you have finished up most of your interviews at the other schools you applied to. Thus, while it may seem as though "all hope is lost" because it's been so much time since you've submitted...do continue to remember that the Stanford process is much longer than most other schools. In the past, interviews extended as late as early April. Although that won't be the case this year....it's a general precedent that the admissions process is not pressured to be rushed here. Being a broken record....patience is a virtue. While it's certainly true that the interview invite is the biggest hurdle to get through in the Stanford Med admissions process, December is by no means the time to be "throwing in the towel".
Happy Holidays.
I feel like Stanford considers undergraduate prestige very highly. I've noticed the trend of fantastic applicants getting rejected pre-interview because they don't go to a highly ranked undergrad. Would you guys say this is the case? I'd especially appreciate mdeast's input on this matter.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
I think in general this is true, although anecdotally I know people at Stanford Med who went to places like San Jose State or Dillard, in addition to the slew of people from Harvard, MIT, Cal, Stanford...point being, I'm sure that Stanford considers your entire story, the development of you as a person given your grades, scores, ECs, background, etc. If it makes sense why you went to a not-so-highly-ranked undergrad institution and it fits well in your overall story, then they'll consider it carefully, but if the reason is that you just didn't try hard enough in high school and realized that you needed to get your act together in college, that's admirable but may not be enough to convince them. What separates the top medical schools from the rest are eyes for the intangibles, including a legacy of accomplishment and maturity - particularly demonstrated in the uniqueness of your ECs and your dedication to them, character as expressed in the personal statement, and perhaps your undergraduate institution and whether or not you took advantage of the opportunities available to you there. Stats, for them, are important only in defining a range of applicants that they believe could succeed academically at the school; given this, the other aspects of your application become more important.
That being said, I may just be talking out of my butt since I'm waiting to hear back too. I don't know your particular story, but take solace in the fact that there is a method to the madness. At least that's what makes me sleep at night. Good luck.
That being said, I may just be talking out of my butt since I'm waiting to hear back too. I don't know your particular story, but take solace in the fact that there is a method to the madness. At least that's what makes me sleep at night. Good luck.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
Adding to your thoughts. I think an important consideration is this:
I don't know of many medical schools, members of the Top 20 'elite' or not, that are going to favor Applicant A because s/he attended an Ivy but managed lesser grades, MCATs, and ECs than Applicant B, a candidate that attended an average state university (not UNC, Michigan, UVa, Cal, UCLA) but was a baller.
I think you see an abundance of students from top universities admitted to Top 20 med schools because it's a self-fulfilling cycle. I by no means believe that impressive candidates come from only the Top 30 undergrads but, rather, those top undergrads tend to attract great students who do cool things - and, thus, they go on to great med schools.
If you earned great grades, earned a solid MCAT, had the initiative to get involved and pursue opportunities, and have good faculty support, I truly believe your application will be viewed equally at most of the top med schools, regardless of your undergrad institution. The best students and prospective physicians are not limited to the highest ranked undergrads.
I can't speak to Stanford's admission practices - maybe they do overtly or subconsciously prefer students from 'elite' schools.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 64
Take out the top 20 undergrad elite colleges and you have the rest of over 300 undergrad institutions in the US. If what you say is true, there MUST be a lot more students from these 300 schools (by numbers alone) who earn great grades, take the initiative to get involved and pursue opportunities with the goal of attending a top notch medical school, compared to the number of similar students that the top 20 undergrad schools can turn out. BUT:
The first year class of the elite med schools is usually made of about 50% of students that come from the Ivies, Stanford, MIT and other top 20. There is definite a bias. They like to talk a lot about their "peer schools".
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 62
I generally agree with what has been said so far. I don't think Stanford specifically selects students from "prestigious" undergrads, but rather that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that undergrads that were great applicants before will be great applicants again for medical school. If you didn't go to a "top" university, but still are a great candidate (good ECs, scholarly interests, decent MCAT), I do not believe your undergraduate institution will have much of an effect on your chances at Stanford. I attended what I personally consider to be a "prestigious" undergrad institution (went to a small east coast LAC), but not really at all in the same vein as say Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. And, I somehow ended up here. So why can't you?
That being said, I think it's fair to present some counter criticisms/points to provide balance. First, I'd like to point out that I generally love my peers at Stanford and couldn't speak more highly of everyone. Our entire class comes from interesting backgrounds, has some cool, crazy life story or personal interest related to medicine, and (unlike most US medical schools) "white male" is not the definition of a typical Stanford student. There is an amazing amount of ethnic and racial diversity for a class of 86 students and I love it.
There are many ways to define "diversity" though. When I first got here, I was little irked/annoyed by the fact that over half of my class came from one of three undergrad institutions (20 Stanford, 16 Harvard, 9 Cal). If you throw in MIT, Yale, Hopkins it adds up to probably about 2/3 of the class coming from those 6 institutions. To me that just seems somewhat disproportionately high and that a certain aspect of "diversity" was missing in my class. To be honest, I talked to one of the Deans involved in diversity at Stanford Med during orientation week and she was similarly surprised about that aspect of my class. It's not a huge deal by any means, but there have been times where I've felt out of place and subconsciously wished there were more students who didn't attend "top" schools here. You'll most likely find a similar situation at other Top 20 medical schools, this is not particularly unique to Stanford.
Having said that, after getting to know my class much better over the last quarter, I don't think I could imagine a better group of fun, chill, interesting, and intellectual people to study medicine with. But, it's something that I think is fair to point out and discuss.
Hope that helps.
That being said, I think it's fair to present some counter criticisms/points to provide balance. First, I'd like to point out that I generally love my peers at Stanford and couldn't speak more highly of everyone. Our entire class comes from interesting backgrounds, has some cool, crazy life story or personal interest related to medicine, and (unlike most US medical schools) "white male" is not the definition of a typical Stanford student. There is an amazing amount of ethnic and racial diversity for a class of 86 students and I love it.
There are many ways to define "diversity" though. When I first got here, I was little irked/annoyed by the fact that over half of my class came from one of three undergrad institutions (20 Stanford, 16 Harvard, 9 Cal). If you throw in MIT, Yale, Hopkins it adds up to probably about 2/3 of the class coming from those 6 institutions. To me that just seems somewhat disproportionately high and that a certain aspect of "diversity" was missing in my class. To be honest, I talked to one of the Deans involved in diversity at Stanford Med during orientation week and she was similarly surprised about that aspect of my class. It's not a huge deal by any means, but there have been times where I've felt out of place and subconsciously wished there were more students who didn't attend "top" schools here. You'll most likely find a similar situation at other Top 20 medical schools, this is not particularly unique to Stanford.
Having said that, after getting to know my class much better over the last quarter, I don't think I could imagine a better group of fun, chill, interesting, and intellectual people to study medicine with. But, it's something that I think is fair to point out and discuss.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
I went to University of Chicago and one time the pre-med advisor there said that she felt Stanford did not particularly "like" UChicago students, that the ones from UChicago that Stanford did invite for regular MD interview were more like MSTP caliber. I'm not sure how true this is. Maybe you could comment?
In general, during this interview cycle, I've noticed very very very few UChicago students in the top med schools, or even interviewees. So while it may be true that your school doesn't quite matter, I still feel that some schools, even among top schools, tend to place more students into top med schools. For example, I've noticed that Hopkins and Yale seem to dominate. I don't know what's wrong with my school...it's kind of sad to see hardly anyone at these top med schools from my school. One girl I met even said that most of the pre-meds in her year at UChicago ended up going to Rush and Loyola. Anyone from UChicago care to comment? (I wasn't really pre-med at UChicago since I had only decided to apply to med school after graduation, so I don't know if maybe UChicago just fewer pre-meds or what...)
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
You raising interesting points and I'd like to reiterate I'm not specifically speaking to Stanford (I have a limited understanding of their practices) but to other 'top' med school adcom members I've spoken with.
Also, I'd say the Top 30 dominate, not the Top 20. UCLA, Cal, Michigan, UVa, and UNC, among others in 20-30, each place a ton of students in the top schools.
You're right - something more than coincidence is at work when you consider most elite med schools enroll a lot of 'top' undergrad students. But I never suggested that all 300 of those 'other' undergrads are consistently producing students at the same level - comprehensively (scores, experiences, etc) - as the highly-ranked institutions.
We can't assume all of the best candidates every cycle apply to the top med schools. I know several people who could realistically get in to several of the best med schools that elected to apply to a 'lesser' med institution because it's cheaper, closer to home, etc. As someone else suggested, it could also be (to an extent) that students, on the whole, at top undergrads engage in the academic and EC behavior that gain attention from top med schools than students at other schools.
I am by no means suggesting Stanford or other institutions don't prefer applicants from elite schools. I know there are some schools that are truly more interested in the person and their experiences than the prestige of their undergrad. I'm also very familiar from personal experience that going to elite school X garners attention from schools that view themselves as peers than one would receive, otherwise.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 64
This.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Don't feel like writing a long post, but my experience leads me to believe that there is a very clear bias for the students from top 10 undergrads amongst the top 10 med schools. I have no data backing this up, just what I've seen at interviews and around SDN. I do believe that people that come from less well-reputed schools are at a disadvantage when it comes to the top schools. They aren't by any means barred from getting in, but I definitely think it's harder for them to get interview invites.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah top undergraduate students probably hold the tie-breaker over other students; I feel like I have to do a lot more to get in. Just give those schools the finger when you get your Nobel Prize. No big deal.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 59
Complete 8/8 and still waiting here. I assumed my letter was just lost but now I see others are waiting as well. Stanford is a looooong shot for me but I have a tie to the school so I applied anyway🙂 Thanks for all of the hopeful posts, mdeast....they are much appreciated🙂
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 2
I too have seen what appears to be the "bias" for undergrads from top institutions. To put it blunt, most of the students I've met at my interviews are from top undergraduate institutions...and it only becomes more obvious at higher-ranked medical schools.
But actually being from one of those "top 10" undergraduate institutions, I respectfully disagree that there is a clear bias. There are plenty of people at my school who don't get interviews from top medical schools.
Only the top students here get interviews at top medical schools. You usually don't see a student with a 3.7 GPA here getting interviews at the top 10 medical schools (if you do, then usually there's a very special reason why). Many of the students from top 10 undergrads you see at your interviews do have 3.9+ GPA and/or 37+ MCAT scores. In fact, it's not all that uncommon to see students score in the 40s here.
If you tend to see many students from top undergraduate schools at interviews, it's because:
1) general grade inflation at these schools allow more students (relative to other schools) to score 3.9 or higher
2) competitive nature of students at such schools leads to a higher MCAT average
3) students at such schools have had amazing EC experiences BEFORE they got to college and continue to pursue such experiences while in college
I don't pretend that undergraduate prestige is completely ignored during the admissions process. This process is still very subjective and it is entirely possible for an adcom to be unconsciously impressed by the school that an applicant attends/attended. But to say that there is a clear bias for students from prestigious institutions disrespects the effort that they (the students from such schools who do get interviews) put in and also is completely unfair/discouraging to students who don't get interviews from such institutions (think about how pathetic you'd feel if you don't get an interview when there's supposed to be such a clear bias for students from your school).
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 64
My experience and my feelings exactly.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 64
The fact that there is a "clear bias" does not mean that unqualified or poorly competitive candidates from the elite undergrads will get a free pass. It means that when you have a group of similarly qualified individuals from both elite and lower tiered schools, the students from the top schools have an advantage.
As a matter of fact, even within specific groups of schools there is a bias towards some and not other "peers". For example, I can tell you that Yale likes undergrads from Yale, Brown and Harvard over the other ivies. U Penn likes undergrads from Brown, U Penn and Harvard again. Harvard does not like undergrads from U Chicago in general. (All this from one of my own deans!) And if you take time to look at admissions at these schools during the last 5 years, you will see that it is true.
Just like Cole said. No one is barred from getting in. But there are certain preferences.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
It's okay, I love reppin' the public schools wherever I go. Haters 'gon hate.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
Tend to agree.
Which makes the whole process that much more depressing. That's why I like, in theory, blind interviews. The problem is, where the decision is made - in committee - is far from blind so the whole 'if you're invited for an interview, the playing field is leveled' rhetoric is bull.
I believe most of us here can speak from experience that students - across the board - at the 'top' undergrads are hardly the most qualified in the pool. I know many a dud from elite schools -- and many an all-star from 'lesser' schools.
Oh well, it makes reading the Top 10 med schools' policies and promises on 'thorough and fair' review all the more entertaining.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
THIS.
I have both public and private experience, and I'm most proud of the public.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
"The fact that there is a "clear bias" does not mean that unqualified or poorly competitive candidates from the elite undergrads will get a free pass. It means that when you have a group of similarly qualified individuals from both elite and lower tiered schools, the students from the top schools have an advantage."
I think "bias" as defined by BrainBuff is the appropriate distinction to consider. I think most people who have interviewed have seen the numbers skewed toward people from the top undergraduate institutions, with others from lesser known or public schools scattered here and there. If we use GPA, MCAT scores, clinical experience or whatnot as the criteria for what it means to be a "qualified individual," then what BrainBuff said here too is probably true:
"Take out the top 20 undergrad elite colleges and you have the rest of over 300 undergrad institutions in the US. If what you say is true, there MUST be a lot more students from these 300 schools (by numbers alone) who earn great grades, take the initiative to get involved and pursue opportunities with the goal of attending a top notch medical school, compared to the number of similar students that the top 20 undergrad schools can turn out."
But the problem here is that the top med schools don't just want qualified applicants, but the best. Intelligence is the minimum standard. They want students with initiative, resolve, maturity, thoughtfulness, etc. Top undergrad schools do a particularly good job at fostering a culture of outside-the-box thinking combined with the resources for students to pursue them. At the risk of typecasting people (and this is where the bias may lie), I find that the most excellent students at lower ranked schools are more concerned with achieving good grades and being a complete applicant (having done a bit of research, being leaders in certain clubs, doing some teaching), while at top ranked schools, students are more likely to follow their passions at the expense of their GPA. These students publish well, start or run organizations that are nationally or internationally recognized, are Olympic-level athletes, have extensive overseas experience...In the former case, the goal of the student at the lower-ranked school appears to be that as articulated by BrainBuff - "the goal of attending a top notch medical school" - but in the latter case, getting into a top notch medical school is only the means to the goal of discovering a vaccine for HIV, quelling health inequities in sub-Saharan Africa, or finding a solution to the rising health care costs in the US. Obviously there are exceptions everywhere, and please don't interpret my statements as to say that students at lower ranked schools aren't amazing as well. I also believe that the system isn't perfect and may leave out many outstanding candidates, but I do believe that all of the students that you see in interviews are incredible in their own way.
Therefore the disadvantage (and thereby bias) for people at lower ranked schools is twofold: 1.) they must prove that they're intelligent (since, it is unfairly assumed that students at top-ranked schools are) 2.) they have all the intangibles that elite medical schools are looking for, including the correct motivations for pursuing medicine. The students who went to the top undergrad institutions generally only have to prove the second one.
Also, preference for students that come from specific schools is probably true. I don't know anything about UChicago, but I hear that Michigan likes Stanford students, for instance. It makes sense. Students from preferred schools are preferred for a reason: they have traditionally done well and are thus more likely to be looked on with favor. Same thing with residency and fellowships. It's not fair per se, but it's a way for medical schools to manage risk by relying on past experience.
I think "bias" as defined by BrainBuff is the appropriate distinction to consider. I think most people who have interviewed have seen the numbers skewed toward people from the top undergraduate institutions, with others from lesser known or public schools scattered here and there. If we use GPA, MCAT scores, clinical experience or whatnot as the criteria for what it means to be a "qualified individual," then what BrainBuff said here too is probably true:
"Take out the top 20 undergrad elite colleges and you have the rest of over 300 undergrad institutions in the US. If what you say is true, there MUST be a lot more students from these 300 schools (by numbers alone) who earn great grades, take the initiative to get involved and pursue opportunities with the goal of attending a top notch medical school, compared to the number of similar students that the top 20 undergrad schools can turn out."
But the problem here is that the top med schools don't just want qualified applicants, but the best. Intelligence is the minimum standard. They want students with initiative, resolve, maturity, thoughtfulness, etc. Top undergrad schools do a particularly good job at fostering a culture of outside-the-box thinking combined with the resources for students to pursue them. At the risk of typecasting people (and this is where the bias may lie), I find that the most excellent students at lower ranked schools are more concerned with achieving good grades and being a complete applicant (having done a bit of research, being leaders in certain clubs, doing some teaching), while at top ranked schools, students are more likely to follow their passions at the expense of their GPA. These students publish well, start or run organizations that are nationally or internationally recognized, are Olympic-level athletes, have extensive overseas experience...In the former case, the goal of the student at the lower-ranked school appears to be that as articulated by BrainBuff - "the goal of attending a top notch medical school" - but in the latter case, getting into a top notch medical school is only the means to the goal of discovering a vaccine for HIV, quelling health inequities in sub-Saharan Africa, or finding a solution to the rising health care costs in the US. Obviously there are exceptions everywhere, and please don't interpret my statements as to say that students at lower ranked schools aren't amazing as well. I also believe that the system isn't perfect and may leave out many outstanding candidates, but I do believe that all of the students that you see in interviews are incredible in their own way.
Therefore the disadvantage (and thereby bias) for people at lower ranked schools is twofold: 1.) they must prove that they're intelligent (since, it is unfairly assumed that students at top-ranked schools are) 2.) they have all the intangibles that elite medical schools are looking for, including the correct motivations for pursuing medicine. The students who went to the top undergrad institutions generally only have to prove the second one.
Also, preference for students that come from specific schools is probably true. I don't know anything about UChicago, but I hear that Michigan likes Stanford students, for instance. It makes sense. Students from preferred schools are preferred for a reason: they have traditionally done well and are thus more likely to be looked on with favor. Same thing with residency and fellowships. It's not fair per se, but it's a way for medical schools to manage risk by relying on past experience.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
Tonic:
You articulate some great points and I happen to agree with most of them.
My one concern is this: The Ivies, Stanford, CalTech - the Top 30 schools - are no longer the only 'elite' schools. In many ways, there are now more intelligent, driven, innovative students applying to undergrad than there are spots at those top institutions.
The bias becomes more pervasive when admissions committee continue to assume that 'the best' only go to select number of schools - and that there is a significant difference in an average candidate from Elite School X and an average candidate from Other School Y.
Of course, elite med schools WANT to be able to say, "We matriculated students from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton." It implies and reinforces a sense of excellence that inherently reflects well on the med school.
It's a difficult issue but I do believe we're going to continue to see more and more 3.9+/37+/amazing EC candidates from 'lesser' schools in each application cycle. The question will be: when do the 'elite' schools embrace that reality in their selection processes?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe top med school having a bias toward students from top undergraduate institutions is "fair."
Why? Because it is life experience not just college experience that makes a great applicant. Thus, students from top undergraduate institutions must have already done something amazing or at least worthwhile before college. In that aspect, they should be considered as stronger applicants when MCAT and GPA are equal.
Why? Because it is life experience not just college experience that makes a great applicant. Thus, students from top undergraduate institutions must have already done something amazing or at least worthwhile before college. In that aspect, they should be considered as stronger applicants when MCAT and GPA are equal.
This is why every time people on SDN post that undergrad institution does not matter, I facepalm. It absolutely matters, and the higher ranked the med school, the more it matters. This isn't surprising - if a med school is ranked higher, they have a larger applicant pool to select their students from.
Put yourself in the shoes of the Stanford dean. If you're choosing between two students with excellent stats, research experience, and ECs, who would you choose - the Harvard student or the no-name-college student? Sure, the no-name-college student may be just as qualified, but it's also a much riskier choice for the dean to make. So why would they take that risk? Also, choosing that best-of-the-best Harvard student just "looks better" for the school. Schools absolutely tally up how many Ivy grads they have, or top institutions their students went to, even if this is not outwardly admitted. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It's just the way society works, medicine is no different.
I saw mentioned that if you add the Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. students at Stanford that it makes up most of the students. I can add some more evidence. At my school (MSSM), which is not ranked as high as Stanford, I looked at those in my class who attended a top 20 university or top 10 liberal arts college (as ranked by USNWR), and it easily came out to over 85% of my class.
TL;DR Hi mdeast
Put yourself in the shoes of the Stanford dean. If you're choosing between two students with excellent stats, research experience, and ECs, who would you choose - the Harvard student or the no-name-college student? Sure, the no-name-college student may be just as qualified, but it's also a much riskier choice for the dean to make. So why would they take that risk? Also, choosing that best-of-the-best Harvard student just "looks better" for the school. Schools absolutely tally up how many Ivy grads they have, or top institutions their students went to, even if this is not outwardly admitted. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It's just the way society works, medicine is no different.
I saw mentioned that if you add the Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. students at Stanford that it makes up most of the students. I can add some more evidence. At my school (MSSM), which is not ranked as high as Stanford, I looked at those in my class who attended a top 20 university or top 10 liberal arts college (as ranked by USNWR), and it easily came out to over 85% of my class.
TL;DR Hi mdeast
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 62
While this debate is incredibly interesting and in no way do I consider myself the "SDN" police, I think this thread of discussion might be more appropriate for the general forum. Let's stick to Stanford-specific discussions in this thread 🙂
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
This would be accurate if students at 'lesser' schools never went on to do things inside and outside of school equally or more amazing than those at top schools. Respectfully, that's a pretty gross generalization of students at non-top schools.
Having attended a 'top' undergrad, I can attest from experience that MANY students are admitted to the best undergrads for reasons other than being brilliant and innovative - and being at a top undergrad does not guarantee one will continue to do great things.
Wow, what a dangerous mentality.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
Haha, maybe it is a good thing I am only an applicant, and not on the admission committee 🙂
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Second. Coming from a college town high school I can attest to how many grossly under-qualified students matriculated top 10 schools because their daddy or mommy (in some cases both) were professors or important people at an undergrad. And I'm not talking about just 1 or 2 students.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 62
Yes. There should be a form to fill out online somewhere. Rummage through your invitation email and the admissions website. They try and set up people with hosts that share something with you (personal interest, geographical origin, undergrad institution, etc.). At the very least you get a free place to sleep....closer than any hotel is to the medical school.
Yay! Me too...However it looks like the only option available is 2/1/2011, which won't work for me. Should I call the office tomorrow to see if there are other dates available?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes you should definitely call. I was in a similar situation, and the lady I talked to was very helpful and friendly. Congrats! 😀
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
interview invite today for me too! complete back on sept 1st. have any luck with getting a date other than feb 1st?
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 62
Congrats all! I got my interview invite round this time last year. A wonderful Christmas present, and if you're from out East you should look forward to a brief upcoming break from the cold weather to at least something not quite as cold 🙂
Happy holidays!
Happy holidays!
Nope unfortunately the office is closed til January 3rd.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,471
- Reaction score
- 8
Wowww I can only hope I get an interview now too 🙂 Have not been rejected yet (somehow), but I am expecting that letter aaaany day now.
- Status
