Hello all,
I am going to be applying this coming summer and have been reading this thread to mentally prepare myself for what the application process is like and to get a feel for what types of numbers each of these schools are looking for.
The question I have is that would the majority of you guys that have been accepted or gotten interviews consider yourselves an "atypical" candidate, meaning have you taken a couple years off, done a post-bac, have publications, or anything else that a typical candidate applying straight out of undergrad would most likely not have or not have gone through?
I ask this because I would consider myself pretty typical in terms of having a 3.3c, 3.7s, >400 hours of clinical experience as a Scribe, >300 hours volunteering, >100 hours of shadowing, >100 hours of research, etc etc and have not taken the MCAT yet, but am nervous as what my chances are. I dont know if I am being overly critical of myself or if I am indeed right? Another reason I am critical of my stats is because a lot of people just put up their numbers which can be below average at times, and don't really explain their story as to why they potentially may have gotten in.
For example: 3.0c, 3.0s, 24 mcat, Interviewed:--- Accepted:---
Supplying this information provides very little information and can be misleading if the person got in because lets say for example, they served in the military for X years before applying which could possibly transform the way the admissions officer would think of that applicant.
So just curious as to whether a lot of you underdogs are simply just underdogs applying out of undergrad or if a lot of you are underdogs that have a significant backstory that set you apart?
Thanks guys!