Adcoms of SDN, what percentage of applicants have no business applying?

[Bonne Nuit]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I’ve been reflecting on my premedical years and thinking about how lost I would have been without resources like SDN to guide me. I started wondering about applicants who, for whatever reason, don’t have access to these resources and apply to medical school with poor, ill-judged, or incomplete applications (e.g. terrible stats, not having all the prerequisite coursework, inappropriate LORs, etc). So adcoms, or anyone else in the application review realm, what proportion of applicants fit this description? Do you often come across applications and think “What was this person thinking?”

 

[Doctoscope]

About tree fiddy

 

[Goro]

I’ve been reflecting on my premedical years and thinking about how lost I would have been without resources like SDN to guide me. I started wondering about applicants who, for whatever reason, don’t have access to these resources and apply to medical school with poor, ill-judged, or incomplete applications (e.g. terrible stats, not having all the prerequisite coursework, inappropriate LORs, etc). So adcoms, or anyone else in the application review realm, what proportion of applicants fit this description? Do you often come across applications and think “What was this person thinking?”

Based upon feedback form other Adcoms on SDN it's anywhere from 10-50%. I am talking about people who don't have the stats only. Applicants aren't supposed to know what's in thier LORs, either, so someone app;lying with a bad LOR A) doesn't know about it, or B) if they somehow do, then they are displaying near criminal poor judgement.

 

[deleted1001426]

Based upon feedback form other Adcoms on SDN it's anywhere from 10-50%. I am talking about people who don't have the stats only. Applicants aren't supposed to know what's in thier LORs, either, so someone app;lying with a bad LOR A) doesn't know about it, or B) if they somehow do, then they are displaying near criminal poor judgement.

That’s interesting. The higher end of that estimate accounts for almost the entirety of those who go without an A in a given cycle. I guess this kind of disproves many people’s theories that medical school admissions involves a substantial element of luck and those who complain about multiple cycles of rejections are just viewing their app through rose-colored glasses

 

[Bonne Nuit]

Based upon feedback form other Adcoms on SDN it's anywhere from 10-50%. I am talking about people who don't have the stats only. Applicants aren't supposed to know what's in thier LORs, either, so someone app;lying with a bad LOR A) doesn't know about it, or B) if they somehow do, then they are displaying near criminal poor judgement.

For the LOR, I meant inappropriate in terms of the author, like one from a parent or a friend, not necessarily the content.

When I worked in a hiring manager role, I once reviewed an application from a woman who uploaded a LOR from her next-door neighbor. I learned a lot about the woman’s cat sitting skills, but unfortunately nothing useful about her secretarial abilities.

 

[Goro]

That’s interesting. The higher end of that estimate accounts for almost the entirety of those who go without an A in a given cycle. I guess this kind of disproves many people’s theories that medical school admissions involves a substantial element of luck and those who complain about multiple cycles of rejections are just viewing their app through rose-colored glasses

Never, ever underestimate the lack of introspection some people are capable of, and also how much damage Tiger Parents can do to their kids.

For the LOR, I meant inappropriate in terms of the author, like one from a parent or a family friend, not necessarily the content.

One letter like that isn't necessarily going to be lethal, but they sure never, ever help. I once interviewed a woman who had her son write her an LOR. She thought that by showing what a good mom she was, that she'd make a great doctor. She got rejected.

 

[deleted1001426]

I learned a lot about the woman’s cat sitting skills, but unfortunately nothing useful about her secretarial abilities.

Between some of the stories on this site and emting I’m staring to completely lose faith in humanity lol

 

[Med Ed]

I’ve been reflecting on my premedical years and thinking about how lost I would have been without resources like SDN to guide me. I started wondering about applicants who, for whatever reason, don’t have access to these resources and apply to medical school with poor, ill-judged, or incomplete applications (e.g. terrible stats, not having all the prerequisite coursework, inappropriate LORs, etc). So adcoms, or anyone else in the application review realm, what proportion of applicants fit this description? Do you often come across applications and think “What was this person thinking?”

About a third, give or take.

 

[KnightDoc]

That’s interesting. The higher end of that estimate accounts for almost the entirety of those who go without an A in a given cycle. I guess this kind of disproves many people’s theories that medical school admissions involves a substantial element of luck and those who complain about multiple cycles of rejections are just viewing their app through rose-colored glasses

Although, in hindsight and other than the near misses that could have been accepted had there been more seats, wouldn't adcoms necessarily say that all Rs had no business applying?

I think @JanetSnakehole's point is a good one insofar as the actual odds of an acceptance for people with a decent application is significantly higher than 40% -- probably closer to 70% or so, because there is still an element of randomness, and perfectly qualified people are going to be unlucky and strike out, even if that number is nowhere near the advertised 60%.

 

[deleted1001426]

Although, in hindsight and other than the near misses that could have been accepted had there been more seats, wouldn't adcoms necessarily say that all Rs had no business applying?

I wouldnt necessarily agree with that. There is a fairly large difference between an ok candidate who just wasnt up to par with the remaining applicant pool and someone who had no place submitting their app and I'd be surprised if the adcoms who responded didnt realize that. Think ~3.5, 505, 50 hrs shadowing 200 volunteering, no research type who applied md only. Not a great app by any means and not likely to produce an A but not abysmal to the point of labeling their attempts a futile waste of time.

 

[Bonne Nuit]

Although, in hindsight and other than the near misses that could have been accepted had there been more seats, wouldn't adcoms necessarily say that all Rs had no business applying?

I think @JanetSnakehole's point is a good one insofar as the actual odds of an acceptance for people with a decent application is significantly higher than 40% -- probably closer to 70% or so, because there is still an element of randomness, and perfectly qualified people are going to be unlucky and strike out, even if that number is nowhere near the advertised 60%.

I wouldnt necessarily agree with that. There is a fairly large difference between an ok candidate who just wasnt up to par with the remaining applicant pool and someone who had no place submitting their app and I'd be surprised if the adcoms who responded didnt realize that. Think ~3.5, 505, 50 hrs shadowing 200 volunteering, no research type who applied md only. Not a great app by any means and not likely to produce an A but not abysmal to the point of labeling their attempts a futile waste of time.

It would probably help if I defined my terms. A 3.5/505/MD only/ORM who applies narrowly is perhaps misinformed, but I wouldn’t say that they have “no business applying” so long as they met the minimum requirements. A candidate like this would probably do just fine in medical school, should they manage to somehow get an A.

When I say “no business applying”, I mean something like the following:

- 2.5/495/ORM who applies MD only, no extenuating circumstances
- 3.1/502/ORM who applies only T20 because “you gotta shoot your shot”
- someone with no relevant ECs
- someone with no patient contact
- Sloppy or unprofessional essays
- Missing LORs or LORs from inappropriate sources
- Multiple IAs/criminal history

In my current job, I come into contact with a lot of premed students, many from low SES/first generation backgrounds. Premedical advising is very basic/nonexistent at schools in the area, and you don’t know what you don’t know. I’ve come across a fair amount of MD hopefuls who are cheerfully going full steam ahead with <3.0/500. I know this seems crazy looking at the applicants on SDN, but I’m starting to think there’s a LOT of these candidates out in the wild.

I, too, wonder how much of that “60% get rejected every year” stat is comprised of people who simply have no idea how the medical school application game is played and have no real understanding of what is required to gain admission. They see minimum MCAT and GPA cutoffs on a school’s website and think “Awesome, I’m golden.”

 

[KnightDoc]

It would probably help if I defined my terms. A 3.5/505/MD only/ORM who applies narrowly is perhaps misinformed, but I wouldn’t say that they have “no business applying” so long as they met the minimum requirements. A candidate like this would probably do just fine in medical school, should they manage to somehow get an A.

When I say “no business applying”, I mean something like the following:

- 2.5/495/ORM who applies MD only, no extenuating circumstances
- 3.1/502/ORM who applies only T20 because “you gotta shoot your shot”
- someone with no relevant ECs
- someone with no patient contact
- Sloppy or unprofessional essays
- Missing LORs or LORs from inappropriate sources
- Multiple IAs/criminal history

In my current job, I come into contact with a lot of premed students, many from low SES/first generation backgrounds. Premedical advising is very basic/nonexistent at schools in the area, and you don’t know what you don’t know. I’ve come across a fair amount of MD hopefuls who are cheerfully going full steam ahead with <3.0/500. I know this seems crazy looking at the applicants on SDN, but I’m starting to think there’s a LOT of these candidates out in the wild.

I, too, wonder how much of that “60% get rejected every year” stat is comprised of people who simply have no idea how the medical school application game is played and have no real understanding of what is required to gain admission. They see minimum MCAT and GPA cutoffs on a school’s website and think “Awesome, I’m golden.”

Using your criteria, I'd bet they're no more than a relatively small fraction of the 60%, given how many perfectly viable candidates just strike out. You're also not accounting for all of the Rs for people who have ECs, but not nearly enough (because they are just checking boxes), and high stat applicants who do not apply broadly. It's just a guess, but I'd bet no more than 1/4 of the 60% meet your criteria. You're right that there are probably a lot out in the wild. After all, 25% of 60% is still 7,500 people every year!

 

[Goro]

Although, in hindsight and other than the near misses that could have been accepted had there been more seats, wouldn't adcoms necessarily say that all Rs had no business applying?

I think @JanetSnakehole's point is a good one insofar as the actual odds of an acceptance for people with a decent application is significantly higher than 40% -- probably closer to 70% or so, because there is still an element of randomness, and perfectly qualified people are going to be unlucky and strike out, even if that number is nowhere near the advertised 60%.

Not necessarily. There have been some good candidates who simply applied late. The next cycle, they applied early and got accepted.

Keep in mind that this is, as the wise gonnif likes to point out, an Olympic style event. You can be an outstanding athlete, but still not make it to the Big Show, if only by being a few microseconds off in the 100 yard dash

 

[efle]

Don't forget the importance of context. Someone in a flyover midwestern or southern state could be a total shoo-in to their state university, yet if they'd been from the most competitive coastal states they'd be totally wasting their time and money. Looking at the national cohort data can be misleading in this regard. Just because someone was a B+ student or scored a 505 MCAT doesn't mean they have no business applying, if they live in the right place.

 

[deleted1001426]

Don't forget the importance of context. Someone in a flyover midwestern or southern state could be a total shoo-in to their state university, yet if they'd been from the most competitive coastal states they'd be totally wasting their time and money. Looking at the national cohort data can be misleading in this regard. Just because someone was a B+ student or scored a 505 MCAT doesn't mean they have no business applying, if they live in the right place.

Good point. I feel like a lack of transparency in the process also leads to a lot of people relying on anecdotes from friends or advisors which causes them to overestimate their competitiveness, thus landing them in the aforementioned group of applicants with no place applying that cycle

 

[Select All That Apply]

One of the things that I find interesting on MD applications is the applicant/matriculant ratio going into the system. On AMCAS you can see the ages trending upwards for applicants in terms of median/mean. However, for matriculants there has been no budging on the median/mean age being 24 years old since 2013 (iirc). I think there are strong passive core metrics that are used on applicant evaluation when deciding to split hairs between competitive applicants, however a more rigorous study would probably involve going into individual school profiles and then charting ages of matriculants over the years to observe if it is a highly conservative or a more labile consideration when it comes to certain schools.