2021-2022 Thomas Jefferson (Kimmel)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
iHawk_MD said:
At the same time I've heard that schools are actually more likely to seriously consider California apps because they know there's a low chance they'll even have the option to stay in-state. Kinda the opposite of Texas applicants where they are less likely to be considered by schools across the country because so many Texans stay in Texas.
Click to expand...
That's the silver lining in an other wise completely stressful app cycle for CA applicants
Members don't see this ad.
 
iHawk_MD said:
At the same time I've heard that schools are actually more likely to seriously consider California apps because they know there's a low chance they'll even have the option to stay in-state. Kinda the opposite of Texas applicants where they are less likely to be considered by schools across the country because so many Texans stay in Texas.
Click to expand...
This is true, but it doesn't compensate for their abysmally low IS matriculation rate. Their OOS matriculation rate is a very respectable 23.4%, which is far above the national average of 16.6%, but this is more than erased by their 17.2% IS matriculation rate, which is far below the national average of 25.3%.

Overall, there are worse places to come from than CA, but not many. Also, due to the extremely large size of CA and their generally crappy numbers, no state has more applicants fail to matriculate anywhere than CA, including TX. By a lot. CA had 3,946 applicants fail to matriculate in the latest reporting year. TX was the runner up at 3,036. After that, the next highest was FL at 2,279.

It is what it is if you have no choice, and being from CA does confer some benefit if you are shooting for CA schools, but, overall, applying from CA is a significant disadvantage that almost 4,000 people fail to overcome each year. That number is sure to be much higher now, given the surge in applicants over the past two cycles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
KnightDoc said:
This is true, but it doesn't compensate for their abysmally low IS matriculation rate. Their OOS matriculation rate is a very respectable 23.4%, which is far above the national average of 16.6%, but this is more than erased by their 17.2% IS matriculation rate, which is far below the national average of 25.3%.

Overall, there are worse places to come from than CA, but not many. Also, due to the extremely large size of CA and their generally crappy numbers, no state has more applicants fail to matriculate anywhere than CA, including TX. By a lot. CA had 3,946 applicants fail to matriculate in the latest reporting year. TX was the runner up at 3,036. After that, the next highest was FL at 2,279.

It is what it is if you have no choice, and being from CA does confer some benefit if you are shooting for CA schools, but, overall, applying from CA is a significant disadvantage that almost 4,000 people fail to overcome each year. That number is sure to be much higher now, given the surge in applicants over the past two cycles.
Click to expand...
When you put real numbers to it, its shocking !! Confirms my suspicions :( sobs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
MedHope38 said:
When you put real numbers to it, its shocking !! Confirms my suspicions :( sobs...
Click to expand...
True, but hopefully you will be able to overcome the odds. And, if not, take some solace from the realization that the dynamic really is somewhat out of your control. It definitely sucks, but it's worth remembering that applying is such a PITA that, if you are committed, you will achieve success, either now or in the future, because so many become frustrated and stop trying. GOOD LUCK!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
KnightDoc said:
This is true, but it doesn't compensate for their abysmally low IS matriculation rate. Their OOS matriculation rate is a very respectable 23.4%, which is far above the national average of 16.6%, but this is more than erased by their 17.2% IS matriculation rate, which is far below the national average of 25.3%.

Overall, there are worse places to come from than CA, but not many. Also, due to the extremely large size of CA and their generally crappy numbers, no state has more applicants fail to matriculate anywhere than CA, including TX. By a lot. CA had 3,946 applicants fail to matriculate in the latest reporting year. TX was the runner up at 3,036. After that, the next highest was FL at 2,279.

It is what it is if you have no choice, and being from CA does confer some benefit if you are shooting for CA schools, but, overall, applying from CA is a significant disadvantage that almost 4,000 people fail to overcome each year. That number is sure to be much higher now, given the surge in applicants over the past two cycles.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, where are you getting these numbers? If these numbers are indeed correct, then the way you are interpreting them can be quite misleading.

According to AAMC Data of applicants by state, in the 2020-2021 cycle, Texas produced 4888 applicants while California produced 6652 applicants. Now if it is true that 3036 Texan applicants failed to matriculate while 3946 Californian applicants failed to matriculate, by simple math, it would turn out that 1852/4888 = 37.9% of Texan applicants matriculate somewhere while 2706/6652 = 40.7% of Californian applicants matriculate somewhere. Florida is even lesser with about 34.3% of its applicants able to matriculate somewhere. Meaning that a higher percentage of Californian applicants matriculate somewhere compared to their Texan and Floridian counterparts. Which kind of goes against your point.

Just looking at the number of applicants that fail to matriculate can be misleading and not an accurate way of looking and interpreting data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
d-dozen said:
Out of curiosity, where are you getting these numbers? If these numbers are indeed correct, then the way you are interpreting them can be quite misleading.

According to AAMC Data of applicants by state, in the 2020-2021 cycle, Texas produced 4888 applicants while California produced 6652 applicants. Now if it is true that 3036 Texan applicants failed to matriculate while 3946 Californian applicants failed to matriculate, by simple math, it would turn out that 1852/4888 = 37.9% of Texan applicants matriculate somewhere while 2706/6652 = 40.7% of Californian applicants matriculate somewhere. Florida is even lesser with about 34.3% of its applicants able to matriculate somewhere. Meaning that a higher percentage of Californian applicants matriculate somewhere compared to their Texan and Floridian counterparts. Which kind of goes against your point.

Just looking at the number of applicants that fail to matriculate can be misleading and not an accurate way of looking and interpreting data.
Click to expand...
I'm getting the numbers from the same place you are. Definitely not trying to mislead anyone. CA's overall matriculation rate was 40.7%, which was below the national average of 41.9% This is because its IS matriculation rate of 17.2% was FAR below the national average of 25.3%. CA is the largest state, so these numbers are magnified by its large number of applicants. What's misleading about that?

Yes, FL is even worse than CA, but even FL has a better IS matriculation rate. Same for TX, which has almost twice the IS matriculation rate that CA does, and with far less expensive schools. As I said, there are worse places to come from than CA, but not many. TX and FL happen to be two of them, but TX is actually one of the best places in the country to be an IS applicant, due to its many, highly subsidized schools and the very high set aside for IS applicants. Maybe not so ironically, this makes it incredibly difficult for TX applicants applying OOS, which leads to their sub par overall numbers.

But none of this takes away from the fact that the state that produces by FAR the largest number of applicants in the country also has an IS matriculation rate that is far below the national average. This leads to CA having a below average overall matriculation rate, even with a significantly above average OOS matriculation rate. Spread across its large number of applicants, this leads to a very large number applicants either becoming reapplicants or finding another profession. What's misleading about saying that?
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: 3 users
KnightDoc said:
I'm getting the numbers from the same place you are. Definitely not trying to mislead anyone. CA's overall matriculation rate was 40.7%, which was below the national average of 41.9% This is because its IS matriculation rate of 17.2% was FAR below the national average of 25.3%. CA is the largest state, so these numbers are magnified by its large number of applicants. What's misleading about that?

Yes, FL is even worse than CA, but even FL has a better IS matriculation rate. Same for TX, which has almost twice the IS matriculation rate that CA does, and with far less expensive schools. As I said, there are worse places to come from than CA, but not many. TX and FL happen to be two of them, but TX is actually one of the best places in the country to be an IS applicant, due to its many, highly subsidized schools and the very high set aside for IS applicants. Maybe not so ironically, this makes it incredibly difficult for TX applicants applying OOS, which leads to their sub par overall numbers.

But none of this takes away from the fact that the state that produces by FAR the largest number of applicants in the country also has an IS matriculation rate that is far below the national average. This leads to CA having a below average overall matriculation rate, even with a significantly above average OOS matriculation rate. Spread across its large number of applicants, this leads to a very large number applicants either becoming reapplicants or finding another profession. What's misleading about saying that?
Click to expand...
I already pointed out what was misleading in your previous comment. Now, let's not turn this Jefferson thread into a California vs other states thread!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
d-dozen said:
I already pointed out what was misleading in your previous comment. Now, let's not turn this Jefferson thread into a California vs other states thread!
Click to expand...
Okay, then let's just agree to disagree. I don't think that it is misleading to point out that the largest state, with by far the highest number of applicants, has a below average matriculation rate caused by a significantly below average IS matriculation rate, and this causes it to have by far the highest number of applicants who fail to matriculate in the country. The fact that some smaller states have somewhat lower matriculation rates doesn't make my statement about CA misleading.
 
Guys guys guys. Just stop please. My question was whether or not Jefferson was biased against non Northeastern or Midatlantic applicants. @KnightDoc you're just making me even more stressed out about this current process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
NaKATPase413 said:
Guys guys guys. Just stop please. My question was whether or not Jefferson was biased against non Northeastern or Midatlantic applicants. @KnightDoc you're just making me even more stressed out about this current process.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I was just trying to help by giving you some information to confirm your suspicions but let you know it's not all bad.

No sense derailing this thread any further. If you are concerned about how regional preferences work, specifically with regard to CA, it might be worth starting a thread that will hopefully attract responses from a far wider audience than only those following Jefferson. Good luck!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Phase Rush said:
Might not be too bad. They took 40 off of the waitlist last cycle and you are high priority :highfive:
Click to expand...
This is true, it’s difficult to remind myself of that after getting my hopes up. This is my first cycle/waitlist, should I still send updates following this decision?
 
Fellow accepted students - are you getting emails from IT about school email address and stuff? i wanna make sure I didn't unknowingly commit to Jeff (even though that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world lol)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
mm_premedstudent said:
Fellow accepted students - are you getting emails from IT about school email address and stuff? i wanna make sure I didn't unknowingly commit to Jeff (even though that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world lol)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, accepting the acceptance decision and getting those emails doesn't mean you committed to Jeff. Although you definitely should ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Anyone with less than a 510 MCAT receive an II here. I have a 509, but a 4.0 gpa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just got an interview after submitting in June (some hope for people who submitted early and haven't heard back). I sent an update last week which likely helped. Earliest Interview dates are February
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 8 users
pikachu123 said:
Just got an interview after submitting in June (some hope for people who submitted early and haven't heard back). I sent an update last week which likely helped. Earliest Interview dates are February
Click to expand...
That's awesome! Congrats. I was also complete late June and sent an update two weeks ago. Here's to hoping!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pikachu123 said:
Just got an interview after submitting in June (some hope for people who submitted early and haven't heard back). I sent an update last week which likely helped. Earliest Interview dates are February
Click to expand...
hi! Congrats! how did you send in the update?
 
Just got the call from Dr. LoSasso! Feeling thrilled, grateful, and wishing the best for everyone!
Interviewed 10/20, OOS
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 13 users
If anyone/a current student on this thread has experience with or info about the Design Lab, I'd really love to hear more about it!!
 
II received!! Earliest dates were mid February
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Thank you!! Got some PMs about my dates and stats, so happy to post here. Submitted 6/30 and complete 7/24. LM 73.20. Let me know if I can give you all any more info and best of luck to everyone in this process!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Does anyone know what the post-ii acceptance rate is btw? Not trying to jump the gun or anything, but trying to see if maybe they send a significantly higher number than they accept. TY!
 
ASV444 said:
Does anyone know what the post-ii acceptance rate is btw? Not trying to jump the gun or anything, but trying to see if maybe they send a significantly higher number than they accept. TY!
Click to expand...
I think btw 60-70% based on the post-ii acceptance rate data on sdn
 
sousa7 said:
I think btw 60-70% based on the post-ii acceptance rate data on sdn
Click to expand...
Around 60-65% yes according to the post-ii tracker, not made by SDN I don't think but here it is:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
ASV444 said:
Does anyone know what the post-ii acceptance rate is btw? Not trying to jump the gun or anything, but trying to see if maybe they send a significantly higher number than they accept. TY!
Click to expand...

I don't have the exact numbers or percentages but I do know that we interview around 600-700 people for a class of around 270. Of those accepted, some/many people withdraw their acceptances so the post-ii acceptance rate is higher than 270/600 or 700.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If my update don't show up within my application should I send it to the admissions email again even though the original email received a response from the Dean?
 
Just withdrew my application pre-II/R. Best of luck to all!
 
  • Care
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
endocringe said:
Does anyone have a reliable estimate of the post-II acceptance rate?
Click to expand...
60-63% according to the post-II acceptance tracker for both the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 cycles
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Got the call earlier today at 2:30pm est!!! My first MD A!!!!
Interviewed on 10/27

just stopped shaking enough to find my way to this page lol
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 15 users
neuriobioliogy said:
Got the call earlier today at 2:30pm est!!! My first MD A!!!!
Interviewed on 10/27

just stopped shaking enough to find my way to this page lol
Click to expand...
Congrats!

Anyone interview 10/6 or earlier and still haven't heard back?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just got my first II this cycle!!!!!! 😭😭😭 Reapplicant, OOS, ORM, 509, 3.5x, SMP master's 3.9x, complete 7/1, update sent recently

I'm shaking I can't believe this
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
  • Care
Reactions: 16 users
Woohoo II invite today! complete 7/10. Sent an update letter last Wed which definitely helped a lot!! If anyone is considering sending an update letter I’d recommend if you have something meaningful to include! Mine was sort of a combination of an update letter and a letter of interest. Earliest available interview was January
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
Seems like I’m the only one who sent an update and didn’t get an II
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
voxveritatisetlucis said:
Seems like I’m the only one who sent an update and didn’t get an II
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, you’re definitely not alone! SDN is biased, it’s not exactly worth reporting that we didn’t get an II after sending updates haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

wysdoc
2022-2023 Jefferson (Kimmel)
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
976
Views
258K
fxryker
fxryker
koffeekween
2021-2022 Ponce-STL
2 3 4
Replies
184
Views
24K
amazinmedicine
A
TheDataKing
2020-2021 Jefferson (Kimmel)
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
1K
Views
456K
bocaj4138
bocaj4138
wysdoc
2021-2022 Creighton
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
707
Views
180K
WHOSrgn
W
wysdoc
2021-2022 Duke
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
838
Views
266K
allseasons
allseasons
Top