4.0/40 rejected everywhere :o( Not sure what to do?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
familyaerospace said:
Depends on the school. You can be. I know a fair amount of in-state applicants to Mercer who had outrageous stats, they were rejected pre-interview. One of those students I know went to Emory as he friended me on Facebook and thanked me for all the help I gave him.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair: he probably wasn't rejected for high stats. Most likely mission related.
 
jb94mg said:
Sorry, what I posted was wrong. I went and removed the content of all of my posts in this thread. I am sorry, everyone. My original post was wrong, and instead of admitting it, I defended something I didn't really believe since mehc012 attacked it. Sorry to @mehc012 too.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry too for my role in fanning the flames...I should have let it go and allowed the thread to stay on track. I'll edit out any quotes that you've since changed. No tough feelings on my end.

Edit: just to be clear, while I typically don't edit out my previous comments for my own sake, since @jb94mg wanted to redact their own and did so, I cleared mine out to remove the quotes and my own descriptions of their words. I'm not trying to take back or dodge anything I said, I merely wish to respect the wishes of another poster.
 
Last edited:
medic86 said:
Well, to be fair: he probably wasn't rejected for high stats. Most likely mission related.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about my friend, his mission was perfect for Mercer and I thought not as well for Emory. There were a few others that they only thing they had in common were crazy good numbers. Everyone did get accepted to top-notch schools. I think Mercer realized they were going to be safeties for those kids.
 
familyaerospace said:
If we are talking about my friend, his mission was perfect for Mercer and I thought not as well for Emory. There were a few others that they only thing they had in common were crazy good numbers. Everyone did get accepted to top-notch schools. I think Mercer realized they were going to be safeties for those kids.
Click to expand...

Ahh. Gotcha!

Good for him for getting into Emory, though!

Edit: how's it going for you? I've seen your posts in the MCG and Mercer school-specific threads. Feel free to PM, of course!
 
Maybe she majored in some easy major, and took the pre-requisites at a community college.
 
@flowerpower123

Don't mind the haters in this thread, SDN hivemind can be incredibly cynical and negative at the best of times *having lurked for a while*. So far from reading the posts in this thread it seems like a combination of people who are either using your story to somehow confirm the unfairness of their own rejections, or to confirm that the one or two things they had that superseded your (actually pretty amazingly good) credentials makes them somehow superior. So, you know, don't let it get to you.

During my interview we had a speaker who focuses on comorbid personality traits and mental disorders in doctors (his subject was primarily on burnout and doctors committing suicide (a particularly light-hearted subject considering the starry-eyed applicants) (more parentheses)) and he said that neuroticism, perfectionism and a tendency to be self-critical are pretty much endemic in med students and doctors alike. So don't let those guys who are making you think the hatchet you buried with (probably) extreme difficulty almost a decade ago is somehow the reason you didn't get accepted.

Personally I think your story is a great one, watching the details sort of fill out as the thread went on. I think it is a damn shame you didn't get accepted in this or the previous cycle. I think that the best recommendation I could give is to take some time and really think about how to exemplify your experiences and struggles and show how they define and show off the drive I am sure you have. This is probably a difficult time for you but if you know you want to be a doctor don't listen to the haters and keep believing in yourself.

Also I don't know why LORs keep being brought up. Maybe people are used to dealing with a caliber of writer that is more devious than I have ever met, but generally if someone were going to write something negative or unhelpful in your LOR they would just tell you straight up that they didn't feel comfortable writing it. I am (relatively) sure that every one of your LORs made you seem like you walk on clouds and the sun shines out your ass, so don't be too worried about that.

If you want you can PM me your personal statement/secondary essays (pref with prompts) and I can take a look at them.

*inb4 waves of people tell me I am wrong for some reason*
 
I read more and learnt this. Applicants are put into separate groups based on GPA and MCAT. Officers select a certain percentage from each group. Obviously, groups with higher stats have a higher percent of acceptance. But not 100%. They put caps on how many they select from each group, and make it a point to select from all groups (hence those stories about low-stats people getting into Stanford or Harvard).

So, the OP here has to compete with other very high stats people. Because she is put in the high stats group. She is thus not directly competing with low stats people, but instead is competing with people with similar stats. And those high stats people all have very good EC's. Also, officials are prejudiced and consider these high stats people to be research-oriented future doctors, so lack of significant research hurt her.

Thus, the OP is in a very unenviable position. Her high stats make her suspect for low-ranked medical schools, and thus rejected. Her high stats means she competes with others with significant research, and is thus rejected.

Also, since it will be a third time applying, she will be at even further disadvantage, as they will look at her with suspect. Kind of like how employers don't hire after 6 month unemployed. "Why did she not get an offer? Am I missing something?"

I would suggest maybe Temple SMP which guarantee's admission. Maybe DO? It is really, really unfair. I really feel so bad for her.
 
boxer0011 said:
I read more and learnt this. Applicants are put into separate groups based on GPA and MCAT. Officers select a certain percentage from each group. Obviously, groups with higher stats have a higher percent of acceptance. But not 100%. They put caps on how many they select from each group, and make it a point to select from all groups (hence those stories about low-stats people getting into Stanford or Harvard).

So, the OP here has to compete with other very high stats people. Because she is put in the high stats group. She is thus not directly competing with low stats people, but instead is competing with people with similar stats. And those high stats people all have very good EC's. Also, officials are prejudiced and consider these high stats people to be research-oriented future doctors, so lack of significant research hurt her.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this sounds like complete BS. Source?
 
boxer0011 said:
I read more and learnt this. Applicants are put into separate groups based on GPA and MCAT. Officers select a certain percentage from each group. Obviously, groups with higher stats have a higher percent of acceptance. But not 100%. They put caps on how many they select from each group, and make it a point to select from all groups (hence those stories about low-stats people getting into Stanford or Harvard).

So, the OP here has to compete with other very high stats people. Because she is put in the high stats group. She is thus not directly competing with low stats people, but instead is competing with people with similar stats. And those high stats people all have very good EC's. Also, officials are prejudiced and consider these high stats people to be research-oriented future doctors, so lack of significant research hurt her.

Thus, the OP is in a very unenviable position. Her high stats make her suspect for low-ranked medical schools, and thus rejected. Her high stats means she competes with others with significant research, and is thus rejected.

Also, since it will be a third time applying, she will be at even further disadvantage, as they will look at her with suspect. Kind of like how employers don't hire after 6 month unemployed. "Why did she not get an offer? Am I missing something?"

I would suggest maybe Temple SMP which guarantee's admission. Maybe DO? It is really, really unfair. I really feel so bad for her.
Click to expand...

But I won't be considered a re-applicant at the schools to which I didn't apply. Correct?
I really appreciate everyone's suggestions and think that I can make significant changes before my MCAT expires.
Maybe I'm deluded but I still think I have a good shot in the future, especially now that I've got so much great feedback on what to work on.
I figure admissions committees are made up of a diverse group of doctors, and since most posters are applicants who will one day be doctors
their feedback is a pretty great resource for what adcom members might be thinking.
It has offered great insight into how multiple perspectives may perceive my story.
 
Last edited:
flowerpower123 said:
But I won't be considered a re-applicant at the schools to which I didn't apply. Correct?
I really appreciate everyone's suggestions and think that I can make significant changes before my MCAT expires.
Maybe I'm deluded but I still think I have a good shot in the future, especially now that I've got so much great feedback on what to work on.
I figure admissions committees are made up of a diverse group of doctors, and since most posters are applicants who will one day be doctors
their feedback is a pretty great resource for what adcom members might be thinking.
It has offered great insight into how multiple perspectives may perceive my story.
Click to expand...

Right, you're not a reapplicant to places you've never applied.

Heed the good advice and good luck to you! I wish you the best.
 
boxer0011 said:
I read more and learnt this. Applicants are put into separate groups based on GPA and MCAT. Officers select a certain percentage from each group. Obviously, groups with higher stats have a higher percent of acceptance. But not 100%. They put caps on how many they select from each group, and make it a point to select from all groups (hence those stories about low-stats people getting into Stanford or Harvard).

So, the OP here has to compete with other very high stats people. Because she is put in the high stats group. She is thus not directly competing with low stats people, but instead is competing with people with similar stats. And those high stats people all have very good EC's. Also, officials are prejudiced and consider these high stats people to be research-oriented future doctors, so lack of significant research hurt her.

Thus, the OP is in a very unenviable position. Her high stats make her suspect for low-ranked medical schools, and thus rejected. Her high stats means she competes with others with significant research, and is thus rejected.

Also, since it will be a third time applying, she will be at even further disadvantage, as they will look at her with suspect. Kind of like how employers don't hire after 6 month unemployed. "Why did she not get an offer? Am I missing something?"

I would suggest maybe Temple SMP which guarantee's admission. Maybe DO? It is really, really unfair. I really feel so bad for her.
Click to expand...

I feel like you literally just made all that up.
 
WingedOx said:
It is.

And there's nothing "unfair" about the fact that high stats does not guarantee an acceptance.
Click to expand...

She got in the 0.01 top percent on the MCAT. Do you know how hard that is, and how much you have to study and how smart you have to be to score so high? It is not easy and not due to luck, hence so few people get that score.

And she did lots of EC's volunteer, and shadowing. As she suffered from a mental illness -- and mental illnesses are no different from physical ones, as MENTAL ILLNESS IS A PHYSICAL ILLNESS -- she probably has more empathy than you arrogant posters who were lucky enough to get in and are arrogantly deriding "perfectionist" qualities, and speculating about mental issues.

So, it was just her bad luck and yes it is absolutely unfair that working hard and being smart is a disadvantage. Virtually all other countries have a standardized test for medical school entrance and don't have all this bull**** interviews, shadowing and volunteer crap. And they seem to have excellent healthcare systems.

The people who get in are the ones who play the game well, not the smartest or most hardworking or best doctors. The OP does not have the "street smarts" to get into medical school. If she did she would have applied early decision, or to low-tire schools and talked to the officials on why she was rejected. I wish her well but I am guessing she will just apply, apply and apply and eventually become frustrated and quit. Unless she develops the common-sense type thinking that employers and medical school admission officers desire.
 
Last edited:
boxer0011 said:
She got in the 0.01 top percent on the MCAT. Do you know how hard that is, and how much you have to study and how smart you have to be to score so high? It is not easy and not due to luck, hence so few people get that score.
Click to expand...
Says the whatever the fork forum noob to the resident...
 
I like meowmix said:
I feel like you literally just made all that up.
Click to expand...


That is how it works unfortunately or fortunately (depending on which side of the coin you are on). Officials want a "diverse" class and thus they divide according into academic credentials. From their, its all about EC's, so you are competing with folks in your cohort.
 
boxer0011 said:
I read more and learnt this. Applicants are put into separate groups based on GPA and MCAT. Officers select a certain percentage from each group. Obviously, groups with higher stats have a higher percent of acceptance. But not 100%. They put caps on how many they select from each group, and make it a point to select from all groups (hence those stories about low-stats people getting into Stanford or Harvard).
Click to expand...


I would love to get a source on this? Is this really true?
 
doubt its the HIPAA thing because thats such a small correctable mistake.
 
boxer0011 said:
She got in the 0.01 top percent on the MCAT. Do you know how hard that is, and how much you have to study and how smart you have to be to score so high? It is not easy and not due to luck, hence so few people get that score.
Click to expand...

More like top 0.5 percent. Only off by a factor of 50 😉
 
boxer0011 said:
That is how it works unfortunately or fortunately (depending on which side of the coin you are on). Officials want a "diverse" class and thus they divide according into academic credentials. From their, its all about EC's, so you are competing with folks in your cohort.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you read all that, but your description of the selection process is false or maybe only pertains to a couple schools. That's not how it's done.
 
Salt Salt said:
More like top 0.5 percent. Only off by a factor of 50 😉
Click to expand...
Interesting...what's the difference between percent and percentile? If you check the AAMC's site, a 0.3% of people get a 40, but 0.5% of people get a 40 or better. Yet, a 40 is 99.8th percentile. I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding something here about how those stats work, cuz those don't line up in my head.
 
mehc012 said:
Interesting...what's the difference between percent and percentile? If you check the AAMC's site, a 0.3% of people get a 40, but 0.5% of people get a 40 or better. Yet, a 40 is 99.8th percentile. I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding something here about how those stats work, cuz those don't line up in my head.
Click to expand...

Yeah it doesn't make sense
 
Last edited:
mehc012 said:
Interesting...what's the difference between percent and percentile? If you check the AAMC's site, a 0.3% of people get a 40, but 0.5% of people get a 40 or better. Yet, a 40 is 99.8th percentile. I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding something here about how those stats work, cuz those don't line up in my head.
Click to expand...
That makes sense.

0.5 (people who scored at your level or better)-0.3 (people who scored with you)=0.2. (just better)

Percentile is the percentage of people that you scored better than.
 
brootas14 said:
That makes sense.

0.5 (people who scored at your level or better)-0.3 (people who scored with you)=0.2. (just better)

Percentile is the percentage of people that you scored better than.
Click to expand...

That would imply a percentile of 99.5
 
No, I don't believe it includes the people that you scored in the same as.
 
brootas14 said:
No, I don't believe it includes the people that you scored in the same as.
Click to expand...
But you can't honestly say that you scored better than them...maybe it would be more accurately described as "percentage of people you did not score worse than"
 
mehc012 said:
Right, that was my confusion. Perhaps it takes your own rank out of play somehow?
Click to expand...

I think that it probably has more to do with how they calculated their figures. Sometimes the wording of how they declare these figures gives it away.
 
Because percentile definitely means "percentage you were higher than." So by that 0.5 figure, we'd expect a percentile of 99.5.
 
Salt Salt said:
More like top 0.5 percent. Only off by a factor of 50 😉
Click to expand...

I stand corrected!

What surprises me most about the reject in question is that she is female. Females accepted, on average, have significantly lower MCAT scores and GPA's. I bet that she is one of a very, very few number of females scoring 40 or above (as MCAT correlates quite strongly with IQ). It really should be a shoo-in.
 
Last edited:
Ismet said:
I'm not sure where you read all that, but your description of the selection process is false or maybe only pertains to a couple schools. That's not how it's done.
Click to expand...

I have heard from a physician involved in interviewing. An officer liked my post so I think other schools use the same thing as well.
 
Ismet said:
I am involved in admissions. Maybe your description of the process happens at some schools, but certainly not all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some officers can give their views? Also, do you think the OP would have gotten into your program?
 
boxer0011 said:
Perhaps some officers can give their views? Also, do you think the OP would have gotten into your program?
Click to expand...

Can't really say without seeing the whole application including LORs and writing. Obviously stats are great and we don't average MCATs but rather look at the whole picture in context. The stats are not the issue, I'm almost positive there's some red flag in the application.
 
You need more schools. 15 isn't enough and you're a bit top heavy. What you're going to get here is a lot of post-cycle rationalization, without considering that you just got unlucky. It's not that surprising that someone would get a ~20% interview rate, and would get rejected from schools like harvard.

Apply again to min 25, and add in ~5 super lower tier schools that you can come up with a compelling reason to attend, 5 ~50-100, and then 15 top 50 schools (which is what your current app was basically).

If you look around this forum you'll see plenty of people that have a single acceptance to a top 5/10/20 and that's it. It's also not unusual to be uniformly rejected if you haven't gone a bit "overboard" (weird phrase since applying to a ton of schools is kind of a necessity these days).
 
Hey everyone. I have a similar situation as the OP but lower MCAT/GPA and applied pretty late (secondaries complete in sept/oct). I am 100% sure that I don't have any bad public/criminal record or institutional action. I was still interested in checking. I know that the AMCAS does the background check through Certiphi Screening. But I thought that the screening is only done once a student has received an acceptance? I am certain that there is nothing wrong with my record. But say there was and I didn't know about it, how would medical schools know if the screening is done afterwards? Is there a way to find out your record without paying Certiphi the $150?? Please advise.
 
I think I might have found a red-flag?
I've been trying to do some detective work, as even though I'm sure I have many areas to work on, I thought I'd have a bit more success...

I spoke with my PI and he said he inadvertantly put I had "no patient interaction" in his letter when he meant "no in-patient interaction"
I don't know if it made a difference, but in my amcas as well as in all of my interviews I rambled on and on about screening patients, conducting patient interviews, and helping conduct patient studies...
This description juxtaposed with "no-patient interaction" seems like I fabricated my entire research experience.
Maybe this had nothing to do with it...but I can't imagine it looked good.
 
Last edited:
that's too minor. you have great stats. something that could sink your app would have to be a major major red flag. like crime, cheating, a psychotic personal statement, a letter of rec that said you were psychotic, etc etc

it's not going to be a minor thing like how your research is characterized.
 
Hmmm...I just don't know.
Regardless, I'll do my best to do all I can to improve for next year, apply to more schools, and hope for the best.
 
flowerpower123 said:
I think I might have found a red-flag?
I've been trying to do some detective work, as even though I'm sure I have many areas to work on, I thought I'd have a bit more success...

I spoke with my PI and he said he inadvertantly put I had "no patient interaction" in his letter when he meant "no in-patient interaction"
I don't know if it made a difference, but in my amcas as well as in all of my interviews I rambled on and on about screening patients, conducting patient interviews, and helping conduct patient studies...
This description juxtaposed with "no-patient interaction" seems like I fabricated my entire research experience.
Maybe this had nothing to do with it...but I can't imagine it looked good.
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate 🙁 I can definitely see that coming up in committee discussion and that could have played a role in how things panned out. Did he talk about your responsibilities in the letter? Because if that was the only instance and the rest of the letter talked about how you screened patients and stuff, it was probably looked over as a typo.


PL198 said:
that's too minor. you have great stats. something that could sink your app would have to be a major major red flag. like crime, cheating, a psychotic personal statement, a letter of rec that said you were psychotic, etc etc

it's not going to be a minor thing like how your research is characterized.
Click to expand...

Lol that's not true. Stats get your foot in the door. Everything else still has to impress. There have been applicants with great stats similar to OP but had minimal ECs, immature writing, and lackluster LORs who were shown the door.
 
flowerpower123 said:
I think I might have found a red-flag?

I spoke with my PI and he said he inadvertantly put I had "no patient interaction" in his letter when he meant "no in-patient interaction"
I don't know if it made a difference, but in my amcas as well as in all of my interviews I rambled on and on about screening patients, conducting patient interviews, and helping conduct patient studies...
This description juxtaposed with "no-patient interaction" seems like I fabricated my entire research experience.
Maybe this had nothing to do with it...but I can't imagine it looked good.
Click to expand...


Why would he even put no in-patient interaction? That is a negative thing, why would he even unnecessarily include a negative thing?

And no patient interaction can absolutely make a difference. How many other negative things did he include? I wonder.
 
boxer0011 said:
Why would he even put no in-patient interaction? That is a negative thing, why would he even unnecessarily include a negative thing?

And no patient interaction can absolutely make a difference. How many other negative things did he include? I wonder.
Click to expand...
I'm very concered actually...
He just sent me an e-mail that school's likely thought I was too weak and couldn't handle medical school.
I had no idea he felt this way about me...
 
Ismet said:
That's unfortunate 🙁 I can definitely see that coming up in committee discussion and that could have played a role in how things panned out. Did he talk about your responsibilities in the letter? Because if that was the only instance and the rest of the letter talked about how you screened patients and stuff, it was probably looked over as a typo.




Lol that's not true. Stats get your foot in the door. Everything else still has to impress. There have been applicants with great stats similar to OP but had minimal ECs, immature writing, and lackluster LORs who were shown the door.
Click to expand...
He said he just discussed data crunching... which is strange, because I spent nearly half my time with patients / controls
 
Yep I'm afraid his letter (be it lackluster or full out negative) likely tanked your chances. I know someone this happened too as well. Can you ask if you can see his letter, now that the cycle is complete?
 
flowerpower123 said:
I'm very concered actually...
He just sent me an e-mail that school's likely thought I was too weak and couldn't handle medical school.
I had no idea he felt this way about me...
Click to expand...
flowerpower123 said:
He said he just discussed data crunching... which is strange, because I spent nearly half my time with patients / controls
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. A bad or even just neutral/lackluster LOR can really bring down an application, especially if he makes it seem like you lied or stretched the truth.

I would not get a letter from him again. When you ask for a letter, be sure to ask "would you be willing to write me a STRONG letter of recommendation for medical school?" with emphasis on the word strong.
 
flowerpower123 said:
I'm very concered actually...
He just sent me an e-mail that school's likely thought I was too weak and couldn't handle medical school.
I had no idea he felt this way about me...
Click to expand...

He definitely feels that way about you and certainly included that in the letter. And a bad letter, especially from someone you worked with for years, will kill your chance. I guess that was the red flag here.

That guy is a real jerk though. He should have told you at least. You helped him so much on his own research, helping him get published and helped advance his career, and he basically destroyed two years of your life. If you will be earning 300K as a physician, he just cost you 600k. He must known how much a bad letter hurts, why did he do that?

Also, if you spent a lot of time with him, it would look suspicious why you don't get a letter from him. Could you get someone else whom you did research with?
 
Ismet said:
especially if he makes it seem like you lied or stretched the truth.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I looked like a complete confabulator. I even remember one of my interviewers asking me to clarify whether I was the one actually working with participants / running studies.
Looking back on it now, my interviews were almost all open file so while I was going on and on about all my involvement, they were reading on their screens that I had no patient interaction.
I'm not sure how this will effect my chances next year? If I were on a medical school adcom, I wouldn't have any interest in re-interviewing someone I thought was a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
IA not on AMCAS, what to do now?
Replies
5
Views
322
awycecujo
A
I
BS/MD program forcing students into satellite campus - not sure what to do?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Med Ed
Med Ed
B
Not Sure If I'm Rushing Things
Replies
0
Views
308
BeGladNonTrad
B
S
MCAT Retake disaster, not sure where to go from here
Replies
22
Views
2K
Dr.Freedman MedEdits
Dr.Freedman MedEdits
P
What to do before II?
Replies
4
Views
988
sardinetoast
S
Top