2023-2024 Stanford

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
IsThisOverYet? said:
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS
(burping with extreme confidence)

Hold my beer.
​
The Director hands off his can of Pabst Blue Ribbon
Click to expand...
This is Stanford. A bottle of Pinot from Charles Shaw sold at Trader Joe's ("Two or Three Buck Chuck") would be more authentic. 🙂
 
Does anyone know if there is a separate PSTP interview? Last year it seems like there was
 
applaudfalcon said:
Does anyone know if there is a separate PSTP interview? Last year it seems like there was
Click to expand...
Also wondering this. Or about how PSTP is handled in general. For those who selected PSTP and received a II, does the invite say anything about PSTP specifically or just 'MD program'?
 
stupid question but were Rs all sent via email? panic checked my portal and don't see any new comms but,,, just gonna take no news as good news for now,,,
 
Hi guys, when did you all receive your reminder email? My interview is close but I still haven't gotten it and I don't know if I should contact the admissions office confirming my interview without the reminder email.
 
soccer84758 said:
Same here, mine's on the 15th but they say I need to confirm my interview at least 5 business days in advance, which I think is tomorrow? Still haven't gotten the email though.
Click to expand...
Hm, yeah same. I guess we just wait till we get the email since it tells us specifically to reply to it?
 
did anyone else receive a doordash gift card lolol. i got an email about receiving one but it doesn't actually include the code to put into the app...
 
always_hungry said:
did anyone else receive a doordash gift card lolol. i got an email about receiving one but it doesn't actually include the code to put into the app...
Click to expand...
yea, there should be a link in that email where u can see the virtual pin
 
danty20 said:
Hm, yeah same. I guess we just wait till we get the email since it tells us specifically to reply to it?
Click to expand...
I'm interviewing 11/15, and one of the emails I received said the following, "Please note that your registration on Kira and Zoom will serve as confirmation of your planned attendance on Interview Day." So I'm not sure if we still have to email to confirm.

Edit: I looked back and I think you're right that we're supposed to wait until they email us and they write a confirmation in the communications section.
 
Last edited:
clover629 said:
I'm interviewing 11/15, and one of the emails I received said the following, "Please note that your registration on Kira and Zoom will serve as confirmation of your planned attendance on Interview Day." So I'm not sure if we still have to email to confirm.

Edit: I looked back and I think you're right that we're supposed to wait until they email us and they write a confirmation in the communications section.
Click to expand...
Maybe they realized that 3 emails (one from us, one from zoom, one from kira) was more than enough and they decided to phase out the confirmation email instruction
 
sillychemistry said:
International R from stanford
II from UPenn, Mayo, Sinai, Case, Duke, UCLA, Vanderbilt,
Click to expand...
I_like_Floors said:
UPenn, Mayo, Cornell, WashU, Northwestern, UChicago, UPitt, Case Western. Never give up hope (until you get the R 😈)
Click to expand...
Interesting... I have IIs from Stanford, Cornell, and Columbia, Rs from Chicago, Pitt, and Case, and silence from the rest... From these posts and ones I've seen in the past, there's not a ton of overlap (except for Cornell, which doesn't seem to have a pattern) between the IIs from these groups of schools (except for the super top applicants ofc). Love to collect more data points though!
 
The only thing that becomes clearer with each data point is the true randomness of this process. I have heard different things from different schools about their review process, but I am sure of one thing, which is that no admissions committee (which is what, 10-15 people?) is reading all of the several thousand applications they receive pre-interview. All our applications are probably divided, packaged, and distributed to screeners throughout the university or hospital system, and I wouldn't be surprised if the way interviews are distributed is based on the 'scores' or 'recommendation' (i.e. recommend to interview, no interview, or hold) from the screeners you happen to be assigned to.

This screener system is probably what introduces so much variety into the process because different people have different standards. My n=1 data during a few interviews showed me this. At one interview, my faculty was raving about how volunteering I had done, more than she had seen for the other people she had seen this app cycle (she was a very new faculty and told me this was only her second year interviewing). At another interview, I was paired with a retired faculty who was once on the admissions committee, and one of his first questions was, "why did you choose to pursue less time volunteering during college?" So, to him, the same amount of volunteer work that had impressed the first faculty was minimal. The same amount of variability is likely rampant in the screening process! Some of us probably get assigned to screeners who vibes with our application a lot at one school, and happen to be assigned to others with different standards or preferences at other schools. And this is also where the human bias element comes in huge. If I got assigned to a screener at Stanford who had a bad experience with colleagues from "insert X subspeciality," they might be less inclined to vouch for an applicant who has modeled their app around the same subspeciality. And vice versa. And then, of course, all the social issues that play a role in human bias. For example, I wrote much about my family's religious experiences for diversity prompts. At one interview, my faculty and I went a half hour over time talking about religion in medicine in detail and our shared experiences (they were from a different faith, but you can still find commonality). In another interview, my student grilled me on whether my religious beliefs will affect my medical practice (totally valid, but clearly, they had different feelings about me choosing to share that part of myself than the former faculty). And lastly, even choices such as whether to include a hobby on AMCAS can have an impact. I talked to two admissions reps in the Spring from two different schools, and one of my questions was, "should I include this hobby?" One gave me a resounding yes, another a pretty hard no. Guess which one I have an II to right now?

That's the only way I can make sense of why some people will get an R from Case or something and end up matriculating at Yale. Crazy stuff.

Post-interview when the actual committee starts reviewing and making decisions is where I think the process becomes much more predictable.

I would be in the wrong if I did not end by saying this is an outlandish amount of speculation based on the "grapevine." I could be very mistaken.
 
Last edited:
toastedbutter said:
The only thing that becomes clearer with each data point is the true randomness of this process. I have heard different things from different schools about their review process, but I am sure of one thing, which is that no admissions committee (which is what, 10-15 people?) is reading all of the several thousand applications they receive pre-interview. All our applications are probably divided, packaged, and distributed to screeners throughout the university or hospital system, and I wouldn't be surprised if the way interviews are distributed is based on the 'scores' or 'recommendation' (i.e. recommend to interview, no interview, or hold) from the screeners you happen to be assigned to.

This screener system is probably what introduces so much variety into the process because different people have different standards. My n=1 data during a few interviews showed me this. At one interview, my faculty was raving about how volunteering I had done, more than she had seen for the other people she had seen this app cycle (she was a very new faculty and told me this was only her second year interviewing). At another interview, I was paired with a retired faculty who was once on the admissions committee, and one of his first questions was, "why did you choose to pursue less time volunteering during college?" So, to him, the same amount of volunteer work that had impressed the first faculty was minimal. The same amount of variability is likely rampant in the screening process! Some of us probably get assigned to screeners who vibes with our application a lot at one school, and happen to be assigned to others with different standards or preferences at other schools. And this is also where the human bias element comes in huge. If I got assigned to a screener at Stanford who had a bad experience with colleagues from "insert X subspeciality," they might be less inclined to vouch for an applicant who has modeled their app around the same subspeciality. And vice versa. And then, of course, all the social issues that play a role in human bias. For example, I wrote much about my family's religious experiences for diversity prompts. At one interview, my faculty and I went a half hour over time talking about religion in medicine in detail and our shared experiences (they were from a different faith, but you can still find commonality). In another interview, my student grilled me on whether my religious beliefs will affect my medical practice (totally valid, but clearly, they had different feelings about me choosing to share that part of myself than the former faculty). And lastly, even choices such as whether to include a hobby on AMCAS can have an impact. I talked to two admissions reps in the Spring from two different schools, and one of my questions was, "should I include this hobby?" One gave me a resounding yes, another a pretty hard no. Guess which one I have an II to right now?

That's the only way I can make sense of why some people will get an R from Case or something and end up matriculating at Yale. Crazy stuff.

Post-interview when the actual committee starts reviewing and making decisions is where I think the process becomes much more predictable.

I would be in the wrong if I did not end by saying this is an outlandish amount of speculation based on the "grapevine." I could be very mistaken.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure! I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough data (especially just from SDN) to make any meaningful conclusions. It was just a pattern I found interesting from looking through a few years of threads! And possibly just my way of preparing myself to get Rs from all of those other schools lol
 
PatentForamenOvale said:
Interesting... I have IIs from Stanford, Cornell, and Columbia, Rs from Chicago, Pitt, and Case, and silence from the rest... From these posts and ones I've seen in the past, there's not a ton of overlap (except for Cornell, which doesn't seem to have a pattern) between the IIs from these groups of schools (except for the super top applicants ofc). Love to collect more data points though!
Click to expand...
I have R's from Chicago Pitt Boston Tulane! might just be about mission fit/how tired I was when I wrote the secondary lol
 
PatentForamenOvale said:
Interesting... I have IIs from Stanford, Cornell, and Columbia, Rs from Chicago, Pitt, and Case, and silence from the rest... From these posts and ones I've seen in the past, there's not a ton of overlap (except for Cornell, which doesn't seem to have a pattern) between the IIs from these groups of schools (except for the super top applicants ofc). Love to collect more data points though!
Click to expand...

Interesting! I have IIs from Duke, Stanford, Pitt and Rs from Chicago, Case and a hold from Mayo
 
toastedbutter said:
The only thing that becomes clearer with each data point is the true randomness of this process. I have heard different things from different schools about their review process, but I am sure of one thing, which is that no admissions committee (which is what, 10-15 people?) is reading all of the several thousand applications they receive pre-interview. All our applications are probably divided, packaged, and distributed to screeners throughout the university or hospital system, and I wouldn't be surprised if the way interviews are distributed is based on the 'scores' or 'recommendation' (i.e. recommend to interview, no interview, or hold) from the screeners you happen to be assigned to.

This screener system is probably what introduces so much variety into the process because different people have different standards. My n=1 data during a few interviews showed me this. At one interview, my faculty was raving about how volunteering I had done, more than she had seen for the other people she had seen this app cycle (she was a very new faculty and told me this was only her second year interviewing). At another interview, I was paired with a retired faculty who was once on the admissions committee, and one of his first questions was, "why did you choose to pursue less time volunteering during college?" So, to him, the same amount of volunteer work that had impressed the first faculty was minimal. The same amount of variability is likely rampant in the screening process! Some of us probably get assigned to screeners who vibes with our application a lot at one school, and happen to be assigned to others with different standards or preferences at other schools. And this is also where the human bias element comes in huge. If I got assigned to a screener at Stanford who had a bad experience with colleagues from "insert X subspeciality," they might be less inclined to vouch for an applicant who has modeled their app around the same subspeciality. And vice versa. And then, of course, all the social issues that play a role in human bias. For example, I wrote much about my family's religious experiences for diversity prompts. At one interview, my faculty and I went a half hour over time talking about religion in medicine in detail and our shared experiences (they were from a different faith, but you can still find commonality). In another interview, my student grilled me on whether my religious beliefs will affect my medical practice (totally valid, but clearly, they had different feelings about me choosing to share that part of myself than the former faculty). And lastly, even choices such as whether to include a hobby on AMCAS can have an impact. I talked to two admissions reps in the Spring from two different schools, and one of my questions was, "should I include this hobby?" One gave me a resounding yes, another a pretty hard no. Guess which one I have an II to right now?

That's the only way I can make sense of why some people will get an R from Case or something and end up matriculating at Yale. Crazy stuff.

Post-interview when the actual committee starts reviewing and making decisions is where I think the process becomes much more predictable.

I would be in the wrong if I did not end by saying this is an outlandish amount of speculation based on the "grapevine." I could be very mistaken.
Click to expand...
speak ur truth :clap:
 
IsThisOverYet? said:
Could be worse…NYU for example. And for me it’s zero percent chance so far because no II from Stanford yet.

Seems of the top schools by far the best is Michigan (Go Blue!) with 80 percent or so and then a big drop to Hopkins at 50 and others just under 50 like Yale, UCSF, Northwestern, and Columbia.
Click to expand...
wusm be like...
 
Yea same I didn't receive a link to the panel. Wondering if they are sent to those interviewing very soon?
 
I think its only sent to those from the most recent/upcoming interview session. I got an invitation after I interviewed, but haven't gotten any of the later ones.
 
If we wrote a thank you note do we send to the admissions email or upload to portal?
 
AlarmistApologist said:
I didn't hear no bell
Click to expand...
1700331945779.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wysdoc
2024-2025 Stanford
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
848
Views
208K
meticulousmacrophage
meticulousmacrophage
wysdoc
2023-2024 Belmont (Frist)
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
1K
Views
196K
MedGuy23
MedGuy23
gyngyn
2023-2024 San Juan Bautista
2
Replies
54
Views
13K
fl3065
fl3065
wysdoc
2024-2025 Roseman
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
852
Views
155K
husky12345
H
wysdoc
2023-2024 Rush
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
787
Views
227K
FPV_Flight
F
Top