38 MCAT looks like I am not getting in. Advice?

[GrapesofRath]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I don't know about that because I actually emailed the people who created the AAMC chart ( back when I was stressed about not getting in), they don't average scores, they take the most recent one. So OP's stats would be more like those with a 3.8 and a 3.5.
The acceptance rates for those stats, assuming he is would be 72%

The AAMC chart doesnt average multiple MCAT scores. It's many individual schools and evaulators that do. For those evaluators, the OP is at 3.5/35 not 3.5/38 and about 40% of 3.5/35 applicants get shut out completely. How many of those people in the 36-38 MCAT range took the MCAT more than once in that AAMC data I dont know, but I dont think its close to the majority.

 

[Nietzschelover]

One last question on this averaging deal. We've heard that AAMC recommends averaging. We've heard that many schools may say they focus on the highest or most recent score and are often likely lying. We've heard opinions on why averaging makes sense (I guess in some sphere of fairness or best estimation of true ability). But what I still don't understand is what the incentive is for the schools themselves to average. How is that in their interest, especially when we know all schools are interested in publishing the the most impressive picture possible in terms of stats?

 

[GrapesofRath]

The thing is schools dont average per se out of their own interest. The big caveat here is that schools are much more likely to report the highest score for the purposes of their admission statistics even if they average as part of their evaluation process. That's really where the "vagueness" and "disingenuity" of saying "We consider the highest score" if you call a school comes into play. They'll consider the highest score when it comes to reporting such statistics for their own benefit. But when it comes to evaluation? Many wont simply look at the highest score and simply average them or find some other way to account for the fact you took it more than once.

 

[Nietzschelover]

The thing is schools dont average per se out of their own interest. The big caveat here is that schools are much more likely to report the highest score for the purposes of their admission statistics even if they average as part of their evaluation process. That's really where the "vagueness" and "disingenuity" of saying "We consider the highest score" if you call a school comes into play. They'll consider the highest score when it comes to reporting such statistics for their own benefit. But when it comes to evaluation? Many wont simply look at the highest score and simply average them or find some other way to account for the fact you took it more than once.

Following your train of thought, I suspect that it's even more convenient that you suggest. In other words, when they really like a candidate then the first score or first two scores (out of three) get largely overlooked, but if they don't love the candidate then the averaging helps to bring their overall package down to earth (i.e. knocks them down a peg). Broad generalizations probably aren't that helpful. Someone who scores really high the second time shouldn't necessarily avoid "aiming high" on the assumption that his 38 or 40 is only a 35, but he also has to cover for the possibility of a downgrade as well.

 

[efle]

I wonder, hypothetically, what would have happened if OP had gone to a top ranked school like JHU, UChicago, Cornell, etc known for grade deflation. Would the grades have been enough in that case? I would think not but its an interesting situation to look at, especially since the applications were mainly to top private medical schools.

For WashU grads with a 3.5 and 38 the accepted portion is 87%, about 15% above national bin. I'm still under the impression there's a big weak spot in PS or letters etc we can't see, so wouldn't read much into alma mater. Having no interviews outside of the extremely instate-friendly public school is not readily dismissed by his list, retake, or GPA to me.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Following your train of thought, I suspect that it's even more convenient that you suggest. In other words, when they really like a candidate then the first score or first two scores (out of three) get largely overlooked, but if they don't love the candidate then the averaging helps to bring their overall package down to earth (i.e. knocks them down a peg). Broad generalizations probably aren't that helpful. Someone who scores really high the second time shouldn't necessarily avoid "aiming high" on the assumption that his 38 or 40 is only a 35, but he also has to cover for the possibility of a downgrade as well.

All that we're talking about is a big part of the reason why schools are tight lipped and vague about their policies. They dont want to bind themselves into some rule they put online for some unusual candidate or circumstances.

What you are saying might be true but again it just depends on individual evaluator. Therell be some who are probably super strict about the averaging policy and will do it no matter what no if ands or buts. There are some who might be a little more lose and variable with it; perhaps even doing what you are suggesting from time to time even if nobody would ever admit to it.

This in general is a kind of tricky situation and the OP without realizing it kind of put themselves in a tough spot which is part of why Im fascinated enough to keep talking about it. With a 3.55/32 this is the ideal application to stick with lower tier schools with. But when you put the 38 in there it complicates things. Even for lower tier schools that average, they see the 38 and suddenly might be less interested because the 38 jumps off the page and theyll assume not all other schools will average like them and they know for a fact they probably only accept say a dozen people out of 300+ with this type of MCAT score a year. For top schools, this 3.55/38 application with 2 MCAT attempts 4Ws and generic ECs just isnt good enough. Finding the in between is what's difficult for the OP and why it's somewhat difficult to give good advice here.

 

[Nietzschelover]

All that we're talking about is a big part of the reason why schools are tight lipped and vague about their policies. They dont want to bind themselves into some rule they put online for some unusual candidate or circumstances.

What you are saying might be true but again it just depends on individual evaluator. Therell be some who are probably super strict about the averaging policy and will do it no matter what no if ands or buts. There are some who might be a little more lose and variable with it; perhaps even doing what you are suggesting from time to time even if nobody would ever admit to it.

This in general is a kind of tricky situation and the OP without realizing it kind of put themselves in a tough spot which is part of why Im fascinated enough to keep talking about it. With a 3.55/32 this is the ideal application to stick with lower tier schools with. But when you put the 38 in there it complicates things. Even for lower tier schools that average, they see the 38 and suddenly might be less interested because the 38 jumps off the page and theyll assume not all other schools will average like them and they know for a fact they probably only accept say a dozen people out of 300+ with this type of MCAT score a year. For top schools, this 3.55/38 application with 2 MCAT attempts 4Ws and generic ECs just isnt good enough. Finding the in between is what's difficult for the OP and why it's somewhat difficult to give good advice here.

Agree with this 99% with just one quibble, which has been my stumbling block in this particular case. Is the bolded above really true, or can you easily see a 3.55/32 producing no IIs or a couple of IIs and no acceptances even when targeted at 25 "low-tiers"? Based on the anecdotal evidence on this site with 3.7s/31-33s with decent ECs getting little love I can easily see a 3.55/32 being worried sick even if the list is perfect. Put another way, is there any truth to the suggestion that a 70ish LizzyM is the new 65-67ish LizzyM?

 

[GrapesofRath]

Agree with this 99% with just one quibble, which has been my stumbling block in this particular case. Is the bolded above really true, or can you easily see a 3.55/32 producing no IIs or a couple of IIs and no acceptances even when targeted at 25 "low-tiers"? Based on the anecdotal evidence on this site with 3.7s/31-33s with decent ECs getting little love I can easily see a 3.55/32 being worried sick even if the list is perfect. Put another way, is there any truth to the suggestion that a 70ish LizzyM is the new 65-67ish LizzyM?

http://edge.studentdoctor.net/wamc/White_Applicants.png

The data is 3-5 years old so maybe subtract a couple % points or so for each variable but this gives you a fair guide/approximation for how people do with each type of statistical profile. At first glance this does seem these percentages seem a little inflated, but part of it on SDN we are just used to extremely high standards. 3.5/31 is looked as rather medicore on SDN. In reality, it's a 50-50 borderline application that can go either way. And boosting your stats to 3.7/32 still means that you 30% of applicants likely you are going to be shut out. It's funny how we sometimes look at things and frame the discussion; a 3.4/32 is looked at to be in serious trouble but a 3.7/31 is looked at to be in very solid shape. In reality you are talking about a 15-20% gap in chances of admission based off historical norms. Not exactly a stark difference.

To answer your question more directly though I can certainly envision a 3.55/32 app getting shut out rather easily. Close t0 40% of them do. But to not get a single II with a well targeted list? With the exception of perhaps California residents, that's more unusual and is indicative of bigger flaws more times than not. What makes the OP's situation a little bit more tricky is they have a 3.55 with 4W's. But again, I dont think the MCAT retake of a 32 is the solution. Perhaps a little post-bacc work maybe, but having said that targeting generic ECs or taking an extra semester or two of classes is a better way to address their weaknesses than retaking the MCAT which is a fine score.

I wouldnt say a 70 LizzyM is the new 65-67 quite. The average matriculant has a 3.7/31-32 these days. Ten years ago I believe it was 3.62/30.2. In 1996 it was about 3.56/29.4. So if you look at trends you could say the overall LizzyM score of average MD matriculants goes up about 1.5-2 points a decade. In 2026, we could be looking at 3.76/33 as the new average MD matriculant in theory.

 

[BurghMed]

^^^great response.

For those who say he shouldn't retake a 32, do understand that he was averaging a 39 and did pull of a 38.

the problem is that the application process is so difficult, that yield protection is in order with the massive mcat for many schools like gw and Georgetown (also like to see mad service hours).

For top schools they'll simply take high mcat high gpa students (whole package). You're in a hard spot but odds are you're gonna be a doctor, so don't fret

 

[Nietzschelover]

No question this is a tricky, interesting case. Also hard when you know about the 38 to completely put it out of your mind. If you do, and all you see is the 3.55/32, average ECs, and 4-5 Ws, one doesn't have a great feeling. While you don't think the re-take is the answer, you are suggesting that profile very well might need something extra (improved ECs, a semester of classes with improved grades, etc). As adcoms are going through their 10-15K apps, I think it's possible that the 38 is the ONLY thing that keeps the file from going straight into the not very interested pile.

On the other point, the upward trend seems to mirror the uptick in the difficulty in elite college admissions over the last decade or so. I wonder if once the children of the baby boomers are fully flushed out if we will see the trends reverse a little bit over the next couple of decades.

 

[GrapesofRath]

No question this is a tricky, interesting case. Also hard when you know about the 38 to completely put it out of your mind. If you do, and all you see is the 3.55/32, average ECs, and 4-5 Ws, one doesn't have a great feeling. While you don't think the re-take is the answer, you are suggesting that profile very well might need something extra (improved ECs, a semester of classes with improved grades, etc). As adcoms are going through their 10-15K apps, I think it's possible that the 38 is the ONLY thing that keeps the file from going straight into the not very interested pile.

I agree that the 3.55/32 application has flaws and could have used work. The problem is I dont think the 38 cures those flaws and actually prevents the app from going into the not interested pile. IN fact at your GWs, NYMCs and Drexels of the world, I think the 38 like I described above is one of the REASONS it goes into the not interested pile.

But I dont think on the surface it is necessairly an egregious mistake for the OP to look at their app and say you know my transcript and GPA arent great, my ECs are bland and my MCAT is slightly above average. I know I can do alot better on the MCAT. That should help me right? Well it turns out that's where there logic is flawed to some extent but I dont necessairly blame them for thinking that way. It's not a crazy idea. And that's kind of where you wish schools would be a little more transparent about their multiple MCAT policies or at least do better than when you call them say "well use the highest score" which is clearly not telling the whole truth. But at the same time you see why schools do it. There's just no great solution all around to these issues is I think the point that keeps becoming evident and which we've all kind of realized by now.

 

[Krupke]

.

 

[abluecrab]

.

 

[RedStar7]

The grades as in the gpa or the Ws?

Well I was referring to the GPA alone. I always thought that having even one or two has a negative impact on an application, especially if they are in science classes. Or does one or two not really matter?

 

[Law2Doc]

One last question on this averaging deal. We've heard that AAMC recommends averaging. We've heard that many schools may say they focus on the highest or most recent score and are often likely lying. We've heard opinions on why averaging makes sense (I guess in some sphere of fairness or best estimation of true ability). But what I still don't understand is what the incentive is for the schools themselves to average. How is that in their interest, especially when we know all schools are interested in publishing the the most impressive picture possible in terms of stats?

How they use the stats for acceptance purposes and what they publish don't need to be the same. When they publish they'll do it however it makes them look best, regardless.

 

[GiveMeThatMD]

BYU

Weber alumni here. Ohio gives lots of love to Utah residents as well. Give them a shot. Otherwise, get in touch with your Pre-Med advisor ASAP and determine which part of your application needs adjusting. The U of U has only sent a few acceptances out so far, so don't be too discouraged. Good luck!

Edit: My mistake, I do see Case Western was included. The rest still stands.

 

[Favoritefarm]

Sorry to hear that. Your stats do not look that bad.

 

[Lawpy]

Speaking about MCAT retakes, I always enjoy @gyngyn comments on the matter.

Take the MCAT like you are going to be married to that score. You will be.
A single good MCAT score is among the most important aspects of a strong application.
Remember, an MCAT score, like Herpes, is forever.

This is among the best quotes ever.

 

[baratheonfire]

I had a 3.55/32 with less clincal hours than OP and applied to twenty something lowish teir schools (think from NYMC/VTC up to Tufts/Jeff) and a couple reaches. 11 II and an acceptance so far.<br /><br />My point is I don't think stats or hours are the issue. If it doesn't work out this cycle just apply to easier schools and give at least a single **** about how the different pieces of your app (PS/experiences/secondaries) come together to tell a story.

This is very encouraging. Do you have an mdapps?

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

 

[Nietzschelover]

The grades as in the gpa or the Ws? In terms of LizzyM alone, yes the OP probably would have been better coming from a top school. I went to a top 10 school, and looking at last year's data the LizzyM for Miami, Wake, UVM is 65, 68-70 for Drexel, Albany, and Jeff, and then 73 for Yale, USC, Brown, 75 for UCs and Stanford (not every school the OP applied to was represented in the data, but just to give a general idea).

Interestingly enough, we actually had a 3.7/37 go to Drexel the year before

Edit: But the Ws, ECs, not entirely early app, etc may have made the grades not sufficient regardless of alma mater

To OP, apply more broadly next time and congrats on the great MCAT score

Can you link to your reference to Miami, Wake and UVM having a LizzyM of 65 last year? That sounds more like 1990s data.

 

[LurkerLurker]

I don't think the problem is what the OP has for ECs, but it could be more how does your app flow together. You could make this look very good, or it could look like you were just checking boxes on what you think you should have.
For example, I spoke in my PS about how much a sense of duty to serve the underserved has been a reoccurring theme in my family, and I tied this into why I volunteered with a syringe exchange at a homeless health clinic, and shadowed with a FM doc at a clinic that works with recovering substance users. Several interviewers this cycle told me they appreciated how much continuity there was in my application. So the two things I would do are reevaluate my PS and add another 10-12 mid tier schools.
FWIW I have around the same gpa, lower MCAT (32ish) and had 3 IIs and cancelled a ton after getting 2 acceptances.

 

[Krupke]

.

 

[Nietzschelover]

It's internal data from my school (need to log in to access) for people who were accepted to those schools from my school within the past few years.

Edit: Also, Miami openly states that they include points for school attended- I got a II there with a LizzyM of 67-68

Oh, OK, so it's undergrad-specific, because the median LizzyM's for those schools is significantly higher than that.

 

[Krupke]

Oh, OK, so it's undergrad-specific, because the median LizzyM's for those schools is significantly higher than that.

Oh, yeah. The original comment was in response to the comment speculating on whether or not the OP's school list would have been fine if he came from a top school

 

[Silence in ER]

The AAMC chart doesnt average multiple MCAT scores. It's many individual schools and evaulators that do. For those evaluators, the OP is at 3.5/35 not 3.5/38 and about 40% of 3.5/35 applicants get shut out completely. How many of those people in the 36-38 MCAT range took the MCAT more than once in that AAMC data I dont know, but I dont think its close to the majority.

but even if individual evaluators do ( and we have no idea how widespread this is), it doesn't change the fact that by with those stats, according to the chart, he should at least have gotten into one school.

And we all know this, we are looking at his situation and wondering what is going on. because his situation doesn't seem completely explainable to us. He should have gotten in somewhere.

I think that just we can't measure subjective things the way we can measure objective numbers, doesn't mean those factors are not important.

Personal statements.
Fitting the mission.
Yield of schools.
LORs
activities

These are all things we can't quantify but places where there may have been problems.

But just finally, I think some of it comes down to luck. having the right person read your statement and advocate for you, right interviewer, right time, right place.

 

[GrapesofRath]

but even if individual evaluators do ( and we have no idea how widespread this is), it doesn't change the fact that by with those stats, according to the chart, he should at least have gotten into one school.

And we all know this, we are looking at his situation and wondering what is going on. because his situation doesn't seem completely explainable to us. He should have gotten in somewhere.
.

Everything else you said is right it just depends on how you define "should". About 30% of 3.55/38 people get shut out every year. About 40% of 3.5/35's get shut out completely every year. That's alot of people and it kind of talks about what I mentioned earlier how we frame this discussion is interesting; we look at not being in the right 60-70% as meaning there is some sort of serious flaw when in fact 30-40% is a big group.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Oh, yeah. The original comment was in response to the comment speculating on whether or not the OP's school list would have been fine if he came from a top school

This might interest you.

If you look at top schools acceptance rates with given GPA/MCAT totals they are higher than the national average. So yes to some extent there is some benefit to going to a top school. But there are so many other factors also at play that can skew those stats.

Here is one thing to consider. Compare a top schools acceptance rate into medical school with one that is much much lower tier and will let in well over 50% of their HS applicants.

https://www.career.cornell.edu/resources/upload/applicant_guide_v2014.pdf

https://www.jmu.edu/iihhs/_files/MDaccept02.pdf

While Cornells acceptance rate overall to med school is way way higher than James Madison look at particular group of statistics of relevance

3.4-3.6 30-35 MCAT
Cornell: 99/143
James Madison: 17/26

3.2-3.4 30-35 MCAT
Cornell: 38/95
James Madison: 4/9

3.6-3.8 GPA 30-35 MCAT
Cornell and James Madison both come in around 80%

Now Cornell excludes URMs for their data which will skew things some(but not that much). But the point is it's not necessairly the best thing to compare a top schools acceptance rate to med school compared to the national average as it is to compare a top schools acceptance rate to med school compared to a lower tier State U like James Madison with a sub 1700 SAT average. The differences in their acceptance rates arent as high as people think.

Also for the idea of Miami giving a big boost to undergrad institution because it is 30 out of 300 points in their point total look at their class profile

http://admissions.med.miami.edu/md-programs/general-md/class-profile

The vast majority of its class is State U's and other medium/lower tier schools. Doesnt sound like a school that actively recruits or shows significant favoritism to big name UG school applicants.

 

[Nietzschelover]

And to compare to the 65 LizzyM number that profile from Miami suggests a median almost 72 (close to 3.8 and 33.9 for MCAT). Undergrad schools also included Yale, Wash U, Tufts, Emory, Vandy, etc.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Youll see people from those schools at literally EVERY MD program. There just so many pre-meds at those top schools. Even for lower tier schools that publish teh list of schools their UGs came from, those schools have a pretty decent handful of Yales, and WashU grads. Doesnt really mean though by itself those schools give applicants from WashU or Vandy a major "boost" in their admissions process.

For comparison here are some excellent med schools that I guess you could classify as "medium" tier and non top 20. You can compare Miami to them and see how many of their matriculants are from top UG schools yourself.

https://case.edu/medicine/admissions/connect/student-life/class-profile/(you need to use the powerpoint linked in there to see this)
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/education/md/documents/2018-profile.pdf
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/education/md-program/admissions/default.aspx?id=35350
http://medicine.osu.edu/pdfs/admissions/Entering Class Profile.pdf
http://medicine.hofstra.edu/admission/admission_meetourstudents.html

Miami's stats are indeed rising; I think MSAR median stats have them at around 3.75-3.8/33. People I talk to have told me they have been using their OOS to raise their median stats more and more, even though they recently lost alot of state funding and in theory shouldnt show as much IS preference.

 

[Krupke]

.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I'm not looking to argue. No one said major boost that makes other parts of the app uneccessary. I'm saying they give points, which they do. I never said decisions are entirely based on where you went to school. Obviously there are other factors. Like me, I'm OOS for Miami and below their 10th percentile GPAs, but I have uniques experiences in my app that could only be continued in a handful of locations, like Miami. Realistically though, those extra points from my school are likely what saved me from a pre-II reject (I actually ended up withdrawing before the II anyways).

To summarize with less details-
People in this thread: "Your gpa is too low for those schools."
That one poster: "I wonder if that gpa would be considered too low if OP came from top school."
Me: "OP's LizzyM is actually higher or equal to those from my top school who got into similar schools as the one on his list, so I think based purely on stats that OP would have had a chance at those schools."

I think the point is there isnt really any great clear cut evidence for this "boost" for going to top schools you might be thinking. Really the way your framing the discussion "well going to a top school might change things" is what there isnt really clear evidence for.

3.3/35 or LizzyM 67-68 applicants get in at relatively similar proportions from Cornell as they do at James Madison like I showed above. Sure you have examples of 3.3/35's generating interest at your school. Im sure James Madison does as well. Somebody from James Madison could say the same thing as you "look we have examples of LizzyM 67's and 68's getting into these places". That's kind of the problem with individual anecdotes.

And without knowing how exactly Miami gives points for UG prestige, it's largely irrelevant. Maybe they give 30 points if you go to MIT or Princeton but if you only go to Cornell or Northwestern its down to 15. Maybe they clump schools alot more closely than we think and classify a school like Ohio state and Johns Hopkins as the same and only give 1-2 points extra for JHU vs Ohio State. We have no idea. I think it's stretching things a little bit to suggest your alma matter saved you of a pre-II rejection by itself. Like I said above, look at Miami's class profile and by and large its lower tier and medium tier shcools; nothing to suggest they show some real favoritism to top schools.

 

[Krupke]

.

 

[GrapesofRath]

That kind of seems clear cut to me. This is how Miami determines who to interview. They give out interviews in order of score. The high score I would have gotten for my school likely made up for the low score I had in science GPA. I know for sure I had a high quality of of acad score and for sure that I had a low science gpa. It's not a huge leap to suggest that the acad score buffered the effect of the low sGPA.

And the whole point of why my school keeps the data they do is because there is consistent evidence that a LizzyM of 67 from my school will have more of a chance at schools that don't accept many 67s. It's to help us more accurately gauge which schools we are good candidates for. To show there is little boost, you would need to provide data that a LizzyM of X from a top school would consistantly get into the same-ish tiers of schools as a LizzyM of X from a low-tier undergrad

Im well aware of the chart that's what I was referencing earlier. Like I said earlier unless you actually know how they grade quality of academic instiutions its a bit much to say that the academic quality was alone what kept you out of the reject pile. I gave a bunch of potential examples above of how they could potentially score UG institutions; it might be that everybody gets 15 points out of that 30 and only a few schools get the whole 30 that might not include yours. It might be that they give similar scores to all but a few schools and your school isnt one of them. Unless you are there in the committee or you know the score they give for a variety of many UGs, you have no way of knowing. What we do know is based off their class profile there hardly seems like there is much bias towards top tier schools at all. That's one piece of evidence that suggests that even if they say technically give 30 points to quality of academic instiutition, it doesnt have much impact because most schools get a similar grade. It's just one piece of evidence of course and there could easily be more to it than that, but there really is absolutely nothing concrete to suggest there is some significant boost given. Saying otherwise is largely just speculating.

It's cool that your school keeps data. I'm sure others do as well and we arent aware of their results. That's also the problem with individual anecdotes; everybody's got em and unless you got everybody's anecdote you dont have the full story. It's hard to say your school provides a unique boost when you dont have data for other schools. When we do compare data amongst schools, what we find is what I showed above; the difference between James Madisons acceptance rate for their LizzyM67-68 pre meds and Cornells' really isnt that big at all.

 

[Krupke]

.

 

[GrapesofRath]

No one is saying academic quality alone is what got me a II. I was offered a spot in one of the last few interview slots. That means I just got enough points to put me in the running for an interview. So if I would have gotten less points, there is a good chance I never would have received an interview. And if my school doesn't receive all or basically all the academic quality point, then practically only Harvard would get all points. Do you think the scoring is a way to get more Harvard students or do you think that it's a way to easily quantify the caliber of the undergrad school in a way that is simple to compare quantitatively? Do you think they made an ineffective scale that gives similar scores to all schools? The average LizzyM of the MD/MPH class is 67-68. 33 out of 50 students in the MD/MPH program come from top 50 schools.

I don't know if you are grasping at straws just for the sake of arguing or if you are confusing trends with absolutes. When I say "more likely" or "better chance" I am talking about patterns. There are 67s from low tier undergrads going to schools with higher LizzyM averages and there are top school students going to schools with lower average LizzyMs than their own. The non-anecdotal data I am looking at suggests that people from my school consistently attend schools where their LizzyM is lower than average. My interpretation from that is that it has something to do with my school's reputation. You can create other interpretations if you want, but I, personally, will not believe them if there is no data to back it up. In the end, whatever you and I believe won't change the way admissions is done and it is just a simple fact that the OP has a higher LizzyM for a lot of the schools he applied to than the people from my school being accepted to those med schools

I mean I've thrown more than enough data and links. You've largely just stuck with that one same anecdote of yours. If you want to say your school provides a boost that's one thing but that's a different discussion than what you started out with where this was about the OP's school and top schools in general. I've kept going back to that data that shows really when you talk about success rate for pre-meds with LizzyM 67, 68 etc there isnt that much difference between a Cornell and James Madison of the world. Unless you have data of how other schools specifically fair, you're limited in arguing how much if any boost you get from going to a particular school.

As for the Miami point system discussion, unless you or I sit on their board we just dont know how they assign points. It's not as simple as just looking at a US News ranking and saying this school gets X amount of points because its ranked 16th or whatever. How they do it could very easily surprise both of us; alot of stuff in admission would. Likewise these point systems are guidelines; the MCAT and GPA are only 90 out of 300 points but we all know you arent getting a II if they are trash even if the other 210 points are fabulous for you. They are guidelines, not strict interpretations.

Anyway though Im not sure if you just arent understanding what I've been saying but we are largely just going in circles at this point. I dont really have that much more to add, you'll believe what you want to and either agree or disagree.

 

[Krupke]

.

 

[Turkishking]

Where are you now OP?

 

[student4life0800]

Where are you now OP?

Got accepted! 5 interviews 2 acceptances and am still on 3 waitlists.

 

[Turkishking]

Got accepted! 5 interviews 2 acceptances and am still on 3 waitlists.

Congrats!! I was wondering how everything turned out. glad to hear it went well 🙂

 

[On_The_Way_Up]

Just a couple of things to add. I did take the MCAT twice the first was a 32 and then I retook it three months later for the 38. The 4 W's were in two semesters and did have some family problems arise. For the clinical volunteering the children's hospital had a lot of meaning to me personally because I went their as a kid, and did try and convey that in my application. Just a couple of questions.
1) Any schools to suggest adding for next cycle?
2) For the clinical volunteering I would like to do something with kids, maybe in an undeserved population. Any recommendations?
3) Would the first MCAT matter? I was under the impression that they focused on your most recent.

You need nonclinical volunteering as well. You can give your time to the Boys and Girls club. Great place for the undeserved.

 

[JJRousseau]

You need nonclinical volunteering as well. You can give your time to the Boys and Girls club. Great place for the undeserved.

You, sir, are the victim of the necrobump phenomenon. It was a close call for me.

 

[On_The_Way_Up]

You, sir, are the victim of the necrobump phenomenon. It was a close call for me.

Awesome

 

[Blanky]

Just read through the entire thread and was super hyped to find out you have been accepted! Grats to you!

 

[hubbsbubbs]

Where were your five interviews?