-
The 2026-2027 MD School Specific Threads are now live in the School Specific Discussions forum. The 2025-2026 cycle threads can be found here. -
Scholarship Access: Becoming a Student Doctor course
Free access to comprehensive medical school prep. Eligible students include AAMC FAP recipients and HS graduates from underserved areas. Apply today.
2020-2021 Waitlist Support Thread
Started by retro2021
SCARED BUT OPTIMISTIC
Applied last cycle and had 3 interviews, 3 WL and 0 A’s
This cycle I have had 2 interviews, just got put on my first WL today and not too optimistic about the other school
The chances of having to apply in a third cycle are seeming REAL high lol. I’m feeling defeated and sad. It just feels so hopeless at this point. Also the fact that I improved my app by raising my MCAT yet have even fewer interviews than last year makes me sick lmao.
This cycle I have had 2 interviews, just got put on my first WL today and not too optimistic about the other school
The chances of having to apply in a third cycle are seeming REAL high lol. I’m feeling defeated and sad. It just feels so hopeless at this point. Also the fact that I improved my app by raising my MCAT yet have even fewer interviews than last year makes me sick lmao.
6 WL and 1 defer. I actually hate everything about this process.
That’s frustrating :/ I feel as though a large factor is this year’s app cycle which hasn’t been great.
Yeah tho cycle has been brutal for many 🙁
Got moved off the waitlist from my state school. My one II is now an A!
Congrats!!!
Congratulations! Which school was this?? I’m surprised to see the WL movement already
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
WVU.
I had sent a letter of intent last week but I wasn’t expecting to see movement until April or May.
I agree, it’s been terrible. I’ve been hearing that people think there will be more waitlist movement this year (b/c the top candidates will have to drop the acceptances they don’t want but got by doing virtual interviews) but I’m scared to get my hopes up
anyone just need to vent? because I really need to. PM me if you want to let off some steam!! I've been trying so hard to remain positive for these last two cycles, but I just can't lie to myself anymore. This system is not fair at all, and it sucks to be the one left behind after you've given your everything.
Just got my fourth waitlist in a row, with two more post-II decisions to go. This is starting to feel like a cruel joke now lol.
D
deleted1051859
Waitlisted at my dream school twice in 2 years...My heart hurts.
me too bby, sitting on 6 waitlists at this point
just got waitlisted at the last school I was waiting to here from. 3rd cycle here we come yeehaw. is anyone else’s morale at an all time low? lol painful is an understatement
Do you all think there will be higher than usual waitlist movement this cycle?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think it's good to be hopeful that there is because this process is so ridiculous. But I think it's more important to be realistic and prepare for it to be just like any other application cycle. we said that there would be fewer apps this year, and it went up 17 % instead. So, let's keep our heads up and hope for the best, but let's be realistic and prepare for the worst.
My thoughts too. WL movement already sucked last year, and w there being a spike in applicants this year I can only think that it’s get even worse. But I hope I’m wrong
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of people applying is more or less the same though. It's just that those people are submitting more apps since they do not have to pay to travel instead. That's potentially why there might be greater WL movement.
What I'm hoping that happened is that since people can accept more interviews this cycle because there's really no financial or time restraints to attending more interviews, and if the same number of interviews are extended this cycle as in previous cycles, then I'm hoping that the pool of applicants who received interviews is smaller. Ergo more people holding multiple acceptances --> less people on waitlist --> more waitlist movement as that small pool of people w/ acceptances gives up their spots at the end of April. Not sure if that logic made sense or not
Hello_There_117
Full Member
Throwing my hat in the Waitlist support thread. Have been on 5 interviews with 1 post-II rejection, one active hold and three waitlists (one mid-tier, one high-tier) Ouch. How we feeling about the EVMS waitlist this cycle? it's my favorite school and so far I think maybe the best chance I have of getting accepted this cycle since I'm on their top-tier OOS WL.
Last edited:
Congrats on getting so many interviews in such a competitive cycle!
I'm on three waitlists and have an interview coming up at EVMS in two weeks- which will more than likely go to waitlist this late in the cycle. Their waitlist in particular confuses me to no end... They put people in tiers but then don't pull in order of tier...? 🤔
Almost seems like more of an organizational tool than a "rank", but who knows. However, I've heard their OOS waitlist has massive movement!!
Wishing you luck!
Hello_There_117
Full Member
That's reassuring since I just received the result of my pending decision, another waitlist... Ouch. You will love the interview with EVMS I really enjoyed my time there and would like to go there so hope it works out for us both in the end!
Welp, didn't get into any Texas schools today which means that I've literally gone 0/7 with interviews, currently 4 WLs but I'll probably get the other 3 WL emails soon. No idea where to go from here, feeling very jaded about everything as a 3rd time reapplicant, I'm not sure Ill do this again.
I am now 3 for 3 with WL. Just had one interview yesterday but at this point in the cycle I’m not too hopeful.
This’ll be my third time applying if I need to reapply. Every cycle I make new friends who apply with me and so far, every cycle, I’m the one left in the dust
:,(
This’ll be my third time applying if I need to reapply. Every cycle I make new friends who apply with me and so far, every cycle, I’m the one left in the dust
:,(
Last edited:
Just a general word of advice ... anybody who is a reapplicant , if there was not significant upward movement in your EC or MCAT scores from your first cycle, should consider applying to DO schools also, during your second cycle of applications as a backup.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I’m sitting on 4WL from 4 interviews and wanted to figure out the best way to approach LOIs. MSAR says my top choice offers A’s to around 30 students from 300 on the WL. I would love to go here but the numbers don’t look all that good. On the other hand, one of the schools I got WL’ed at offers 75 A’s from the WL of 275. I feel like I should submit my LOI not to my top choice but to the school which gives me the best chance of coming off the WL. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Hello_There_117
Full Member
I'm considering (most likely applying to) DO schools, but what would you consider to be significant upward movement? I've gained 450 hours as an SI (supplemental) leader, 200 clinical, and 300-350 hours research including national poster presentation and university oral presentation. I already have a 4.0 to 3.97 GPA and a 513 MCAT so I'm kind of stuck with how else I could have improved my stats/ECs. Not trying to showboat or anything, but I am genuinely curious to know what else I could do to improve my chances next cycle.
You have an acceptable profile for an MD acceptance. If you are an ORM, you are at about the 50th percentile on the MCAT for matriculated candidates.
As long as you have good interview skills and reliable LOR, you have a reasonable chance of acceptance.
Although at the end of the day, there is a factor of luck too, and I have seen several good candidates not manage to get in , who have done everything right.
Last edited:
For you, it's easy. Read other people's signatures and see how many schools they are applying to. Just on this page of this thread, there's a 46, 37, 34, 36, 27 and 44. Your GPA is great, but 513 is hardly a standout MCAT, and 12 schools is very low, given how competitive the environment is, unless you are tied to a specific geographic area.
The bad news is that you severely handicapped yourself this cycle. The good news is that there are around 140 MD schools at which you will not be a reapplicant, before even talking about DO. With your app, I'd give MD only one more shot before doing DO. You might need to redo your PS and essays, but you might not need to do anything at all, since your lack of success could very well be explained solely by not applying to enough, or the right mix, of schools. Most people apply to around twice as many schools as you did, and, as I pointed out, a lot of people apply to a lot more.
wpneuro
Full Member
For MD-PhD: 5 WL right now, with another post-interview hold (#6) and a second "defer" (#7) (they've sent out their As and are just waiting for withdrawals before sending more; that's a waitlist smh 🙄)...
In other news though! I'm pretty confident there will be more WL movement this year, if MD cycle is anything like the MD-PhD cycle; there are some MD-PhD PDs on SDN who've been very open with sharing data about applicants and CYMS and all that. These are the most recent updates (bolding mine):
The percentages are probably different, but I'm willing to bet the trends are the same:
(Edits to reflect data provided below/in later posts)
In other news though! I'm pretty confident there will be more WL movement this year, if MD cycle is anything like the MD-PhD cycle; there are some MD-PhD PDs on SDN who've been very open with sharing data about applicants and CYMS and all that. These are the most recent updates (bolding mine):
The percentages are probably different, but I'm willing to bet the trends are the same:
MoreFewer [accepted] applicants having more As- More applicants currently having no As that will eventually get As
- Low percentage using CYMS (thus schools placing more on WLs since they can't predict ahead)
(Edits to reflect data provided below/in later posts)
Last edited:
I feel like this table implies that the decrease in applicants with any acceptances this cycle compared with last year is not due to individual applicants holding on to multiple acceptances, right? Since there's actually a decrease in the number of applicants with >1 acceptance compared with last year. So would this essentially suggest that WL movement may be actually less this year?
I would attribute the decreased # of A's to the fact that this cycle has been delayed due to the pandemic. The timeline for sending A's has just been pushed back. I find it hard to believe that schools have been conservative about sending A's.
Honestly its the big increase in applicants with just 1 A that concerns me. To me, it suggests that the distribution of As from schools is more spread out amongst the large pool of applicants this cycle. So it used to be the case where you'd have a handful of applicants holding on to multiple A's, after they choose 1, there's a lot of WL movement. Now it seems like there's just a massive number of applicants clutching on to 1 A who are almost certainly going to take up that offer and there might not be much WL movement at all.
Edit: But yes, I do recognize that if it's true that the number of applicants with at least 1 A is just due to a delayed cycle and less A's being dispensed, then the numbers of applicants with multiple A's will readjust in the future.
Edit: But yes, I do recognize that if it's true that the number of applicants with at least 1 A is just due to a delayed cycle and less A's being dispensed, then the numbers of applicants with multiple A's will readjust in the future.
Tbh, it could be contributions from both COVID delays and the increase in applicants. I realized the slide also states that the total number of applicants with any acceptances is actually much lower compared to last year too. So perhaps my prediction is not completely correct since if the spread of acceptances was much larger and more evenly distributed across the applicant pool, the number reported should be larger.
I honestly think people might be reading too much into it. All it says is that the number of people with at least one A as of 2/8 is down 6% from last year, which is consistent with EVERYONE'S experience regarding things just being a little slower this year.
Interestingly, it also says that the average number of As per accepted applicant is actually down slightly from last year. If that holds, it will blow up the theory about virtual interviews leading to more stars holding more As, which will inevitably lead to more WL movement. At this point in the cycle, though, this really has no predictive value regarding what WL movement is going to look like, since many schools are not yet done issuing initial As.
All we know for sure is that, by the time August rolls around, a little more than 21,000 people will be attending MD orientations around the country. JMHO as someone who has been studying this pretty closely for the past few years.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
First off, be aware that a LOI may not move the needle at all, most AdComs seem to put 0 stock into them as they are non-binding.
That being said, in your position, I would probably LOI the school that wasn't your first choice but has notable WL movement. In your position of having no acceptances, I would do all I can to increase the chances of one of the WL's converting rather than shooting for a top choice when I don't have anything in hand.
wpneuro
Full Member
Just wanted to point out that it says number of As per applicant, not per accepted applicant!
- Fewer applicants with As but
- More As given as of 2/8, which means
- On average, more As per accepted applicant.
2021 MD application cycle
60127 processed apps * 1.63 As/applicant = 98007 As handed out --> 12613 accepted applicants = 7.8 As per accepted applicant
2020 MD application cycle
50804 processed apps * 1.72 As/applicant = 87383 As handed out --> 13377 accepted applicants = 6.5 As per accepted applicant
Posts quoted below are from the MD-PhD PDs (bolding mine): they're also seeing that more of their accepted applicants have more As, which isn't a huge shocker at this point.
Last edited:
wpneuro
Full Member
I mean you're right, it sounds off to me; I was doing math at 2am, which doesn't always have a solid track record 😂 Not sure where it went wrong though? I did post my calculations, and am still lost as to where the error might be.
Yup. The calculations are incorrect on their face, because @wpneuro is multiplying what he thinks is As per applicant by the total number of applicants, and then coming up with a crazy high number that he is not subjecting to a reality check. (@Rheopecty -- 1.63*60,000 applicants/12,613 accepted applicants = 7.8 As per accepted applicant!)
We all know the average As per accepted applicant in any given year is nowhere near 7 or 8! 🙂 The number he is looking for is already provided by AAMC, but the AAMC labeling is less than crystal clear. There are, as of 2/8, 1.63 acceptances per accepted applicant, which is down slightly from last year.
Last edited:
wpneuro
Full Member
Ah, missed your earlier post too; that's my bad! I guess I was biased by my experiences on the MD-PhD side, especially since I haven't followed the stuff here quite as closely. Thanks for the correction!
Where you went wrong was by misreading the ambiguous labeling. The 1.63 is per accepted applicant, not total applicants. In a world where almost 60% have zero As and half of the remainder have one, there is no way that the average for all applicants could be 1.63, and the average for accepted applicants could be close to 8, when only a tiny fraction of a percent of accepted applicants have more than 8 (as of 2/8, 56 out of 12,613!).
wpneuro
Full Member
RIP my basic arithmetic skills making it through K12 and undergrad to be felled in the 2am gauntlet of SDN... 😂 To be fair, it's not ambiguous labeling by AAMC; it's straight-up incorrect. I *should* have noticed the mismatch between my calculations and the other numbers in the table though, so that's on me 😅 This is what I get for taking AAMC's words at face value lmao
🙂
You're being too hard on yourself, because your arithmetic skills are perfect -- it's the reality check that failed. You're also being a little too harsh with AAMC, because the label is merely ambiguous, not flat out wrong. The table is "Applicants by Acceptances," so the population of "applicants" only includes those with acceptances, since they did not include a line item with zero acceptances.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
