A Question For Those Who Apply To Many Top Schools w/o Ultra High Stats

[efle]

To interject into the numbers/ECs debate, I don't think it's a triangle or coin. I think it's a two part process, where they can't really make up for deficits in each other.

Part 1 is who they seriously consider interviewing - for most top schools this primarily driven by MCAT, followed by GPA (+ alma mater.)

After that is Part 2 when interesting good ECs, good recommendations and a good interview become important. This part is why while high stats people almost always get multiple top interviews, many end up with no top admits and others with multiple.

It's a good stats necessary, but not sufficient kind of system. No ECs will get an ORM 3.5/507 interviews at most top schools, but at the same time even an 80+ LizzyM is not going to carry you further than an interview invite. As Goro likes to put it stats can get you to the door, the rest is what decides if you go through it; or in LizzyM's metaphor some people get to start closer to the top of the staircase, but it's non-numerical factors that decide who ascends or descends over/under the threshold to get in.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lawpy]

To interject into the numbers/ECs debate, I don't think it's a triangle or coin. I think it's a two part process, where they can't really make up for deficits in each other.

Part 1 is who they seriously consider interviewing - for most top schools this primarily driven by MCAT, followed by GPA (+ alma mater.)

After that is Part 2 when interesting good ECs, good recommendations and a good interview become important. This part is why while high stats people almost always get multiple top interviews, many end up with no top admits and others with multiple.

It's a good stats necessary, but not sufficient kind of system. No ECs will get an ORM 3.5/507 interviews at most top schools, but at the same time even an 80+ LizzyM is not going to carry you further than an interview invite. As Goro likes to put it stats can get you to the door, the rest is what decides if you go through it; or in LizzyM's metaphor some people get to start closer to the top of the staircase, but it's non-numerical factors that decide who ascends or descends over/under the threshold to get in.

I'm willing to bet that an applicant with >75 LizzyM score but only average ECs will have a much more successful cycle than an applicant with <70 LizzyM score but strong ECs assuming demographic factors are controlled. Even across top tiers, mid tiers, state schools etc. Low tiers are weird because of yield protection.

 

[mwsapphire]

To interject into the numbers/ECs debate, I don't think it's a triangle or coin. I think it's a two part process, where they can't really make up for deficits in each other.

Part 1 is who they seriously consider interviewing - for most top schools this primarily driven by MCAT, followed by GPA (+ alma mater.)

After that is Part 2 when interesting good ECs, good recommendations and a good interview become important. This part is why while high stats people almost always get multiple top interviews, many end up with no top admits and others with multiple.

It's a good stats necessary, but not sufficient kind of system. No ECs will get an ORM 3.5/507 interviews at most top schools, but at the same time even an 80+ LizzyM is not going to carry you further than an interview invite. As Goro likes to put it stats can get you to the door, the rest is what decides if you go through it; or in LizzyM's metaphor some people get to start closer to the top of the staircase, but it's non-numerical factors that decide who ascends or descends over/under the threshold to get in.

Is alma mater really as important as GPA? Woahhhhh :O
But yeah high stats just don't get it for an acceptance at the T20 schools, otherwise there would just be a huge flood of qualified applicants . You don't want a robotc high numbers person as you're doctor- you need to be around patients/ get your hands dirty and have a personality.
I honestly feel like personality is pretty important for a top school admit. They want people who will make the best docs overall.

 

[Lawpy]

Still , meds schools, especially top schools, have such limited seats they can fill them with those people. There are still enough of those people to fill those seats.
Have you applied to medical school yet? Ec's are almost as important as stats I'm legit panicking over my volunteer hours b/c of this.
Goro says it all the time. Anyone can make high numbers doesn't mean they actually know what being a doc is like.
I'm kind of flabbergasted right now I'm not trying to argue I just can't see how this can be true.

Is alma mater really as important as GPA? Woahhhhh :O
But yeah high stats just don't get it for an acceptance at the T20 schools, otherwise there would just be a huge flood of qualified applicants . You don't want a robotc high numbers person as you're doctor- you need to be around patients/ get your hands dirty and have a personality.
I honestly feel like personality is pretty important for a top school admit. They want people who will make the best docs overall.

Contrary to what SDN portrays, it is rare to have a high GPA/high MCAT combination. People with high LizzyM scores usually come from top 20 undergrads and know the admissions game very well (it's also a major selection bias on part of their colleges that are already super selective). Not surprisingly, they also have strong ECs at universities with ample amounts of resources.

High GPA/high MCAT combinations from state schools and no-name private colleges are significantly rarer.

 

[efle]

I'm willing to bet that an applicant with >75 LizzyM score but only average ECs will have a much more successful cycle than an applicant with <70 LizzyM score but strong ECs assuming demographic factors are controlled. Even across top tiers, mid tiers, state schools etc. Low tiers are weird because of yield protection.

Idk man I told you in convo about my friend with a solid GPA and 100th percentile MCAT but lacking ECs. Got interviews at places like Hopkins and Yale but ended up admitted to only his low tier southern state school until like, last week. I really think it's huge for interview invites but doesn't carry you much past that.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Still , meds schools, especially top schools, have such limited seats they can fill them with those people

Again, you overestimate how many people actually have 3.9/520+ type stats.

Still , meds schools, especially top schools, have such limited seats they can fill them with those people. There are still enough of those people to fill those seats.

Not with the kind of stats you are talking about.

Have you applied to medical school yet

Bruh.... I start on Monday.

Is alma mater really as important as GPA? Woahhhhh :O

Prestige begets prestige. Who you know and where you are coming from can take someone a lot farther than just in stats alone. It gets even worse the farther along you get in the medical process, residency, etc. (mostly in academics)

But yeah high stats just don't get it for an acceptance at the T20 schools, otherwise there would just be a huge flood of qualified applicants

Again, you overestimate how many people actually have the types of stats you are talking about.

 

[Lawpy]

Idk man I told you in convo about my friend with a solid GPA and 100th percentile MCAT but lacking ECs. Got interviews at places like Hopkins and Yale but ended up admitted to only his low tier southern state school until like, last week. I really think it's huge for interview invites but doesn't carry you much past that.

I guess that fits with LizzyM's idea that interview decisions are made by one or two reviewers who are turned on hard by numbers but final decisions are made by the committee (although frustratingly, interviewer biases can sink an applicant).

But numbers still have primacy since getting interviews is a crucial step to getting acceptances.

 

[Mocha19]

I am not sure that I am adding much to this thread, other than maybe my singular experience gives some additional insight into OPs question and others' comments here. I went to a pretty decent (but not super well known) liberal arts undergraduate school. My stats: 4.0/519. I applied MD/PhD with tons of hours in the lab and a second author published paper in a respectable journal heading into my senior year. I applied to 15 programs had two IIs (both top 20 schools, although my list was spread out among the top 50 schools) and no acceptances. I decided to apply MD only the next cycle and figured that by this time since I had maintained my GPA at 4.0, continued lab work and added shadowing hours, volunteer hours and work, I would have a more successful cycle. Second cycle I applied to 16 schools had 5 IIs (4 of which were top 25 schools on a list containing schools spread among the top 50). I went on four of the interviews, got accepted at one and waitlisted at the other three. One of those three has already started classes, so although I never heard anything, I am assuming I am no longer on the waitlist . From the other two I have heard nothing and am simply thankful that I have my one acceptance. I can say that on at least two of my interviews I received comments from my interviewers not really knowing my school (in one interview the dean initially came out and introduced herself and then called each person by name -- there were eight of us -- mentioned our school and said something about each of us from our personal statement.....she forgot my name, said the wrong school name and got my research wrong). So, this may be a long way of saying, that while there are certainly things I could have done to improve my application and my interviews I DO think that the school does make some bit of a difference (just maybe not always quite in the way OP has asked the question).

 

[mwsapphire]

I am not sure that I am adding much to this thread, other than maybe my singular experience gives some additional insight into OPs question and others' comments here. I went to a pretty decent (but not super well known) liberal arts undergraduate school. My stats: 4.0/519. I applied MD/PhD with tons of hours in the lab and a second author published paper in a respectable journal heading into my senior year. I applied to 15 programs had two IIs (both top 20 schools, although my list was spread out among the top 50 schools) and no acceptances. I decided to apply MD only the next cycle and figured that by this time since I had maintained my GPA at 4.0, continued lab work and added shadowing hours, volunteer hours and work, I would have a more successful cycle. Second cycle I applied to 16 schools had 5 IIs (4 of which were top 25 schools on a list containing schools spread among the top 50). I went on four of the interviews, got accepted at one and waitlisted at the other three. One of those three has already started classes, so although I never heard anything, I am assuming I am no longer on the waitlist . From the other two I have heard nothing and am simply thankful that I have my one acceptance. I can say that on at least two of my interviews I received comments from my interviewers not really knowing my school (in one interview the dean initially came out and introduced herself and then called each person by name -- there were eight of us -- mentioned our school and said something about each of us from our personal statement.....she forgot my name, said the wrong school name and got my research wrong). So, this may be a long way of saying, that while there are certainly things I could have done to improve my application and my interviews I DO think that the school does make some bit of a difference (just maybe not always quite in the way OP has asked the question).

Did this belong in the " Do Medical schools consider UGrad thread" or did you mean to post it here?