4.0 GPA 40 MCAT and not a shoe-in

[frescanese]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MorganMuscles]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

My firend's brother graduated with a 4.0 GPA, 30+ MCAT and still was rejected from the only state medical school here. He was also a young white male.

 

[TravisP]

I hope your black. If not, can you walk on water?

 

[firebody]

hey, sorry to hear that but those schools that you mentioned are looking for future leaders of our profession. i'm really glad that schools like harvard and hopkins are more inclined to look past those numbers and are able to determine the potential of each applicants from their accomplishments. trust me, schools like harvard and hopkins look for more than just people who have been president's of a volunteer organization and someone that did well academically. if you've ever sat in a class filled with harvard students, you'll know why they're there. some of them have their own patents for cancer fighting drugs, travelled the world in informing 3rd world citizens the importance of preventive health, taken time off to work for the National Institute of Health, already having multiple degrees (PhD, JD, MBA), former and newly appointed Rhode Scholars, etc...along with having done pretty good academically. basically, these are people who the admissions committee know will take advantage of the schools resources and end up making a name for themselves in the future, which only helps enhance the harvard, hopkins prestige.

sorry man, but as mentioned before by the schools themselves, they can fill a whole class with 4.0's and 40's, but it wouldn't make it a better choice to do so.

 

[jwk]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

There are plenty of excellent medical schools besides the ones you listed.

 

[CarleneM]

its sort of like the valedictorian/1600 thing with top undergrad schools. harvard undergrad could fill their whole class with people getting perfect on the SAT or valedictorians but they don't. it takes more than that and a perfect score is no guarantee. the same thing is definitely true for med school. now, i'd be quite suprised if you haven't recieved any interviews from "top" schools if you applied to more than those you listed. but even a top applicant isn't necessarily going to get interviews at every top school- there's just too many people vying for those spots. have you gotten interviews at other top schools? did you apply late? are you getting interviews at lower ranked schools without a problem?

 

[Nittany Lion]

I guess you wouldn't be too happy to hear about me getting an interview at UPenn with a 29 on the MCAT... ...but believe it or not, I worked really hard for that score too, amidst being an RA, TA, 2 years of research, student government leader, etc etc. Now trust me, I'm not sitting here thinking I'm going to actually get *accepted* to Penn by any means, but I guess you never know.

Of course I absolutely commend anyone who can get a 40 on the MCAT, especially while being involved with volunteering and research. I guess what I'm trying to say is this is just one more example of why I really do think this whole process is just a crapshoot and numbers don't really predict anything about chances of interviews/acceptances at certain schools.

 

[Law2Doc]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

As an above poster asked, did you apply late? The schools you mentioned are not done interviewing yet and may have not gotten to your app if it came in in later fall. Also you may have had someone write something not so complimentary in your letters of rec -- that could tank you for sure...

 

[JDAD]

What's the point in telling us your college was "above average in the 70's?"

 

[japhy]

i hate to be a hater, but i do not see any dedication to medicine. you mention that you have average clinical experience and very little research experience. where is the passion? why do you want to be a doctor? if your essays didn't explain this or you lor then you will have a tough time at the top institutions.

firebody is right, these elite institutions are not just looking for incredible students; they are looking for the future leaders of medicine, politics, etc.

sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but grades and mcat's are only one part (a critical part, mind you) of a huge package. once you meet a school's academic critieria they evaluate the "soft" factors. aparently, you don't meet them at stanford.

 

[Ross434]

What's the point in telling us your college was "above average in the 70's?"

LOL. i think he meant ranking in the 70s and above.. not the time period . above average in the 70s meant what.. limiting disco dancing to once per week and smoking 1 joint a day instead of 3?

 

[PineappleGirl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDAD
What's the point in telling us your college was "above average in the 70's?"



Quote: LOL. i think he meant ranking in the 70s and above.. not the time period . above average in the 70s meant what.. limiting disco dancing to once per week and smoking 1 joint a day instead of 3?

I laughed so hard at this I cried!

 

[45408]

There seems to be a margin above which your grades really don't matter anymore, as in, does it really matter if you have a 40 or a 42? Probably not. They're both incredible scores.

I'm guessing that your lack of research experience is hurting you. What kind of clinical experience do you have? I am rather surprised that you haven't heard from any of those schools, but take a look at mdapplicants.com's results - a lot of people get interviewed at top schools with numbers like yours and still get rejected. The average MCAT and GPA of students who interview and get accepted is basically no different than the MCAT and GPA of students who interview and get rejected. I was told by an admissions director that if you get an interview and get rejected, it's not because of your academic (in)abilities.

 

[bluejellybelly]

those grades are spectacular (although your statement of your school rank does NOT matter) though relying on those alone is kinda.... eh

 

[WatchingWaiting]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

Assuming you applied to seven or eight of the top-10 schools, I think it would be unexpected for you not to get into one. However, the reality is, there are about 200 people a year who obtain a 40+ MCAT. It is safe to figure that most of them have a 3.9+ GPA as well. With an average class size of ~120 and maybe 250 total acceptances given out, it doesn't require too much creativity to see how you can have very, very high academic stats and still not gain a bunch of acceptances.

Also, as mentioned, whether it's valid or not, the criteria of being a physician leader is used by all top med schools as a screening tool, and if you didn't come up with a set of soft factors that indicate you have this criteria via the personal statement and activities (this is an EXTREMELY subjective determination, and different ADCOMs will make different determinations, as the fact that only about 30 people out of the 150 and 250 acceptances given get into both Stanford and UCSF each year, even though they both have similar rankings, matriculant and applicant stats, and location), you may have to resign yourself to a top-20 school. In short, from the activities you have described, you should definitely get into at least a few top-20 schools, assuming you applied to at least 10 of them, but there will be a lot of randomness in terms of whether or not you get into top-top schools and which particular schools take you.

 

[Rendar5]

As someone mentioned, it is most likely a leadership issue. I had problems with those schools and probably my only lacking wasn't in my essay or interviews (things that helped me get into AECoM, which i know definitely looks at personality extremely high as a priority), nor my MCATs (39. as someone said, once u get to the mid-30s, MCATs don't really matter any more aside from impressing peers.). The only school which mentioned "oh, can u explain why u only got a 3.6 at Columbia" was Stanford (jeez, come on.). I've done really good volunteering, but in a program that i didn't assume leadership. I was a TA and had a great letter of recommendation (the writer actually told me what she wrote). I had a publication, and I had good extra-curricular activities.

The only thing I lacked was leadership. I didn't create anything, I didn't lead anything (other than social chair of my glee club), i didn't go above and beyond to jump-start anything. There was nothing that really made you go "wow, that's incredible that someone would do that". And honestly, that's what any school that is trying to create leaders looks for.

My advice: don't worry about rank or prestige. Go to a school where you will be happy. You can make your way anywhere for residency if you do well in med school (for letters of recommendation) and kick ass on your boards. It doesn't matter the school (unless research is extremely important to you).

 

[browniegirl86]

Damn. We have the same grades.

Maybe I'll stop trying to keep my 4.0 . . . I've heard that it can actually hurt you because adcoms get suspicious about your personality.

Good luck to you.

 

[Will Ferrell]

The OP's numbers speak for themselves. They do show as much dedication to medicine as loads of research and unique clinical experience. He put a lot of time into earning them and his desire to practice medicine must have driven him. That's just my opinion though and you all are right saying top med schools put a lot of weight on ECs. Maybe the OP had to take a job instead of volunteering at a clinic. Maybe he chose to (god forbid) enjoy his breaks instead of spending them isolated in a lab staring at bacteria. Maybe he's honest and didn't do some ECs many premeds do just for the sake of padding up their applications. Whatever is going wrong, he doesn't deserve it and should be getting paid off for his work.

 

[solitude]

That really sucks man. Did you apply early? If you turned in your application late, there's a chance that schools just haven't gotten around to contacting you about an interview, although one would think that they would be contacting you soon. Additionally, an August MCAT or simply a late application could be hindering your application, as they simply have fewer spots available for interviewees.

I don't necessarily agree with everybody else who says that you aren't getting interviews because you haven't shown a commitment to medicine or leadership potential. The top schools care about that stuff, but the GPA and MCAT are most important and you have almost-perfect stats in that regard. Schools want future leaders, but they also want to maintain or increase their USNews Ranking and manipulating the average statistics of their incoming class is an easy way to do so. And academic success, not the number of trips to Africa or organizations founded (although these are important) is the best indicator of how well you will do in medical school.

I am left to conclude that you either took the August MCAT, applied late, or your ECs and PS aren't as good as you think they are. Your undergrad school could also be hurting you. If they have to choose, the Princeton/Harvard/Yale undergrad with a 4.0 and 40 is gonna get the interview instead of you. More likely the lack of interest in your application is a combination of these factors, although it only takes an adcom one factor to toss you out on a whim.

With all that said, you are having terrible luck. I bet during a different application year, you would be getting a lot more interest. I hope you get a few interviews in the next week or two.

 

[Rendar5]

The OP's numbers speak for themselves. They do show as much dedication to medicine as loads of research and unique clinical experience. He put a lot of time into earning them and his desire to practice medicine must have driven him. That's just my opinion though and you are right saying top med schools put a lot of weight on ECs. Maybe the OP had to take a job instead of volunteering at a clinic. Maybe he chose to (god forbid) enjoy his breaks instead of spending them isolated in a lab staring at bacteria. Maybe he's honest and didn't do some ECs many premeds do just for the sake of padding up their applications. Whatever is going wrong, he doesn't deserve it and should be getting paid off for his work.

A 4.0 shows a work ethic, not a future leader. A 40 MCAT shows test-taking skills, not a future leader. He's not gonna get into a leadership factory. He's only gonna get into a really damn good med school. (easily upper tier).

 

[leechy]

People have made some really good points so far. I think once you're beyond a 35 and a 3.7, schools don't really pay that much attention to numbers. I'm in a similar situation to you, and if I had been fully aware of the subjectivity of admissions, I probably would have devoted more attention to demonstration of leadership / innovation than to academics.

If you look at the high stats people on MDapplicants, you can get a feel for the types of acceptances they get. There are some people with incredible stats who get rejected from the very schools you've listed. I also think the top schools you've listed are particularly focused on nonacademic factors. Harvard and Johns Hopkins actually have lower GPAs and average MCATs than a couple of other lower ranked schools. Like another person, I wonder if you received interviews at other top schools. I know places like Wash U, Duke, Columbia and UMich (those schools known for weighing numbers more heavily) would very likely grant you an interview.

 

[Rendar5]

yep, above poster's right. Being numbers-heavy, good research/volunteering, poor leadership, the places I didn't get interviews at were Harvard, JHU, UPenn, Cornell, Duke (I didn't read about the school when applying. my personal statement was totally not in sync w/ their objectives), and Boston University (way too many people apply there, and I'm a NYer, not a Bostonian. but they sent the nicest rejection letter i've ever received in my entire life). Stanford and Emory were my only rejections. The rest were a bunch of wait-lists that I didn't pursue and a few acceptances, and I got into my 2nd and 3rd choices of the places I visited.

 

[frescanese]

I dont really know why I ended up posting this thread even though I was a little dissapointed about not getting interviews at those schools I mentioned.

I guess the lesson here would be to follow the advice of some of the later posters: show leadership capabilities and do research; take time to go overseas or establish something special. As people similar to my situation might tell you, that is difficult to do when you are very concerned about grades. Again, maybe there is a lesson there, dont be overly conscious about grades because the top-top schools don't care as much about them as you might think (assuming here, which is preposterous to me, that you can make a 3.6-3.8 and mid 30's without being "concerned about grades," and thus reserving energy for the ec's). Obviously, Harvard can find people who make those grades and still apply themselves to amazing extracurriculars. I would argue with someone who said, from my little info posted, that I am not qualified for a school like Harvard; then again, I havent given enough evidence in these 2 posts for my case for entry either.

Yes, yall are right, I have received interviews at good schools (WashU via MCAT, no doubt). There is no sane reason for me to complain. But out of the schools I've applied to in the "top-top" (if you are including Baylor and Cornell), I've received 4 interviews out of 8 applications (and, yeah, I guess there is still time).

No, I didnt apply late (unless 1st wk of August is late). I would say my clinical experience was only "above average" because I am noting whiz kids on this board who are already chiefs of surgery. I didnt pursue research very long because the prof I went in with, as it turned out, hasnt been actively researching in 2 years (thats a long story I dont want to discuss on these boards).

Thanks for the advice and constructive criticism. Hopefully some people earlier in the application process may learn something from my experience.

------------------------------------------------

"Fill up your mind with all it can know / Don't forget that your body will let it all go"

 

[Giving My .02]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

Could be your LOR's or your little research. Schools like those LOVE research, and a lot of it.

 

[Rendar5]

You could definitely be right about the LoR's. But I really think pre-meds place too much importance on research. I've had a publication and 5 years research experience as well as a research scholarship program. And didn't get interviewed at those schools.

Could be your LOR's or your little research. Schools like those LOVE research, and a lot of it.

 

[Giving My .02]

You could definitely be right about the LoR's. But I really think pre-meds place too much importance on research. I've had a publication and 5 years research experience as well as a research scholarship program. And didn't get interviewed at those schools.

That is awesome you have a ton of experience in research. I think above average research or summer programs only help you out.

There was an individual my pre-med advisor told me about in undergrad. This person was about three years my senior. Anyway, they had the numbers. I think a 39 and a 4.0. They only applied to the the top schools and applied to their state school as the only back-up. I don't know how many interviews they got, but I know their personality wasn't the best, and didn't get into any. My advisor had to pull strings to get the person into the state school less than a month before class began off the waitlist. So, I think numbers don't say everything, and you can't expect numbers to get you in. That should be a lesson to everyone. Numbers can only open the door, but you need to have other stuff to back them up.

I know it seems different in undergrad, because most all of us were the top in our class in all the pre-med science courses, but once you get to med school, everyone is smart. There are some people so smart, you don't know how they pull it off. Its like athletics... you can be a high school star, a college first team player, and then be like third string in the NFL. It is hard getting use to the fact you have competition that is stronger than you, even in your best areas, out there. With medical schools, I think they look for a "full team of students". They aren't going take 100 people with only the same well-qualified numbers. My classmates are so well-rounded in almost anything you can think of, division 1 athletes, musicians, lawyers, etc. So the admissions look for people to make the class well-balanced.

 

[japhy]

grades have not been shown to have a reliable correlation to how undergrads perform and med students. at least the mcat has some reliability, but only the verbal section. sorry solitude, grades will only get you so far.

this is why med schools look past grades to other factors. yes, you do need to be a least somewhat intelligent to make it through med school. yes, you do need to be able to work hard. but there are many other important qualities and characteristics that make a great physician.

frescanese, i am sure that you will get in to manyb schools. best of luck to you. one of the keys to successful applications is to know what each school is looking for.

 

[Tiddly of Winks]

There are some people so smart, you don't know how they pull it off. Its like athletics... you can be a high school star, a college first team player, and then be like third string in the NFL. It is hard getting use to the fact you have competition that is stronger than you, even in your best areas, out there. With medical schools, I think they look for a "full team of students". They aren't going take 100 people with only the same well-qualified numbers. My classmates are so well-rounded in almost anything you can think of, division 1 athletes, musicians, lawyers, etc. So the admissions look for people to make the class well-balanced.

Beautiful analogy. And yet, somehow I feel depressed now.

 

[Medikit]

Stanford MD is a research MD. Your lack of research is probably a big factor.

 

[linuxizer]

To the OP-
I feel your pain. Good luck to you. I'm sure you'll get in someplace great.

The top schools care about that stuff, but the GPA and MCAT are most important and you have almost-perfect stats in that regard. Schools want future leaders, but they also want to maintain or increase their USNews Ranking and manipulating the average statistics of their incoming class is an easy way to do so.

Solitude-
I think you overestimate how much schools at the tip-top care about rankings. Maybe the admissions office looks at them, but for the most part these schools are precisely arrogant enough to know they're the best and not need external validation (at least not claim to need it). Witness a NYTimes op-ed where one of Penn's deans took the rise in U.S. News rankings to bash the rankings system. Another interesting mini-trend is a decline in participation among top schools in the voluntary aspects of rankings--Harvard and Penn agreed to boycott the bus. school surveys recently.

--Ari

 

[swifteagle43]

Dude the truth is that ALL the schools you just listed(harvard, stanford JHU) are RESEARCH schools.

You will get into most state/private schools that are based on primary care. You really need to either A. Get a paper published or B. Be distinguished in community service to get into those schools.

A solid GPA and a nice MCAT is a good thing but you are just one of many and those are just numbers. Those schools look very much behind the numbers into your accomplishments as a researcher.

 

[dancinjenn]

I hate to say it but how did you come across in your essays? Were you pompous...look at me i have great grades and that is all I need...? If adcoms are looking at 4 sets of numbers just like yours and your essays weren't up to par that may be a reason also. I also agree with the above posters who asked about LOR's.

 

[DrDarwin]

To the OP-
I feel your pain. Good luck to you. I'm sure you'll get in someplace great.



Solitude-
I think you overestimate how much schools at the tip-top care about rankings. Maybe the admissions office looks at them, but for the most part these schools are precisely arrogant enough to know they're the best and not need external validation (at least not claim to need it). Witness a NYTimes op-ed where one of Penn's deans took the rise in U.S. News rankings to bash the rankings system. Another interesting mini-trend is a decline in participation among top schools in the voluntary aspects of rankings--Harvard and Penn agreed to boycott the bus. school surveys recently.

--Ari

WashU loves the rankings. Interestingly (and perhaps coincidentally), of all the 3.8+/35+ students I know personally, many have been accepted at WashU but none have been invited to interview at Penn, Hopkins, Harvard, or Stanford.

 

[i77ac]

Dude the truth is that ALL the schools you just listed(harvard, stanford JHU) are RESEARCH schools.

You will get into most state/private schools that are based on primary care. You really need to either A. Get a paper published or B. Be distinguished in community service to get into those schools.

A solid GPA and a nice MCAT is a good thing but you are just one of many and those are just numbers. Those schools look very much behind the numbers into your accomplishments as a researcher.

as always, this is too much of a generalization... i have NO RESEARCH experience, and have been invited to JHU, cornell, UCSF, Duke, UMich, and still waiting to hear from the others.

I believe the key is dedicating yourself to something that shows your humanistic values, whether clinical, social, or research.

 

[firebody]

Dude the truth is that ALL the schools you just listed(harvard, stanford JHU) are RESEARCH schools.

You will get into most state/private schools that are based on primary care. You really need to either A. Get a paper published or B. Be distinguished in community service to get into those schools.

A solid GPA and a nice MCAT is a good thing but you are just one of many and those are just numbers. Those schools look very much behind the numbers into your accomplishments as a researcher.

i'd just like to point out that this purple dancin hippo is a poser. and that some of his comments are not necessarily true.....actually nevermind, he makes a valid assumption about them 'liking' research in the background. but i just like to contradict everything he says because he is the yin to my wang, the danny devito to my arnold schwarzewhatever, the tito jackson to my michael jackson.........

but to actually add content to the thread, not all top schools necessarily look for that. in fact, i know UCSF goes by a simple formula.

they evaluate every part of the application and assign a number to each part and multiply it by some factor assigned to them (the LOR, essay, interview, university attended, GPA, extracurricular, MCAT, california resident etc.) it's added up and the highest scores get invitations to the school. if you're not really on par with the average of their students in some areas, then other parts of your application has to really kick butt for you to be accepted. it's very simple. (and to those that believe undergrad school doesn't play a factor, that's true still, but you better be the one of the brightest coming out of that school too)

 

[Rendar5]

as always, this is too much of a generalization... i have NO RESEARCH experience, and have been invited to JHU, cornell, UCSF, Duke, UMich, and still waiting to hear from the others.

I believe the key is dedicating yourself to something that shows your humanistic values, whether clinical, social, or research.

Wish people would listen to you. jeez. I just said I was a guy w/ very high numbers and 5 years research, a publication, and at my school as a research scholar. The top schools look for dedication and leadership, which is why i77ac got interviews there and not me. What is this obsession w/ pre-meds and research? Great numbers like the OP's will get him into a great school, but it won't get into the schools he's asking about. If you're not gonna be a leader, you're not gonna get into a school seeking them. And they're not gonna be the school for you anyway.

 

[cheapdate]

I graduated from an above average (in the 70s on USNEWS) college with a 4.0 and made a 40 on my MCAT. I have above average clinical experience, well above average-to excellent-volunteer experience (president of organization), and LITTLE research experience (lab assistant for one summer; no publications). I have been told by various interviewers that my essays were good. For what it is worth (very little), I am a white male, early 20s.

I have so far not received interviews at Penn, Johns H, Harvard, Cornell, and was rejected at Stanford.

I dont think im a cool guy or anything, but I worked really hard to get the grades and MCAT that i received. It seemed to me, when I was a fresh and soph, that If i had a 35+ and 3.8+, I would get to go wherever i wanted--no problem. I wanted to see what you guys thought might be the reason for me not receiving interviews.

I'm not sure how true this is, but I heard that sometimes, some school will reject you because they figure you wouldn't end up going there anyway, don't want to waste their time.

 

[Rendar5]

I'm not sure how true this is, but I heard that sometimes, some school will reject you because they figure you wouldn't end up going there anyway, don't want to waste their time.

very true, according to an admission secretary i know. doesn't apply to these schools, though, i wouldn't think.

 

[swifteagle43]

as always, this is too much of a generalization... i have NO RESEARCH experience, and have been invited to JHU, cornell, UCSF, Duke, UMich, and still waiting to hear from the others.

I believe the key is dedicating yourself to something that shows your humanistic values, whether clinical, social, or research.

I said you need to have one of two things: either research or distinguished community service. You probably have the second. I never said you had to have BOTH. He said he had above average community service(not necessarily distinguished).

Btw listen to Firebody- he makes a great point. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story and you should know better than to think that they do. I bet you will get into most of the primary care focused schools you apply to.

Keep in mind that Harvard, Stanford, Yale and JHU are looking for the future leaders in the industry and while a 4.0 shows you are hardworking you are not exactly a researcher.

It is applied intelligence that is more important to those schools than your actual GPA. Distinguished community service(ex: flying to south asia right now to help out the victims) or distinguished research(second authored a paper) shows the application of your intelligence instead of just your hard work.


There is no difference between a 3.9 from a small liberal arts school versus your mighty 4.0. If the 3.9 kid wrote a distinguished paper while you did community service everyday at your local hospital(like everybody else) he will blow you out of the water.

Or you can do what Windmill does and blame it being on a while male!(blame them for you not getting into a top 50 school too) LOL

The truth is a LOT of asian people SCREWED by this factor too. They get grades but don't do any damn research or distinguished community service.

 

[Rendar5]

Again, it is not about research. for the third time, i had a ton of research experience and very high numbers and did not get interviews.

I said you need to have one of two things: either research or distinguished community service. You probably have the second. I never said you had to have BOTH. He said he had above average community service(not necessarily distinguished).

Btw listen to Firebody- he makes a great point. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story and you should know better than to think that they do. I bet you will get into most of the primary care focused schools you apply to.

Keep in mind that Harvard, Stanford, Yale and JHU are looking for the future leaders in the industry and while a 4.0 shows you are hardworking you are not exactly a researcher.

It is applied intelligence that is more important to those schools than your actual GPA. Distinguished community service(ex: flying to south asia right now to help out the victims) or distinguished research(second authored a paper) shows the application of your intelligence instead of just your hard work.


There is no difference between a 3.9 from a small liberal arts school versus your mighty 4.0. If the 3.9 kid wrote a distinguished paper while you did community service everyday at your local hospital(like everybody else) he will blow you out of the water.

Or you can do what Windmill does and blame it being on a while male!(blame them for you not getting into a top 50 school too) LOL

The truth is a LOT of asian people SCREWED by this factor too. They get grades but don't do any damn research or distinguished community service.

 

[MWillie]

Again, it is not about research. for the third time, i had a ton of research experience and very high numbers and did not get interviews.

That's some solidly anecdotal evidence. My anecdotal experience says that research is indeed important, cept for Wash U, they don't care, get 4.0 and 40 and you're in.

 

[45408]

There was an individual my pre-med advisor told me about in undergrad. This person was about three years my senior. Anyway, they had the numbers. I think a 39 and a 4.0. They only applied to the the top schools and applied to their state school as the only back-up. I don't know how many interviews they got, but I know their personality wasn't the best, and didn't get into any.

I can second this. One of my Kaplan instructors told us that he knew of a guy with a ~4.0 and a 40 on his MCAT, but didn't get into any schools he applied to because he was very socially maladjusted. He just couldn't hold a normal conversation. Not that the OP is this way, but just a hint at what schools are thinking.

 

[indo]

Social maladjustment is on par for successful pre-meds.

 

[Ambs]

We can sit here all day and night and discuss what it takes-- years of research, leadership, ending world hunger, building an orphanage in Cambodia, 42 on the MCAT, 3.98 from Harvard undergrad, etc.

WHO THE HELL KNOWS what it takes!? None of us, that's for sure. It's interesting to speculate, though. But because it is so unpredictable, all we can do is remain confident and realistically optimistic... And as one poster previously mentioned, I hope we all go to the school we feel comfortable and happy at, a place that will encourage our talents, support our individual ambitions, and stimulate our growth

 

[Rendar5]

That's some solidly anecdotal evidence. My anecdotal experience says that research is indeed important, cept for Wash U, they don't care, get 4.0 and 40 and you're in.

well, considering people are saying that all those schools look for is research, and i have research up the wazoo including publications, in addition to the unimportantly high score (except in the cases of a few schools looking to up their avg mcat score)), and i failed to get into the exact same schools as this person, I have supplied enough evidence to counter the claim that those schools are looking for research-heavy applicants.

Although anecdotal evidence on its own is weak, the directness of it, both in the fact that i am not obtaining it from a 3rd party and in the fact that i am trying to disprove a single specific claim - that he's not getting in because of lack of research, strengthens it. I just think people think that research is a lot more important than it actually is. I never said it wasn't important. But it is not the difference that everyone makes it out to be in obtaining interviews at these school.

 

[visualwealth]

Rendar5 there is no special formula... You got screwed buddy... They probably found some faulty method to eliminate you( like by the last three letters of your last name lol) Trust me there are people with worse profiles than you that land these schools... But from what you are writting you still got into a Top 5 to Top 10 school so you will have an opportunity to kill the boards and get whatever recidency you want....


Good luck

 

[stinkycheese]

well, considering people are saying that all those schools look for is research, and i have research up the wazoo including publications, in addition to the unimportantly high score (except in the cases of a few schools looking to up their avg mcat score)), and i failed to get into the exact same schools as this person, I have supplied enough evidence to counter the claim that those schools are looking for research-heavy applicants.

No, you're one person,and you don't know whether you got rejected for that reason or for another reason. Just because you didn't get in doesn't mean they're not interested in research. Being interested in candidates with research doesn't mean that research is the golden ticket into their classroom, either. Do you see how logic works?

Maybe it was your interview. Or your LOR's. Or your essay.

 

[leechy]

Rendar5 there is no special formula... You got screwed buddy...

True. I also recall you mentioning you had a 3.6. that's still a great GPA, but maybe a little on the low-side for some of the top schools. But I still agree - outstanding leadership / international experience is the way to go for the top schools. Wish I had really taken that advice to heart earlier.

 

[Samus Aran]

if for some bizarre reason you don't get accepted to any schools this cycle (which i doubt will happen), i would ask the schools what happened. i agree with everyone who said this stuff can't be singled out as being 1 thing across the board, i.e., it can't be said that you haven't received interviews yet b/c you didn't get tons of research experience, since several posters said they did have a lot yet still didn't receive interviews at these particular schools.

anyway, if you are really unlucky and nothing comes from this app cycle, call the schools and ask them what happened. this will be a lot easier on you next cycle then just wondering what you could have done wrong. if you haven't already, get lots of people to read over your personal statement and critique it for you. it could also be that someone didn't like something they read in one of your lor's, who knows. what are you doing this year while you're applying (if you stated this previously, i'm sorry)? are you continuing to volunteer, work, etc., or are you doing a whole lot of nothing? the truth is, no one here can really say what could be going on unless you wait it out and see what happens. imo, you will get accepted to at least 1 super school (likely washu based on your numbers alone), so don't worry to much . you've worked hard to get the scores you have and ultimately you should be proud of what you've accomplished. i could be wrong but i haven't heard of a single case of a person getting into every school he or she wanted to, so don't think you're just the exception.

i wish you the best.

 

[DrWorkNeverDone]

I don't know about the other schools but I can explain Stanford, they really like research, I mean at least seeing you attempt it and if they see it as you just doing it for the app. you will be thrown right out the window. That goes for any of the other stuff on your app. If you did research for 3 months and called it quits dont even count it towards your app. That includes if you did volunteering for 3 months and yada yada.

It is great that you achieved what so many of us wish we could do. But medical schools like to see colorful backgrounds, hardship, passion. If you had it easy, where you could study all the time, and had time to do many of the options you talk about then no wonder you have the high GPA. But what will happen in med school has to be asked. What will happen when you dont have the time that you use to? How will you balance family with your future career? THose who have worked, delt with family and still kept a good GPA show a future of doing the same. I don't know if you have been through any hardships, but if you have not this may be another reason.

Finally, the LOR's really really really count at Stanford, a bad one can put you out the window. Also, top tiers may think you are being accepted at other top tiers and therefore are not even bothering to interview you. Therefore, maybe you could do an update? I mean every school has to have that top tier student just to make us average ones feel a little below




THIS WAS ANSWERING FRES. part