2013-2014 University of Minnesota Application Thread

[adderall20xr]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Invited for an interview this morning! (for the Twin Cities Campus). OOS
Resident: CA
AMCAS verified: 7/31
Secondary Received: 8/6
Secondary completed:8/6
sGPA:3.75
cGPA: 3.70
MCAT: 32N (8VR/10BS/14PS)
Some percentage Native american (percentage unknown due to the fact my grandpa was adopted, however its likely that I am 1/4) however I cannot prove it with documents. I explained this in my secondary when asked about ties to the state.
Good luck to everyone.

 

[jlescher]

How long did it take you all to get screened for the secondary? It's only been a week since I got the email that I was being screened (in all about 2.5 weeks since verification) but I'm still confused. I have gotten every other secondary at least a week ago, including ones that screen. I'm pretty confident that I should get a chance since my stats are within range, though I'm OOS....

They take a while, and that's an understatement. AMCAS verified in June and I got the secondary on Aug 6th.

 

[jlescher]

I interviewed last year in October and I was wait listed. Since then, I gained about 150 hours of clinical experience, did volunteer work in Nicaragua independently, ran a marathon, and I'm working on publishing 5 papers. Just got rejected. Med school admissions is a joke. Why am I even surprised? SMH.

 

[glomeruli]

Rejection via email

 

[alex081291]

Same. Rejected via email

 

[schwartn]

same. Rejection via email

 

[dejadr]

Are these pre- or post-secondary rejections?

 

[glomeruli]

Are these pre- or post-secondary rejections?

Post-secondary

 

[glomeruli]

Are these pre- or post-secondary rejections?

I was complete August 5th, OOS

 

[Strategy99]

I submitted my secondary on August 19. Do they send completion emails after you submit your secondary? It doesn't say "complete" on the website, just says I submitted everything.

 

[jlescher]

People don't get rejected pre secondary. You need to have atrocious stats for that to happen and you probably shouldn't be apply to medical school if that's the case.

 

[jlescher]

I have absolutely no idea what admissions bases these decisions on because it has nothing to do with experience and qualifications.

 

[Captain Sisko]

People don't get rejected pre secondary. You need to have atrocious stats for that to happen and you probably shouldn't be apply to medical school if that's the case.

I have absolutely no idea what admissions bases these decisions on because it has nothing to do with experience and qualifications.

it's definitely random, but if you're an oos reapplicant I'd imagine it would be a harder mountain to climb. the way they explained it to me on my interview day is that two members of the adcom review your completed app and decide whether or not to invite you. so if those two weren't convinced, you're sol.

they also told me that if i didn't get in, one way to improve my chances would be to consult them, move to mn, and then reapply instate.

 

[jlescher]

it's definitely random, but if you're an oos reapplicant I'd imagine it would be a harder mountain to climb. the way they explained it to me on my interview day is that two members of the adcom review your completed app and decide whether or not to invite you. so if those two weren't convinced, you're sol.

they also told me that if i didn't get in, one way to improve my chances would be to consult them, move to mn, and then reapply instate.

Apparently that's the way MN plays the game. Leaving my job at NIH would be pretty irrisponsible, but I could see them wanting me to do that to show my "commitment". I don't understand how I was wait listed and made it through cuts and was ranked, only to be held to a higher standard this year. Based on how close I got last year I think it's safe to assume my new experiences would have been sufficient to gain an acceptance, yet I'm not even being interviewed this year. That makes no sense.

 

[volcomx]

Apparently that's the way MN plays the game. Leaving my job at NIH would be pretty irrisponsible, but I could see them wanting me to do that to show my "commitment". I don't understand how I was wait listed and made it through cuts and was ranked, only to be held to a higher standard this year. Based on how close I got last year I think it's safe to assume my new experiences would have been sufficient to gain an acceptance, yet I'm not even being interviewed this year. That makes no sense.

You're a reapplicant with less than stellar stats but seemingly decent ECs, yet you are only applying to 16 schools...7 of which you have very little chance at (UR, UCSF, UCSD, Pitt, EVMS, UMD, UVM). A few others (GW, Georgetown, Jefferson) are probably good fits but really come down to luck given the 10-14k applicants. It's still August...I'd consider adding 10 more private schools around your stats...you definitely don't want to be a 3rd time applicant.

 

[jlescher]

You're a reapplicant with less than stellar stats but seemingly decent ECs, yet you are only applying to 16 schools...7 of which you have very little chance at (UR, UCSF, UCSD, Pitt, EVMS, UMD, UVM). A few others (GW, Georgetown, Jefferson) are probably good fits but really come down to luck given the 10-14k applicants. It's still August...I'd consider adding 10 more private schools around your stats...you definitely don't want to be a 3rd time applicant.

My stats are the matriculate average at MN. cGPA is slightly lower but my GPA was a 3.8 from the second semester of sophomore year on and I was in college for 5 years, so I don't think my stats are "less than stellar".

Yet your assumptions of what are "good schools" for me to apply to are completely off. If I was interviewed by UCSD last year and WL, I made the secondary cut at UCSF this year, and I've gotten no love from GW (they tend to select students that are the polar opposite of me), GT, or Jefferson (maybe later). Your judgment of my EC is very incomplete because you based this off of MD applicants and I've only listed a handfull of things on there to give people an idea. To give you some idea, I had 24 activities on my Wisconsin application this year, most of which were fairly substantial (I'm 25). I have over 6,000 hours of research experience. Moreover, we aren't talking about those other schools, this is the MN thread.

I think you are telling me to broaden my school list so I'm not made at you, your judgment of my application is just way off. I doubt I will be a third time applicant given the fact that Wisconsin screwed up my application last year and omitted a large chunk of information after my interview. The Dean of Maryland call me to tell me to reapply there. He reviewed my application from last year and said they were pretty liberal with the red ink, and the only comment on my file was "lacks clinical experience". That one comment kept me from getting an interview. That's how fickle this process is. I am also interviewing at USUHS on their first day of interviews. I'm just very pissed off about this MN decision and the validity of this whole process, but I think you got that.

 

[cmsawyer]

II today!! SO excited, definitely one of my top choices! 😀

Complete: 8/1
3.8 & 30, in state

 

[274631]

Wow! II today. Complete 7/27. Really surprised about this one since I am OOS (international actually).

 

[ct303]

Am I missing something? I was verified 8/7 and my app was submitted directly to Minnesota TCs- I got an email from them saying they received my app but that it wasn't a secondary. And am still waiting to hear back from them about a secondary. Do you just sign in and do it like Duluth's? Or do they email it to you?

 

[kyamh]

Am I missing something? I was verified 8/7 and my app was submitted directly to Minnesota TCs- I got an email from them saying they received my app but that it wasn't a secondary. And am still waiting to hear back from them about a secondary. Do you just sign in and do it like Duluth's? Or do they email it to you?

+1 Grrrr, me too! 😡 It's so frustrating to sit on completed essays and just wait for the secondary. I've started writing emails to the admissions group a few times and talked myself out of sending each time.

I've tried logging in but it just says to wait until the secondary opens - we should be getting an email.

 

[ct303]

+1 Grrrr, me too! 😡 It's so frustrating to sit on completed essays and just wait for the secondary. I've started writing emails to the admissions group a few times and talked myself out of sending each time.

I've tried logging in but it just says to wait until the secondary opens - we should be getting an email.

Thanks for the heads up glad im not the only one.

 

[glomeruli]

Am I missing something? I was verified 8/7 and my app was submitted directly to Minnesota TCs- I got an email from them saying they received my app but that it wasn't a secondary. And am still waiting to hear back from them about a secondary. Do you just sign in and do it like Duluth's? Or do they email it to you?

I received the secondary four weeks after I got that email. I assume that since it is later in the cycle now, the wait may be longer.

 

[Strategy99]

Does Minnesota send out "complete" emails ? Or do we have to check the website

 

[Strategy99]

Wow! II today. Complete 7/27. Really surprised about this one since I am OOS (international actually).

Did you have any ties to the State?

 

[glomeruli]

Does Minnesota send out "complete" emails ? Or do we have to check the website

I received a receipt of payment email that said it would be processed within 48 hours, but no "complete" email.

 

[274631]

Did you have any ties to the State?

Nope.

 

[Skyye]

My stats are the matriculate average at MN. cGPA is slightly lower but my GPA was a 3.8 from the second semester of sophomore year on and I was in college for 5 years, so I don't think my stats are "less than stellar".

Yet your assumptions of what are "good schools" for me to apply to are completely off. If I was interviewed by UCSD last year and WL, I made the secondary cut at UCSF this year, and I've gotten no love from GW (they tend to select students that are the polar opposite of me), GT, or Jefferson (maybe later). Your judgment of my EC is very incomplete because you based this off of MD applicants and I've only listed a handfull of things on there to give people an idea. To give you some idea, I had 24 activities on my Wisconsin application this year, most of which were fairly substantial (I'm 25). I have over 6,000 hours of research experience. Moreover, we aren't talking about those other schools, this is the MN thread.

I think you are telling me to broaden my school list so I'm not made at you, your judgment of my application is just way off. I doubt I will be a third time applicant given the fact that Wisconsin screwed up my application last year and omitted a large chunk of information after my interview. The Dean of Maryland call me to tell me to reapply there. He reviewed my application from last year and said they were pretty liberal with the red ink, and the only comment on my file was "lacks clinical experience". That one comment kept me from getting an interview. That's how fickle this process is. I am also interviewing at USUHS on their first day of interviews. I'm just very pissed off about this MN decision and the validity of this whole process, but I think you got that.

You're getting pretty defensive about this. It's understandable that you're frustrated that you got rejected, but people are trying to help you out and figure out what you could do to get a better shot.

You probably thought you were in a good position due to being on the waitlist last year, but your spot of 155 was essentially a thinly veiled rejection. The UMN states that they want significant improvement before reapplication and if we look at your application overall, as you surmised, your lack of clinical experience is likely what did you in.

If we take your application in the context of this year:
Your GPA/MCAT are fine, they aren't really doing you favors, but I doubt they are really hurting you. Your research and volunteering is great and all but you already had similar activities previously so they don't really add much to your application. You managed to get some clinical experience, but only 150 of shadowing. In terms of "clinical" experience, shadowing is about as weak as it gets. There are many applicants with much stronger experiences with good patient interaction. I know you have a research position and other interests and priorities, but the time you spent on other things could have been allocated to dealing with your weakness instead.

I wish you the best of luck this year, but if you are unable to get in, I would recommend some non-shadowing clinical experience such as hospital volunteering or a job like phlebotomist, EMT, scribe, etc.

 

[jlescher]

You're getting pretty defensive about this. It's understandable that you're frustrated that you got rejected, but people are trying to help you out and figure out what you could do to get a better shot.

You probably thought you were in a good position due to being on the waitlist last year, but your spot of 155 was essentially a thinly veiled rejection. The UMN states that they want significant improvement before reapplication and if we look at your application overall, as you surmised, your lack of clinical experience is likely what did you in.

If we take your application in the context of this year:
Your GPA/MCAT are fine, they aren't really doing you favors, but I doubt they are really hurting you. Your research and volunteering is great and all but you already had similar activities previously so they don't really add much to your application. You managed to get some clinical experience, but only 150 of shadowing. In terms of "clinical" experience, shadowing is about as weak as it gets. There are many applicants with much stronger experiences with good patient interaction. I know you have a research position and other interests and priorities, but the time you spent on other things could have been allocated to dealing with your weakness instead.

I wish you the best of luck this year, but if you are unable to get in, I would recommend some non-shadowing clinical experience such as hospital volunteering or a job like phlebotomist, EMT, scribe, etc.

Thanks for the response, it was a lot more helpful than telling me I have sub par stats and my list of schools is overreaching. I've made the decisions I have based on countless conversations with doctors around me and adcom members. I am definitely defense. Mainly because I think it's absurd that an applicant be held to a ridiculous higher standard just because they applied before. I was good enough to interview last year and be selected over 5,000 other applicants, make it to the wait list, and get ranked over MN residents (they cut people from it before ranking), and I don't even get interviewed this year. In no way does that make sense. I realize that this is just one school on the list of many and it's not really a big deal, but it bothers me.

I agree with the shadowing comment, but the IM shadowing is more than just standing in a corner watching. Again, I understand people weighing in on this are doing so with very limited information. There just isn't really an accurate term for what I'm doing besides "shadowing". It involves talking to patients, residents, and the attending. When I'm there, I'm essentially treated like a medical student on a preceptorship, save for actually taking histories and presenting cases. This doesn't come across on MDapps but it does in my application. I can assure you that I'm getting more out of this than I would being a scribe or a phlebotomist. If schools put that much weight on the title and not the description of the activity then that's just sad. I have a solid grasp on patient care and what it takes to treat patients. I also have good communication skills as indicated by all three of the schools I interviewed at last year. I think that covers the prerequisites for becoming a medical student on top of all the other experience I have.

The bottom line is, I find it insane that a place like UCSF is willing to give me a secondary over thousands of other applicants with ridiculously high stats and experiences and a school like MN that I interviewed at last year won't give me the time of day. Sorry for the rant.

 

[tonicX2000]

.

 

[Captain Sisko]

lescher, didn't realize you were 155. fwiw there was a reapplicant on my interview day who was 36... and got up to 30. that's right- it moved six spots. the previous year i believe it moved around 70.

 

[jlescher]

This is what the adcoms are doing too, you know. I don't think the people sending out interview invitations are scrutinizing your entire application. I'm a third-time reapplicant, got interviewed at Harvard, waitlisted at Stanford and Duke. I sort of felt the same way you did - because I was waitlisted at a few schools, I should be golden next time. But I don't think you should ever assume you'll get in. Apply a little bit more broadly if you can, especially since I think can do better. Also, I'm sure you've thought about this a lot, but UHUHS is a long, sometimes unhappy, poorly-compensated way to go.

Thanks, I've been mulling over weather to apply to more schools but funds are kind of short. I'm living off a pretty meager stipend and my rent is 1k a month. Rent in D.C. is crazy. USUHS isn't at the top of my list but I could see myself being happy in that environment. The IM shadowing I was talking about is at Walter Reed and to be honest it doesn't seem much different than civilian med. Money is less of an issue as long as I'm comfortable.

 

[Zeebra24]

I've been having a hard time finding info on Duluth's timeline, has anyone received responses to their completed secondary, interview invites, rejections? I'm curious if anyone has details on Duluth from this year or last on when they start interviews and how long it takes them to respond to completed secondaries.

Secondary completed on 8/16.

 

[Skyye]

Thanks for the response, it was a lot more helpful than telling me I have sub par stats and my list of schools is overreaching. I've made the decisions I have based on countless conversations with doctors around me and adcom members. I am definitely defense. Mainly because I think it's absurd that an applicant be held to a ridiculous higher standard just because they applied before. I was good enough to interview last year and be selected over 5,000 other applicants, make it to the wait list, and get ranked over MN residents (they cut people from it before ranking), and I don't even get interviewed this year. In no way does that make sense. I realize that this is just one school on the list of many and it's not really a big deal, but it bothers me.

I agree with the shadowing comment, but the IM shadowing is more than just standing in a corner watching. Again, I understand people weighing in on this are doing so with very limited information. There just isn't really an accurate term for what I'm doing besides "shadowing". It involves talking to patients, residents, and the attending. When I'm there, I'm essentially treated like a medical student on a preceptorship, save for actually taking histories and presenting cases. This doesn't come across on MDapps but it does in my application. I can assure you that I'm getting more out of this than I would being a scribe or a phlebotomist. If schools put that much weight on the title and not the description of the activity then that's just sad. I have a solid grasp on patient care and what it takes to treat patients. I also have good communication skills as indicated by all three of the schools I interviewed at last year. I think that covers the prerequisites for becoming a medical student on top of all the other experience I have.

The bottom line is, I find it insane that a place like UCSF is willing to give me a secondary over thousands of other applicants with ridiculously high stats and experiences and a school like MN that I interviewed at last year won't give me the time of day. Sorry for the rant.

Well I think the rationale is, if you weren't accepted the first time, is there anything significantly different? If not, it really isn't worth their time to pursue it further. I'm not saying that this is your case, but just in general.

In regards to UCSF to UMN, it's just a secondary, even if it's just the UCSF one. Also not ever school is looking for the same criteria or weighing them the same. For example UCSF is a fantastic research institution and they may have really liked that in your application (especially with 5 publications!). While the UMN is also a strong research center, they're also one of the top primary care institutions, and you have very limited patient care experiences and this is probably one of the reasons they rejected you last year.

Concerning your medical experience, it is like tonicX2000 said, they only have so much information to work with.

Plus, with just about any clinical experience you'll have the chance to talk to patients, residents and other physicians. If you are with any physician that gives a damn about you, you're going to be treated like a medical student and they will do their best to teach you as much as they can. Your experiences aren't that unique or special, and if you think that 150 hours of shadowing, no matter how involved, is all you need to have a solid grasp on patient care you're sorely mistaken. Medical students on preceptorships don't do much more than dip their toes in the pool, that's why it takes years and thousands of hours of practice. I'm sure you had a great experience, especially since you have just about no other clinical experience, but to say that you're sure that your experiences shadowing are for sure more valuable than jobs in the medical field such as scribing, CNA, EMT, etc is just arrogant and ignorant. You have no idea how much better many of the students who come in as scribes or with other medically related jobs work with patients. It's honestly like night and day. If/when you actually start working with patients, you'll be surprised by how much you can learn by just laying hands on a patient, talking to them on your own terms, and actually providing some care.

Communication skills and prerequisites are just that, prerequisites. Just because you got interviews doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of applicants who get interviews who clearly aren't cut out for being a physician. The way you've said things seems to demean the rest of us who applied to the UMN. I'm happy that you got a secondary at UCSF but don't make the UMN out to be some second-rate institution. I'm sure you'll get in somewhere eventually, and hopefully your mindset will change, but all you've communicated here is your anger and sense of entitlement.

 

[3241990]

I've been having a hard time finding info on Duluth's timeline, has anyone received responses to their completed secondary, interview invites, rejections? I'm curious if anyone has details on Duluth from this year or last on when they start interviews and how long it takes them to respond to completed secondaries.

Secondary completed on 8/16.

from what i hear, no news from duluth is good. they denied a lot of people (four friends from the cities) within a week of completing their apps based on where the were from so try not to get too worried

 

[Zeebra24]

from what i hear, no news from duluth is good. they denied a lot of people (four friends from the cities) within a week of completing their apps based on where the were from so try not to get too worried

Sorry to hear your friends did not receive good news, but I appreciate the feedback. Duluth is my first choice because of the emphasis on rural medicine, and I'm anxious to receive a response.

 

[jlescher]

Well I think the rationale is, if you weren't accepted the first time, is there anything significantly different? If not, it really isn't worth their time to pursue it further. I'm not saying that this is your case, but just in general.

In regards to UCSF to UMN, it's just a secondary, even if it's just the UCSF one. Also not ever school is looking for the same criteria or weighing them the same. For example UCSF is a fantastic research institution and they may have really liked that in your application (especially with 5 publications!). While the UMN is also a strong research center, they're also one of the top primary care institutions, and you have very limited patient care experiences and this is probably one of the reasons they rejected you last year.

Concerning your medical experience, it is like tonicX2000 said, they only have so much information to work with.

Plus, with just about any clinical experience you'll have the chance to talk to patients, residents and other physicians. If you are with any physician that gives a damn about you, you're going to be treated like a medical student and they will do their best to teach you as much as they can. Your experiences aren't that unique or special, and if you think that 150 hours of shadowing, no matter how involved, is all you need to have a solid grasp on patient care you're sorely mistaken. Medical students on preceptorships don't do much more than dip their toes in the pool, that's why it takes years and thousands of hours of practice. I'm sure you had a great experience, especially since you have just about no other clinical experience, but to say that you're sure that your experiences shadowing are for sure more valuable than jobs in the medical field such as scribing, CNA, EMT, etc is just arrogant and ignorant. You have no idea how much better many of the students who come in as scribes or with other medically related jobs work with patients. It's honestly like night and day. If/when you actually start working with patients, you'll be surprised by how much you can learn by just laying hands on a patient, talking to them on your own terms, and actually providing some care.

Communication skills and prerequisites are just that, prerequisites. Just because you got interviews doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of applicants who get interviews who clearly aren't cut out for being a physician. The way you've said things seems to demean the rest of us who applied to the UMN. I'm happy that you got a secondary at UCSF but don't make the UMN out to be some second-rate institution. I'm sure you'll get in somewhere eventually, and hopefully your mindset will change, but all you've communicated here is your anger and sense of entitlement.

With UCSF it's not just a secondary like most schools. It means I passed a cut and am now in a pool of 1500 people instead of 7000. They saw some value in me, probably the research. I'm not ignorant and nothing anyone has said on here is new information. The entire reason I'm angry is because it's illogical to interview someone and wait list them, when they could have rejected me. Then rank me, when they could have rejected me again. Only to reject me outright this year when I have improved, regardless of how much I improved. I get it, apparently they didn't think I improved much. Most would disagree with this assessment, including two deans from equally prestigious universities who reviewed my file from last year and this year. It doesn't really matter, I'm SOL at UMN.

With regard to experience in a clinical setting, don't put words in my mouth. I specifically said scribe and phlebotomist, not EMT etc. Those are different professions. Experiences are individual and it's not right for you to assume any experience is better than another in the first place. All be it in the majority of cases you are right. I've gotten a lot out of my experiences and understanding what it takes to treat patients is a relative term. Of course I'm naive, and I probably will be until I'm 2-3 years into residency. The point is I think I've got a good enough grasp on medicine to start school with a solid understanding of what I'm getting myself into.

I don't consider UMN an inferior institution and I would love to attend UMN, however; UCSF is better school. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Don't be offended by what I said. It's nothing against anyone with an interview, and it's not my intention. I'm simply frustrated with the inconsistently of this process after committing so much of my life to it and investing so much money in UMN specifically, only to be cast aside by them after working hard to improve. I'm not entitled, it's just illogical to give me an interview last year, and not give me one again as a stronger applicant. It's very easy for you to take the stance of the humbly gracious pre-med, and say you hope I chance my tune. I would have said the same thing last year. You might have a different perspective if you spent thousands of hours building a strong application, as well as thousands of dollars on flights and applications and a school makes an inconsistent decision like this and you're on the receiving end of it. I hope it never happens to you. This is a forum and I'm venting, I apologize. Good luck to all of you, and I hope you can avoid what I've gone through and get in early on your first try! I'm going to stop polluting this thread and let you guys get back on topic

 

[jlescher]

lescher, didn't realize you were 155. fwiw there was a reapplicant on my interview day who was 36... and got up to 30. that's right- it moved six spots. the previous year i believe it moved around 70.

I know, I don't understand why they rank people that high, other than to inform them of where they were in the group. I withdrew right away so I could get feedback on my application to address their concerns this year.

 

[staysmiling16]

I have a question about the secondary. I am working on it now and see the question about any ties to Minnesota. I really don't have any direct ties like family or anything. But now I am wondering if they only want in-state students. (I am from Canada by the way)

I am just having a hard time with this question. Thanks for all your help.

 

[Skyye]

With UCSF it's not just a secondary like most schools. It means I passed a cut and am now in a pool of 1500 people instead of 7000. They saw some value in me, probably the research. I'm not ignorant and nothing anyone has said on here is new information. The entire reason I'm angry is because it's illogical to interview someone and wait list them, when they could have rejected me. Then rank me, when they could have rejected me again. Only to reject me outright this year when I have improved, regardless of how much I improved. I get it, apparently they didn't think I improved much. Most would disagree with this assessment, including two deans from equally prestigious universities who reviewed my file from last year and this year. It doesn't really matter, I'm SOL at UMN.

With regard to experience in a clinical setting, don't put words in my mouth. I specifically said scribe and phlebotomist, not EMT etc. Those are different professions. Experiences are individual and it's not right for you to assume any experience is better than another in the first place. All be it in the majority of cases you are right. I've gotten a lot out of my experiences and understanding what it takes to treat patients is a relative term. Of course I'm naive, and I probably will be until I'm 2-3 years into residency. The point is I think I've got a good enough grasp on medicine to start school with a solid understanding of what I'm getting myself into.

I don't consider UMN an inferior institution and I would love to attend UMN, however; UCSF is better school. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Don't be offended by what I said. It's nothing against anyone with an interview, and it's not my intention. I'm simply frustrated with the inconsistently of this process after committing so much of my life to it and investing so much money in UMN specifically, only to be cast aside by them after working hard to improve. I'm not entitled, it's just illogical to give me an interview last year, and not give me one again as a stronger applicant. It's very easy for you to take the stance of the humbly gracious pre-med, and say you hope I chance my tune. I would have said the same thing last year. You might have a different perspective if you spent thousands of hours building a strong application, as well as thousands of dollars on flights and applications and a school makes an inconsistent decision like this and you're on the receiving end of it. I hope it never happens to you. This is a forum and I'm venting, I apologize. Good luck to all of you, and I hope you can avoid what I've gone through and get in early on your first try! I'm going to stop polluting this thread and let you guys get back on topic

1. UCSF is a different school with different goals and different desired qualities. I don't think it's entirely illogical for you to be rejected after being interviewed the year before. By interviewing you and taking a much more in depth look at your application the year before, the UMN has a much better idea of you and your application than schools that passed you over without interviews. In terms of your improvement, it's not only about how much you improved, but how and where you improved matters too. Your overall improvement may have been enough to make other schools take a deeper look at your application, but the UMN already took an in depth look this last year, and they presumably found that you did not improve sufficiently in the areas they desired. This is one thing I've heard about my reapplicant friends at the U, they really want you to take strong steps to remedy your weaknesses.
Think about it like this: Imagine you're a table with 3 strong legs and 1 wobbly leg. The wobbly leg represents your lack of clinical experience. You took the past year to volunteer in Nicaragua and work on 5 research papers which reinforced your 3 strong legs, but your 150 hours of clinical experience is like sticking a phone book under the wobbly leg, a weak fix.
In addition, you seem awfully caught up in things like prestige and deans calling you. It's the Deans job as part of the admissions to committee to evaluate applicants. Deans calling regarding errors or issues isn't out of the ordinary. I have a few friends who received calls from deans regarding reapplication, waitlists and the like. Many Deans take plenty of time to talk to students and encourage them to apply and improve. Don't parade this around as proof of why they shouldn't have been rejected from certain schools.

2. Concerning the clinical setting jobs, I didn't put words in your mouth. You apparently didn't read my previous responses which referenced jobs such as EMT and CNA. Regardless, you're the one assuming that your experiences are superior to scribing or phlebotomy with no real basis. You "assured" me your experience was superior. Just because you felt like you gained a lot and felt like you were treated like a student doesn't Don't assume others experiences are inferior because you felt like you were treated like a medical student. You obviously have no idea what scribing is like. Scribing experiences can vary widely because of companies or locations, but many doctors my friends and I have worked with have treat scribes like students or residents every day. Even if your experiences were "better", the breadth of your experience doesn't even come close. The time and effort you have put in is no where on the same scale of a job or even volunteering. You only put ~150 hours in and have very limited patient exposure.

3. I'm sorry that you've had such a tough time with applications, but stop casting yourself as a martyr or tragic hero. I know you've worked hard to improve, but you need to calm down, clear your mind, take off your rose-tinted glasses and take an objectively look at why you could have been rejected. If you are able to do this, it won't be as illogical.

 

[Skyye]

I have a question about the secondary. I am working on it now and see the question about any ties to Minnesota. I really don't have any direct ties like family or anything. But now I am wondering if they only want in-state students. (I am from Canada by the way)

I am just having a hard time with this question. Thanks for all your help.

They take a number of OOS, but as a public school they have a strong preference for in-state students and student with ties to the state.

 

[274631]

I have a question about the secondary. I am working on it now and see the question about any ties to Minnesota. I really don't have any direct ties like family or anything. But now I am wondering if they only want in-state students. (I am from Canada by the way)

I am just having a hard time with this question. Thanks for all your help.

They definitely have an instate preference because they are a state school. However I have no ties to the state (and said that in my secondary) and received an interview invite. My guess is that maybe I fit their mission???

And I am also an International student (non-Canadian though).

 

[jlescher]

1. UCSF is a different school with different goals and different desired qualities. I don't think it's entirely illogical for you to be rejected after being interviewed the year before. By interviewing you and taking a much more in depth look at your application the year before, the UMN has a much better idea of you and your application than schools that passed you over without interviews. In terms of your improvement, it's not only about how much you improved, but how and where you improved matters too. Your overall improvement may have been enough to make other schools take a deeper look at your application, but the UMN already took an in depth look this last year, and they presumably found that you did not improve sufficiently in the areas they desired. This is one thing I've heard about my reapplicant friends at the U, they really want you to take strong steps to remedy your weaknesses.
Think about it like this: Imagine you're a table with 3 strong legs and 1 wobbly leg. The wobbly leg represents your lack of clinical experience. You took the past year to volunteer in Nicaragua and work on 5 research papers which reinforced your 3 strong legs, but your 150 hours of clinical experience is like sticking a phone book under the wobbly leg, a weak fix.
In addition, you seem awfully caught up in things like prestige and deans calling you. It's the Deans job as part of the admissions to committee to evaluate applicants. Deans calling regarding errors or issues isn't out of the ordinary. I have a few friends who received calls from deans regarding reapplication, waitlists and the like. Many Deans take plenty of time to talk to students and encourage them to apply and improve. Don't parade this around as proof of why they shouldn't have been rejected from certain schools.

2. Concerning the clinical setting jobs, I didn't put words in your mouth. You apparently didn't read my previous responses which referenced jobs such as EMT and CNA. Regardless, you're the one assuming that your experiences are superior to scribing or phlebotomy with no real basis. You "assured" me your experience was superior. Just because you felt like you gained a lot and felt like you were treated like a student doesn't Don't assume others experiences are inferior because you felt like you were treated like a medical student. You obviously have no idea what scribing is like. Scribing experiences can vary widely because of companies or locations, but many doctors my friends and I have worked with have treat scribes like students or residents every day. Even if your experiences were "better", the breadth of your experience doesn't even come close. The time and effort you have put in is no where on the same scale of a job or even volunteering. You only put ~150 hours in and have very limited patient exposure.

3. I'm sorry that you've had such a tough time with applications, but stop casting yourself as a martyr or tragic hero. I know you've worked hard to improve, but you need to calm down, clear your mind, take off your rose-tinted glasses and take an objectively look at why you could have been rejected. If you are able to do this, it won't be as illogical.

You have some valid points. I read what you said about other jobs and I specifically commented on 2 of them. I also should have said, I believe I'm getting as much out of my experience as I would out of those other two jobs. You also have a preconceived notion of the quality of those other jobs. As a phlobotamist, you could easily take some vitals, draw some blood and do little else. You get out what you put in and it's wrong to dismiss what I'm doing as a weak fix. I'm just saying I got very close at 3 schools last year with almost no clinical experience. You do realize 150 is about 5 hours per week for 9 months. That equates to seeing roughly 120 patients. You seem to think that's very insignificant. I guess people view that differently. Most medical schools that hook students up with a pcm for clinical experience the first two years do exactly what ive been doing, a half day a week. I also have to get this experience while working a 50 hour a week job. I could get a different job but I also don't want to bail on the people I work with.

I bring up schools like ucsf as a comparable. I also brought up the deans because its objective support for my argument. We are beating a dead horse here but it is entirely possible that UMN did make a bad call here. It's cool though, I'll live.

 

[adderall20xr]

I've been having a hard time finding info on Duluth's timeline, has anyone received responses to their completed secondary, interview invites, rejections? I'm curious if anyone has details on Duluth from this year or last on when they start interviews and how long it takes them to respond to completed secondaries.

Secondary completed on 8/16.

I just received an II at the Duluth Campus yesterday. I submitted on 8/1, verified 8/1. OOS sGPA 3.75 Mcat 32. No ties to the state except being partially native american. They are actually paying for my plane ticket, lodging and other travel expenses to interview at the Duluth campus and the Twin Cities campus.

 

[Skyye]

You have some valid points. I read what you said about other jobs and I specifically commented on 2 of them. I also should have said, I believe I'm getting as much out of my experience as I would out of those other two jobs. You also have a preconceived notion of the quality of those other jobs. As a phlobotamist, you could easily take some vitals, draw some blood and do little else. You get out what you put in and it's wrong to dismiss what I'm doing as a weak fix. I'm just saying I got very close at 3 schools last year with almost no clinical experience. You do realize 150 is about 5 hours per week for 9 months. That equates to seeing roughly 120 patients. You seem to think that's very insignificant. I guess people view that differently. Most medical schools that hook students up with a pcm for clinical experience the first two years do exactly what ive been doing, a half day a week. I also have to get this experience while working a 50 hour a week job. I could get a different job but I also don't want to bail on the people I work with.

I bring up schools like ucsf as a comparable. I also brought up the deans because its objective support for my argument. We are beating a dead horse here but it is entirely possible that UMN did make a bad call here. It's cool though, I'll live.

What preconceived notions? I presented phlebotomist as a "comparable" to give examples of other jobs. I never commented about the quality of experience as a phlebotomist because I don't have the requisite experience or knowledge regarding it. You on the other hand used your Jump To Conclusions Mat (TM) to say your experience is not only assuredly superior to it, but superior to other experiences including scribing. You have a preconceived notion about these jobs as inferior to your wonderful experience but how do you know your experience is better? You felt like you learned a lot? That automatically makes your experience assuredly better? You have no right to call other experiences inferior. I have experience as a scribe and so do many of my friends in medical school and in practice. They have drawn from their experiences many times and found their time as a scribe quite worthwhile. You can't even put into words why you think your experience is so valuable. You spent 150 hours watching doctors and talking to them. If you can't articulate why your experience is better, or even valuable, you expect an admissions committee to just believe you? People aren't going to take your words at face value. You claim that your experience gave you a "solid grasp on patient care and what it takes to treat patients". That's cool, tell me more. You say you were treated like a medical student and did the exact same thing and more! The shadowing most medical students do is just to get a taste of different medical environments. Medical students have the requisite knowledge to put what they see into a clinical context, good luck getting the same experience out of shadowing as them. I've worked with medical students in the ER, inpatient environments as well as the clinic, much of what they do is passive but if you're a M3 or M4 you'll probably get to see patients. A lot of residents and students I have been with have remarked that they wish they would have been able to scribe. Scribes for all intents and purposes get practice taking histories. They work side by side every day with doctors who often take the time to present cases and go through them. Many of the doctors treat their scribes like students or residents and teach them. It's no surprise that so many of the doctors, residents and students that work with scribes believe that they are gaining many skills that will be useful in the future. Heck, many of them remark that some of the scribes could pass off as ER residents or PAs. As I said, scribing experiences can vary from program and program, but the vast majority of scribe programs are amazing opportunities for clinical experience.

I never said scribing or any other experience was better than your time shadowing, you were the one parading your superiority. I acknowledged the that hey, maybe hour for hour you might have gained more efficient experience, but I also pointed out your lack of time commitment. You spent 5 hours a week? Are you honestly trying to compare that to a full time job or even volunteering? You spent a third of a day, one day a week with self-serving "clinical experience". It was clear last year that your lack of clinical experience was your most glaring weakness. You spent almost all of your time doing other things and just touched on your weakness. This is arrogant and disrepectful to the admissions committee. You're practically saying that you're above their advice and recommendations. It's clear you had other priorities, and I guess it wasn't a priority for you to get in here. You clearly have bigger and better schools to go to, and that's good because you got a secondary at UCSF.

Just one more thing, you say you got very close last year? You got an interview which is commendable, but you were ranked 155 on the waitlist. The wait list went out to ~170, you were a scrape above the bottom. The U may have done some rejections at the end pre-waitlist ranking, but these were pretty few and far between.
Let's do some math shall we? The U matriculated 185. Medical schools on average have ~30-40% of accepted students matriculate. For simplicity's sake, let's make that 50%. So we'll say the U sent out 370 acceptances. The U interviewed about 700 people. This puts you at (155+370)/700=525/700
You were likely in the bottom quartile of all students they interviewed, if that. They clearly did not have an overly positive view of you last year and you didn't take their suggestions to heart.

 

[jlescher]

What preconceived notions? I presented phlebotomist as a "comparable" to give examples of other jobs. I never commented about the quality of experience as a phlebotomist because I don't have the requisite experience or knowledge regarding it. You on the other hand used your Jump To Conclusions Mat (TM) to say your experience is not only assuredly superior to it, but superior to other experiences including scribing. You have a preconceived notion about these jobs as inferior to your wonderful experience but how do you know your experience is better? You felt like you learned a lot? That automatically makes your experience assuredly better? You have no right to call other experiences inferior. I have experience as a scribe and so do many of my friends in medical school and in practice. They have drawn from their experiences many times and found their time as a scribe quite worthwhile. You can't even put into words why you think your experience is so valuable. You spent 150 hours watching doctors and talking to them. If you can't articulate why your experience is better, or even valuable, you expect an admissions committee to just believe you? People aren't going to take your words at face value. You claim that your experience gave you a "solid grasp on patient care and what it takes to treat patients". That's cool, tell me more. You say you were treated like a medical student and did the exact same thing and more! The shadowing most medical students do is just to get a taste of different medical environments. Medical students have the requisite knowledge to put what they see into a clinical context, good luck getting the same experience out of shadowing as them. I've worked with medical students in the ER, inpatient environments as well as the clinic, much of what they do is passive but if you're a M3 or M4 you'll probably get to see patients. A lot of residents and students I have been with have remarked that they wish they would have been able to scribe. Scribes for all intents and purposes get practice taking histories. They work side by side every day with doctors who often take the time to present cases and go through them. Many of the doctors treat their scribes like students or residents and teach them. It's no surprise that so many of the doctors, residents and students that work with scribes believe that they are gaining many skills that will be useful in the future. Heck, many of them remark that some of the scribes could pass off as ER residents or PAs. As I said, scribing experiences can vary from program and program, but the vast majority of scribe programs are amazing opportunities for clinical experience.

I never said scribing or any other experience was better than your time shadowing, you were the one parading your superiority. I acknowledged the that hey, maybe hour for hour you might have gained more efficient experience, but I also pointed out your lack of time commitment. You spent 5 hours a week? Are you honestly trying to compare that to a full time job or even volunteering? You spent a third of a day, one day a week with self-serving "clinical experience". It was clear last year that your lack of clinical experience was your most glaring weakness. You spent almost all of your time doing other things and just touched on your weakness. This is arrogant and disrepectful to the admissions committee. You're practically saying that you're above their advice and recommendations. It's clear you had other priorities, and I guess it wasn't a priority for you to get in here. You clearly have bigger and better schools to go to, and that's good because you got a secondary at UCSF.

Just one more thing, you say you got very close last year? You got an interview which is commendable, but you were ranked 155 on the waitlist. The wait list went out to ~170, you were a scrape above the bottom. The U may have done some rejections at the end pre-waitlist ranking, but these were pretty few and far between.
Let's do some math shall we? The U matriculated 185. Medical schools on average have ~30-40% of accepted students matriculate. For simplicity's sake, let's make that 50%. So we'll say the U sent out 370 acceptances. The U interviewed about 700 people. This puts you at (155+370)/700=525/700
You were likely in the bottom quartile of all students they interviewed, if that. They clearly did not have an overly positive view of you last year and you didn't take their suggestions to heart.

Hahaha and you tell me to calm down. Do even read? I even clarified my comment and said I believe I get as much out of my experience as others get out of being a phlebotomist and a scribe. Don't take this so personally. I haven't articulated what I got out of it because you didn't ask and I don't really feel like writing an essay about it on this forum. It is contained in my application.

You are correct, a lot of people who interview aren't cut out for medicine and those are usually the people who get rejected post interview, not wait listed. Likewise there are also medical students who aren't cut out for medicine. You do realize that wait listed applicants are typically considered acceptable for admittance, the just aren't the most competative. Feel free to inquire about that, most admissions members will confirm that. Making it peculiar that I improved, how much being irrelevant and wasn't even interviewed again.

You really don't know me or what I have done. You seem to assume UMN is infalable and can't possibly make a bad call. Because we all know this process is foolproof and inconsistency and randomness is never a problem. I also didn't insult the adcom by disregard the advice they gave me. I've been improving my application for the last year and got feedback in June.

 

[Skyye]

Hahaha and you tell me to calm down. Do even read? I even clarified my comment and said I believe I get as much out of my experience as others get out of being a phlebotomist and a scribe. Don't take this so personally. I haven't articulated what I got out of it because you didn't ask and I don't really feel like writing an essay about it on this forum. It is contained in my application.

You are correct, a lot of people who interview aren't cut out for medicine and those are usually the people who get rejected. Likewise there are also medical students who aren't cut out for medicine. You do realize that wait listed applicants are typically considered acceptable for admittance, the just aren't the most competative. Feel free to inquire about that, most admissions members will confirm that. Making it peculiar that I improved, how much being irrelevant and wasn't even interviewed again.

Where did I say calm down? Who's the one failing to read? You claim to have clarified your comment but you went on to talk about "preconceived notions" about other experiences. Your initial comment spoke volumes about your mindset regarding your experience. It's ludicrous for you to think you got as much out of 150 hours as a full time job or extended commitment to volunteering, etc.

You were the one who said you had difficulty describing your experience. You bemoaned the fact that we didn't get the full picture, yet you struggled to provide one. What you did articulate obviously did not show what you wanted, and that's on you. I just hope you had someone proofread your application.

Waitlisted applicants are considered acceptable for admittance, but acceptable is just that, acceptable. It's a "competative" process. Just because you are acceptable doesn't mean you automatically deserve another interview. They took a much more in depth look at you than most other schools last year, and were not particularly impressed. On top of this, you did not improve adequately in the areas they had asked. Hardly peculiar.

I'm not taking this personally, you know next to nothing about me. I'm just doing you a favor. You're welcome.

 

[jlescher]

1.

3. I'm sorry that you've had such a tough time with applications, but stop casting yourself as a martyr or tragic hero. I know you've worked hard to improve, but you need to calm down, clear your mind, take off your rose-tinted glasses and take an objectively look at why you could have been rejected. If you are able to do this, it won't be as illogical.

You misinterpret a lot of what I say. I never once said I had trouble disc tubing anything. I said people were critiquing me based on my MDapplucant profile which is a very incomplete picture of my application. Those are completely different statements.

Your numbers are also a little liberal. Your acceptance numbers are rough estimates and an acceptance numbers include those taken off the wait list. Moreover, umn accepted a bunch of people off of the wait list before ever ranking it. It makes it look like more people matriculated and they had to dip less into the ranked wait list. It's the reason they only took 30 this year as opposed to 70 the year before. Even if your numbers are accurate I was about 120 people way from an acceptance. The last acceptance offered is no less legitimate than the first. Those 350 acceptances are all the same. I was roughly in the top third of those interviewed and not accepted.

 

[Skyye]

Your numbers are also a little liberal. Your acceptance numbers are rough estimates and an acceptance numbers include those taken off the wait list. Moreover, umn accepted a bunch of people off of the wait list before ever ranking it. It makes it look like more people matriculated and they had to dip less into the ranked wait list. It's the reason they only took 30 this year as opposed to 70 the year before. Even if your numbers are accurate I was about 120 people way from an acceptance. The last acceptance offered is no less legitimate than the first. Those 350 acceptances are all the same. I was roughly in the top third of those interviewed and not accepted.

Mmm. So I did. My point still stands. You're just some kid who is ever so butthurt about being rejected and can't get over himself. He mad. It's hilarious.

No $**t my numbers are liberal, they are estimations. I even erred on the side that made you look better. I could have taken the average or erred on the other side to make you look worse. You could have easily been in the bottom 10% of all those interviewed.

The UMN accepted people before the alternate list rankings yes, that means that there were a significant number of people who chose not to attend the UMN, and you were below all of them. It doesn't make it look like more people matriculated, are you daft? Do you even understand the words you use (I don't even know why this is a question from your posts)? The number of people who matriculated are the ones who are the M1s attending as we speak you numskull.

They took 30 off the waitlist? They took 6, try again kid. Even the worst person interviewed could claim they were a few hundred people away from being accepted lol. All acceptances are the same in practice, but they aren't in terms of rankings. But guess what, you weren't accepted, you barely even made the alternate list.

The UMN interviewed 708 people, you would have to be in the top 236 to be in the top third. Being in the top third meant you were accepted. Even if we just go off waitlist+# of spots you are 155+185=340. Theoretically, the best you could have even been ranked compared too all interviewed was the top half, and you obviously were not. You're making this too easy...

 

[jlescher]

Mmm. So I did. My point still stands. You're just some kid who is ever so butthurt about being rejected and can't get over himself. He mad. It's hilarious.

No $**t my numbers are liberal, they are estimations. I even erred on the side that made you look better. I could have taken the average or erred on the other side to make you look worse. You could have easily been in the bottom 10% of all those interviewed.

The UMN accepted people before the alternate list rankings yes, that means that there were a significant number of people who chose not to attend the UMN, and you were below all of them. It doesn't make it look like more people matriculated, are you daft? Do you even understand the words you use (I don't even know why this is a question from your posts)? The number of people who matriculated are the ones who are the M1s attending as we speak you numskull.

They took 30 off the waitlist? They took 6, try again kid. Even the worst person interviewed could claim they were a few hundred people away from being accepted lol. All acceptances are the same in practice, but they aren't in terms of rankings. But guess what, you weren't accepted, you barely even made the alternate list.

The UMN interviewed 708 people, you would have to be in the top 236 to be in the top third. Being in the top third meant you were accepted. Even if we just go off waitlist+# of spots you are 155+185=340. Theoretically, the best you could have even been ranked compared too all interviewed was the top half, and you obviously were not. You're making this too easy...

You misinterpret a lot of what I say. I never once said I had trouble describing anything about my experiences. I said people were critiquing me based on my MDapplucant profile which is a very incomplete picture of my application. Those are completely different statements.
Top third of those who were not accepted. I suggest you start reading what I actually write instead of twisting everything to make me look ignorant. The fewer people they take off the WL the more desirable the school looks. That acceptance number isn't offers, plus people pulled off the wait list before ranking, plus those pulled from the rank list. 50% acceptance rate might be a little generous. But hey, saying 50 instead of 40 just let's you tack on an extra 70 acceptances to make your point. It's simple, 350+155-6 from the wait list this year is 499 of 700. Not top 1/3 sorry, but 201 people were below me. I'm better than I was last year and some how dropped over 200 spots. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Skyye]

Top third of those who were not accepted. I suggest you start reading what I actually write.

You too. Keep dodging and deflecting kid. Go ahead and keep editing your old posts too rofl.

You still aren't there in the top third of that group anyway. If you take the original estimation which was generous on your behalf: 370 receive acceptances but may or may not matriculate. This leaves 708-370=338 who are not accepted and either waitlisted or straight up rejected. We can round this up to 350 to give you even more leeway. 155/350 is again barely above the top half. You were at least closer to being the top third of those not accepted? That enough to soothe your bruised ego?

Edit: Go ahead and keep editing your posts to try to cover your tracks haha.

"There just isn't really an accurate term for what I'm doing besides "shadowing". It involves talking to patients, residents, and the attending. When I'm there, I'm essentially treated like a medical student on a preceptorship, save for actually taking histories and presenting cases. This doesn't come across on MDapps but it does in my application."
You basically said that you have trouble describing it, made a lackluster description then said, it's good on my app though! You're good at deflecting and copping out, I'll give you that.

You still weren't in the top third of either category, deal with it. You basically repeated my math but made yourself look slightly better, but your estimate still puts you at ~500/700. They clearly didn't like you all that much and they took a long look at you. You're marginally better than last year but you disregarded their advice. It makes plenty of sense for you to get rejected. Not getting an interview doesn't necessarily mean you "dropped spots", rather it seems that they don't think you're worth a second look because you fared poorly in the interview pool last year and you did not improve as they had desired.

50% instead of 40% was in regards to the percentage of people accepted who decide to matriculate at a given school. It's hearsay, but it's thrown around a lot so I just used it as an estimate and gave you a 10% bump. Yeah acceptance number aren't offers. 185 people matriculated but many more people were given acceptance letters. Them taking more people off the waitlist before ranking the alternate list made you look better you dolt. You were at the end of the waitlist, if they took those people they accepted after making the rankings, you probably wouldn't have even made the list at all.

I'm not twisting anything around, you are ignorant that's obvious. On top of that your reading comprehension skills and communication skills seem to be suspect. I'll admit I got sloppy in the past couple posts, but I'm just pounding them out in between doing other stuff. You're trying so hard to read through these posts, nitpick brownie points yet still fail to prove any salient points. If anything you're the one trying to make me look ignorant by constantly going back to edit your posts and cover deficiencies after the fact.