Adcoms: Is there any inherent bias held towards traditional candidates, now that so many people take gap years?

[openstage]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Having attended recent interviews I see roughly 3/4 of the candidates are older, have taken multiple gap years, have families and such. With all things being equal - GPA, MCAT, experiences, references, community service and volunteering, do you think committees prefer these type of candidates these days? Is there any inherent bias held towards traditional candidates, now that so many people take gap years? And by bias, I do not mean personal bias, but a view that these students are better suited to the demands of medical school and residency. Thank you for thoughtful responses.

 

[KnightDoc]

Having attended recent interviews I see roughly 3/4 of the candidates are older, have taken multiple gap years, have families and such. With all things being equal - GPA, MCAT, experiences, references, community service and volunteering, do you think committees prefer these type of candidates these days? Is there any inherent bias held towards traditional candidates, now that so many people take gap years? And by bias, I do not mean personal bias, but a view that these students are better suited to the demands of medical school and residency. Thank you for thoughtful responses.

I'm not an adcom, but I've put a lot of thought into this very topic as I prepare to apply myself. There is no "bias" against traditional applicants, and the past 100 years of US medical education has shown that traditional students are perfectly suited to the demands of med school and residency. It's just that today, being as competitive as it is to get accepted, that it is increasingly difficult for a traditional, full-time student to check all of the expected boxes in 4 years in order to be competitive, so people are forced into gap years, either to repair GPAs or to fill in gaps in ECs. It's still very possible to do in 4 years, but it's getting harder every year as the bar keeps being raised.

 

[LizzyM]

I'm not an adcom, but I've put a lot of thought into this very topic as I prepare to apply myself. There is no "bias" against traditional applicants, and the past 100 years of US medical education has shown that traditional students are perfectly suited to the demands of med school and residency. It's just that today, being as competitive as it is to get accepted, that it is increasingly difficult for a traditional, full-time student to check all of the expected boxes in 3 years in order to be competitive, so people are forced into gap years, either to repair GPAs or to fill in gaps in ECs. It's still very possible to do in 3 years, but it's getting harder every year as the bar keeps being raised.

FTFY

A traditional applicant applies after 3 years of college and it is getting very difficult to rise to the top 40% of applicants with just 3 years of post-HS experience.

 

[u_raptor]

If anything there would be a bias towards non trads because they have the time to add to their application. As a trad, I feel much less competitive when compared to some non-trad apps. Having said that, I was able to create an application that has gotten me where I need to be, but I had to start building literally the month I set foot on campus. I am grateful, but it was stressful and extremely taxing. Some students need a year or more just to realize they for sure want to be a doc! Building an application in less than 2 years bw sophomore (if they decided on med at that point) and May of junior year is...hard to say the least. Having that extra time helps alot for those that need it. And all else being equal, I feel like the extra ECs and experiences on someone with extra years should have a leg up on one that took the "trad route" and doesn't have the extra experiences because of it.

 

[Goro]

Having attended recent interviews I see roughly 3/4 of the candidates are older, have taken multiple gap years, have families and such. With all things being equal - GPA, MCAT, experiences, references, community service and volunteering, do you think committees prefer these type of candidates these days? Is there any inherent bias held towards traditional candidates, now that so many people take gap years? And by bias, I do not mean personal bias, but a view that these students are better suited to the demands of medical school and residency. Thank you for thoughtful responses.

None.

 

[LizzyM]

Does anyone have the number of trad and non-trad who apply and the number of trad and non-trad who matriculate? If so, I could easy-peasy set up a chi-square and determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion admitted between the two groups. I just don't have the data. @gonnif

 

[KnightDoc]

Does anyone have the number of trad and non-trad who apply and the number of trad and non-trad who matriculate? If so, I could easy-peasy set up a chi-square and determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion admitted between the two groups. I just don't have the data. @gonnif

Apparently, while there is reported data on the percent of matriculants having at least one gap year (36.7% for 2018), and on first time applicants vs. repeat applicants, there is nothing a peon like me can access regarding the portion of applicants that have no gap year. Can you at least access it for your school?

My gut tells me there are too many variables to draw any meaningful conclusions. For instance, how would you isolate the fact that reapplicants are inherently weaker by virtue of their having at least one prior unsuccessful cycle from the fact that their applications are enhanced by their gap year experiences? My bet would be that first time applicants with at least one gap year are, as a group, more successful than those applying straight out of UG, but that is kind of inherently self-evident because, as a group, they will have more extensive CVs. By itself that doesn't mean anything, because plenty of trads with impressive ECs are accepted each year (comprising, on the whole 36.7% of last year's class). The bottom line is that more, and deeper, ECs enhance an application, and it is easier to accumulate them with at least one gap year than without.

In any event, I think the verdict is unanimous on OP's original question, which was whether adcoms believe gap years are necessary to make applicants better suited for med school and residency. The answer apparently is "no" to that, but gap years are becoming increasingly necessary to clear the ever higher bar created by the EC arms race.

 

[Goro]

Does anyone have the number of trad and non-trad who apply and the number of trad and non-trad who matriculate? If so, I could easy-peasy set up a chi-square and determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the proportion admitted between the two groups. I just don't have the data. @gonnif

A rough rule of thumb can be found in MSAR.

For example,
Albany: % matriculants with a graduate degree 28%; Number of students entering from Postbaccalaureate programs: 2 (seats = 140)

Harvard: % with a graduate degree: 13%; post-bacc ??? (seats = 165)

Columbia: Percentage of matriculants with a graduate degree: 20% Number of students entering from Postbaccalaureate programs: 36 (seats = 138)
(NOTE: Columbia is a school which in my opinion rewards reinvention)

Jefferson: Percentage of matriculants with a graduate degree: 10% Number of students entering from Postbaccalaureate programs: 63 (seats = 268)

 

[Seihai]

"The Age of MSQ Participants at Matriculation Continues to Rise. The percentage of respondents aged 23 to 25 increased to 48.7 percent in 2017 (up from 46.4 percent in 2015 and 46.9 percent in 2016), and respondents aged 20 to 22 upon matriculation dropped from 35.7 percent in 2016 to 34.5 percent in 2017. Similarly, well over half (62.6 percent) of new matriculants reported that more than a year had passed since graduating from college (up from 59.9 in 2015 and 60.6 in 2016). " - https://www.aamc.org/system/files/reports/1/msq2017report.pdf

"The Age of MSQ Participants at Matriculation Continues to Rise. The percentage of respondents aged 23 to 25 increased to 49.9% in 2018 (up from 46.9% in 2016 and 48.7% in 2017), and respondents aged 20 to 22 upon matriculation dropped from 34.5% in 2017 to 33.8% in 2018. Similarly, well over half (63.4%) of new matriculants reported that more than a year had passed since graduating from college (up from 60.6% in 2016 and 62.6% in 2017). " - https://www.aamc.org/system/files/reports/1/msq2018report.pdf

I've spent too much time looking for applicant data (and found nothing), but this has the information regarding matriculant data.

The 2019 data isn't available yet, but I'm assuming the trend will continue to rise.

I'll keep looking for applicant data since it's fairly interesting to see, but one might have to impute/predict the numbers from applicant age (which isn't a perfect correlation with traditional/non-traditional paths due to slight differences in when people start college and how long they take to finish).

It looks like age information might be available on a per-school basis from MSAR (You are being redirected...), but again, this isn't the same as traditional/non-traditional paths.

I think that if a program director/prehealth advisor were so inclined, it looks like AAMC might actually release this information (maybe request it under the guise of trying to encourage people at your school to consider gap years) - Request AAMC Data

However, differential privacy is a big hot-button issue nowadays because of the US Census moving to protect their datasets, and I could see AAMC wanting to shy away from releasing too much demographic information...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT19VwBAqKA

 

[OfMiceAndWomen]

Not very representative, but Yale posts data on acceptance rates of current students (trad) and alums (non-trad).
Here's data from last four years
2018
2017
2016
2015

This is very limited data, but there doesn't seem to be bias one way or the other. However, I've been informed by pre-health advisor that the comparable acceptance rates are likely due to the fact that traditional applicants have to be much stronger stats-wise (avg. GPA 3.8), and there is less leniency with their profiles because traditional applicants tend to have less life skills/emotional maturity. On the other hand, non-trad applicants have lower stats (avg. GPA 3.6), but can bolster their applications with strong CV/more life experiences.

As you can see from the data, non-traditional applicants outnumber traditional applicants 2:1 and some years even 3:1. This is likely because the pre-health committee strongly encourages students to take gap year(s) unless they already have a very strong profile by the end of junior year. The higher number of non-trad applicants may also be because students are generally motivated to gain more life experiences before applying to med school.

 

[openstage]

I appreciate everyone’s findings and shared research, but I’m probably not being clear. I know the average age of matriculates is increasing. What I’m curious of is if Admissions Committees feel that it’s now necessary to have gap years in order to be a good candidate? Is a senior that’s applying at a perceived disadvantage.

 

[Seihai]

I appreciate everyone’s findings and shared research, but I’m probably not being clear. I know the average age of matriculates is increasing. What I’m curious of is if Admissions Committees feel that it’s now necessary to have gap years in order to be a good candidate? Is a senior that’s applying at a perceived disadvantage.

The answers in this thread from several adcoms seem to imply that they don't care all that much at their respective schools assuming you're otherwise competitive, but it's impossible to generalize across every school from just that information. Finding quantitative numbers would make it easier to confirm whether or not there really is such a bias (and even then, the reason behind the bias probably wouldn't be well understood from that data alone).

If you think you're already a competitive applicant, then there isn't necessarily a great reason to take a gap year or not. If you're not competitive, then there's a compelling reason to take a gap year that's entirely separate from whether there's a bias against traditional/nontraditional applicants.

Trying to understand WHY having a gap year might make you more competitive may be more clear from this information from MSQ2018:

It looks like the actual percentage of people doing research/volunteering/etc. is not necessarily increasing from year to year.

 

[ciestar]

I appreciate everyone’s findings and shared research, but I’m probably not being clear. I know the average age of matriculates is increasing. What I’m curious of is if Admissions Committees feel that it’s now necessary to have gap years in order to be a good candidate? Is a senior that’s applying at a perceived disadvantage.

You’re only at a disadvantage if that senior’s app isn’t as competitive as the person’s who took a gap year.

 

[LizzyM]

We don't have the data but I would have loved a 2 x 2 table with
Admitted Yes/No Total applicants
Traditional Yes A B A+B
Traditional No C D C+C
Total A+C B+D

If there appeared to be a disparity in the proportion of traditional students admitted (A/A+B) compared with the proportion of non-trads admitted (C/C+D) we could do a test of statisitcal significance but without the data we have nothing.

 

[rx001]

apologize for being late into the game. Trying to understand difference between traditional vs non traditional. Does Traditional mean The applicant applies in the senior year and everybody else kind of non traditional.

 

[KnightDoc]

apologize for being late into the game. Trying to understand difference between traditional vs non traditional. Does Traditional mean The applicant applies in the senior year and everybody else kind of non traditional.

Yup!! 🙂

 

[Mass Effect]

As an attending, I prefer the non-trad med students who've had real-life experience to ones who went straight from high school to college to med school. I've noticed a big difference in these two groups time and time again and it has nothing to do with ECs like volunteering or research. The students who have actually held a paying job where they were expected to show up and work, whether it was in healthcare or not, tend treat MS 3 and 4 like a real job and tend to want to learn, even on rotations where they know they would never in a million years apply to that field. That's my experience when it comes to the trad versus non-trad debate.

As a side note, the best resident I ever worked with was a woman who had a baby in college, dropped out of school to have the baby alone, was a single mom working multiple jobs, finished college, made it to med school and residency. She didn't have many ECs because she had (literally) the mother of all ECs, being a single mom and working multiple jobs.

 

[Kardio]

@openstage

As someone who took a few gap years, I tend to think highly of the younger folks at interviews. I’ve always thought some credit is due for getting everything right (as far as medical school admissions are concerned) in just 3 years of college.

 

[LizzyM]

@openstage

As someone who took a few gap years, I tend to think highly of the younger folks at interviews. I’ve always thought some credit is due for getting everything right (as far as medical school admissions are concerned) in just 3 years of college.

Look at the younger folks at orientation, not interviews.... some of those who interview will become non-trads or never matriculate at all.