Advise for pre-med school

[sara98]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi, I am admitted to DUKE University ,WILLIAMS College, and DAVIDSON College with majoring Biology. Which school has a better pre-med program? Any advice is welcomed. I live in NC.

 

[gyngyn]

The best pre-medical education is one that supports all aspects of your growth while providing sufficient opportunity for exploration. This can be obtained at any of these institutions.

 

[yeasureyoubetcha]

Duke...if med school ends up not being a possibility for you, they'll have a good reputation with employers in the research triangle that will definitely recruit at the school.

 

[yeasureyoubetcha]

The concept for a "plan B" has seem to lost on many of today's premeds

@sara98 always have a plan B. Med school acceptance rates are 1-3%. You can do your pre-med prerequisites anywhere and nobody will care. There are literally hundreds of companies in the research triangle that recruit across more majors that I can probably name. Duke is a solid choice that will CYA for both plan A and B.

 

[Salt Salt]

Duke, assuming one of the others didn't give you a full ride or something


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[aalamruad]

@sara98Med school acceptance rates are 1-3%.

lol no

 

[LizzyM]

15-20 years being about your plan B was a standard interview question that seems to have fallen to the wayside

Because someone has told the applicants that the only acceptable response is to say, "I'd reapply" and the other response is, "I've already gotten an acceptance but I like your school more". Kids these days!

OP all are excellent schools. I have always highly regarded the committee letter on behalf of applicants from Duke. Always thoughtful and informative. I have much less experience with applicants from the other two but I have heard good things about both of them.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Seems that some know their med schools better than colleges. Williams and Davidson are at least on par with Duke, and the idea that either of these could be second rate compared to Duke as far as a Plan B is absurd. They are different types of schools but all of the very similar quality and reputation. The OP needs to think carefully about what environment will fit him or her best and facilitate the most growth. Any slight perceived advantage for Williams over Davidson is neutralized for anyone thinking he or she will settle anywhere in the mid-Atlantic to southeast.

 

[Salt Salt]

Lets clarify that before some premed who reads this has neurotic episode.. Acceptance rate per individual school is 1%-3%. The matriculation rate is about half of that. Of course, applicants apply to an average of 14 schools I think, with the range from 8 or 10 schools to 24-30 being quite common. This many students will have multiple acceptances. Medical schools will offer more acceptances, either initially or via waitlist (deferred consideration) until all the seats are filled. Of all the applicants to all the medical schools in the US, about 41% matriculate

To add on to this, people successfully reapply all the time, so the chances are even better than 41% overall.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lawpy]

Duke easily.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Moving to hSDN

 

[FreeRadicals]

Duke hands-down.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Davidson or Williams>>>>>>Duke......and then Duke Med.

 

[Lawpy]

Seems that some know their med schools better than colleges. Williams and Davidson are at least on par with Duke, and the idea that either of these could be second rate compared to Duke as far as a Plan B is absurd. They are different types of schools but all of the very similar quality and reputation. The OP needs to think carefully about what environment will fit him or her best and facilitate the most growth. Any slight perceived advantage for Williams over Davidson is neutralized for anyone thinking he or she will settle anywhere in the mid-Atlantic to southeast.

Davidson or Williams>>>>>>Duke......and then Duke Med.

😕😕😕😕

 

[Nietzschelover]

😕😕😕😕

Make a case for Duke being such a clear choice instead of just making a pronouncement. Saying Duke is preferable to Williams is an absolute joke. And for those who know something about Davidson saying Duke is clearly preferable also is a joke. If you are simply anti-LAC, then OK, we disagree, but there are students who will thrive and do better at a LAC.

 

[Salt Salt]

no its not as each cycle includes a certain percentage of reapplicants in that aggregate of 41%.

This doesn't change anything. If, in a given year, the probability of Joe Average Applicant being accepted then matriculating is .41, then repeating the number of attempts increases their OVERALL life-time chances of acceptance (then matriculating) to over .41.

Second probabilities of one event (one cycle of admission) does not change the probabilty of the second event (second cycle of admission. Simply because you play the game again does not alter overall chances.

No, it definitely does—it may not change your chances that year, but it does indeed change your overall chances. The two events may be statistically independent (even this probably isn't true, since reapplicants are generally improved over their prior selves), but that just means that each year the average probability of matriculation is .41. But since you're allowed to apply more than one year, your overall chances are greater than .41.

In short, the average applicant's chance of acceptance-then-matriculation in a given year is 41%, but the probability of an individual's lifetime matriculation is >41%, because you can apply more than once.

 

[Lawpy]

Make a case for Duke being such a clear choice instead of just making a pronouncement. Saying Duke is preferable to Williams is an absolute joke. And for those who know something about Davidson saying Duke is clearly preferable also is a joke. If you are simply anti-LAC, then OK, we disagree, but there are students who will thrive and do better at a LAC.

Before i do so, could you clarify why you went from saying Duke, Williams and Davidson are all equals to severely underrating Duke in your second post? If you are frustrated and/or have personal history with these schools, i will politely decline engaging in the discussion and will simply agree to disagree.

We can probably agree on one thing: OP should assess the pros/cons of each school by themselves and plan accordingly, taking each SDN post here with a grain of salt

 

[Nietzschelover]

Before i do so, could you clarify why you went from saying Duke, Williams and Davidson are all equals to severely underrating Duke in your second post? If you are frustrated and/or have personal history with these schools, i will politely decline engaging in the discussion and will simply agree to disagree.

We can probably agree on one thing: OP should assess the pros/cons of each school by themselves and plan accordingly, taking each SDN post here with a grain of salt

I only "underrated" Duke in response to you posting "Duke easily" and another poster replying "Duke hands down." I was sarcastically responding to those posts which frankly were ridiculous. I grew up 35 miles from Duke and know Duke well. My father, a surgeon, spent the last 6 weeks of his life dying of pancreatic cancer at Duke Medical Center. I went to Davidson. The pre-med program there is very strong. Davidson has had 23 Rhodes Scholars, a very high number for a LAC. Davidson ranks with Duke and Vanderbilt as the most prestigious schools in the South. I live in Mass and am very familiar with Williams which has been considered the #1 LAC in the country for probably at least 50 years. These are peer choices for the OP and should come down to personal preferences and fit. Now for the real kicker/confession....I am a die-hard Kentucky bball fan and despise the Blue Devils.

 

[Lawpy]

I only "underrated" Duke in response to you posting "Duke easily" and another poster replying "Duke hands down." I was sarcastically responding to those posts which frankly were ridiculous. I grew up 35 miles from Duke and know Duke well. My father, a surgeon, spent the last 6 weeks of his life dying of pancreatic cancer at Duke Medical Center. I went to Davidson. The pre-med program there is very strong. Davidson has had 23 Rhodes Scholars, a very high number for a LAC. Davidson ranks with Duke and Vanderbilt as the most prestigious schools in the South. I live in Mass and am very familiar with Williams which has been considered the #1 LAC in the country for probably at least 50 years. These are peer choices forget the OP and should come down to personal preferences and fit. Now for the real kicker/confession....I am a die-hard Kentucky bball fan and despise the Blue Devils.

Fair enough and i agree your posts should be taken into account by OP carefully when making a decision.

I said Duke easily simply because i equated the school on the same level as HYPSM, which is really based in terms of overall expansive research and extracurricular opportunities. LACs are a tricky factor to consider but simply attributing to the overall scope of influence for the much larger research universities like Duke made me feel like it was a clear cut choice.

Now, Williams and Davidson are very very good LACs and OP and others will do well at them. So honestly, OP would thrive at any of these options mentioned. But in comparison to well-known research powerhouses like Duke that are pretty much famous globally and can give the edge, Duke imo seems a clear choice.

But regardless, one thing i'll say is i actually enjoy reading firsthand experiences from wise graduates about various school choices. LACs are underrated, and i think with your posts and examples added, OP should make his decision carefully

 

[Nietzschelover]

Fair enough and i agree your posts should be taken into account by OP carefully when making a decision.

I said Duke easily simply because i equated the school on the same level as HYPSM, which is really based in terms of overall expansive research and extracurricular opportunities. LACs are a tricky factor to consider but simply attributing to the overall scope of influence for the much larger research universities like Duke made me feel like it was a clear cut choice.

Now, Williams and Davidson are very very good LACs and OP and others will do well at them. So honestly, OP would thrive at any of these options mentioned. But in comparison to well-known research powerhouses like Duke that are pretty much famous globally and can give the edge, Duke imo seems a clear choice.

But regardless, one thing i'll say is i actually enjoy reading firsthand experiences from wise graduates about various school choices. LACs are underrated, and i think with your posts and examples added, OP should make his decision carefully

Which leads to potentially a very interesting discussion in perhaps another thread about the relative merits of universities vs LACs, certainly with respect to being pre-med but perhaps also in general. The bias on this site seems to trend towards universities, based on many of them having med schools and other graduate programs and the "greater resources" argument. There seems to be less understanding about the comparative advantages of LACs. In any case, I certainly would not presume that a HYPSM undergrad is "smarter" or more talented than a Williams, Amherst, or Swat undergrad.

 

[Lawpy]

Which leads to potentially a very interesting discussion in perhaps another thread about the relative merits of universities vs LACs, certainly with respect to being pre-med but perhaps also in general. The bias on this site seems to trend towards universities, based on many of them having med schools and other graduate programs and the "greater resources" argument. There seems to be less understanding about the comparative advantages of LACs. In any case, I certainly would not presume that a HYPSM undergrad is "smarter" or more talented than a Williams, Amherst, or Swat undergrad.

So you feel that LACs provide just as much resources/opportunities/networking as comparable universities? Just out of curiosity since this could be important for OP.

 

[Salt Salt]

I must say your utterly and completely wrong in every part of your post

Wrong
I'm sorry, but your understanding of statistics and probability is sorely lacking. While I havent taught stats since grad school, let me try to explain, Each year, the probability remains exactly the same assuming all applicant remain exactly the same. You are somehow equating, entering the same game twice gives you better odds. All it does is give you another chance with the same odds


Wrong (twice)
Again, you are equating entering the same game again improves your odds. All it does is give you another chance. Reapplicants are accepted at a lower than first time applicants as published by the medical schools themselves (see below). I am sure every adcom will say the same thing. That certainly has been my experience in the past 20 years of doing this.

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
http://admissions.med.miami.edu/md-programs/general-md/reapplicants
Roughly 20% of the students who apply to the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in any given year are reapplicants. Data that we have collected indicate they have a lower acceptance rate than do first time applicants


Wrong (yet again)
Most medical schools now recommend a stats course. You need one

No need to get upset. I wasn't trying to offend you; I was just disagreeing. In fact, my original post was in support of yours so I'm not sure why you're getting hostile.

In any case, my understanding of statistics is quite good—you're just misunderstanding the scenario. Here is what you said:

Each year, the probability remains exactly the same assuming all applicant remain exactly the same.

So far, so good. Now let's calculate the probability of an applicant never being accepted to medical school ever in their lives, not just in a given year. Let's just assume that they are statistically independent events (although technically this is probably not the case—as you point out above, reapplicants seem to have a lower acceptance rate).

What is the probability of overall lifetime med school matriculation for an applicant who is only allowed to apply once?
100% - 59% = 41%.

What is the probability of overall lifetime med school matriculation for an applicant who applies twice?
100% - (59% * 59%) = 65.2%

Thus, the overall lifetime matriculation rate is higher than 41% because of the existence of reapplicants. This is indisputable. I'm not saying that a reapplicant's odds improve with each attempt (I passingly suggested this was a possibility in my last post, but that's about it). What I'm saying is that an individual's lifetime probability of matriculation is higher than .41.

 

[Salt Salt]

the only thing indisputable is your inability to model and your utterly incorrect application of probabilty. Your conclusion again is just utterly wrong, mathematically and conceputually. now please tell the class why it is wrong and what fundamental mistake you made in applying this particular formula to this situation? I am doing this so you donr mislead any more gullible premeds, like yourself, down this path of bad use of probability and false hopes.

would anyone else in the class like to answer with the one word I am looking for?

Yeesh, calm down. Even in the worst case scenario, I'm simply wrong, not the criminal you're making me out to be.

Anyways, I'm just trying to figure out what's at the root of our disagreement. Do you at least agree with the last sentence of my previous post? That overall rate of lifetime matriculation for an individual applicant is >41%?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[ccuc2020]

As for the probability thing, you do have a greater overall probability. There are two cases to consider. Case 1 is that you get in your first try (.41). Case 2 is that you don't get in your first try, but get in your second try, ( (1-.41)*.41=.2419). Add these two and you get .6519 which is about 65.19%.

 

[Nietzschelover]

So you feel that LACs provide just as much resources/opportunities/networking as comparable universities? Just out of curiosity since this could be important for OP.

Don't have time for a full response right now, but let me just say that advantages of top-tier LACs can include much smaller classes, a smaller but still healthy group of pre-meds, full professors in every single class (who often earned their Ph.D.s at places like HYPSM, Duke, etc), participating in research with perhaps greater potential for a lead role and possibly publication as at least a second author, closer and more personal relationships with professors and pre-med advisors which may lead to more compelling and personal LORs, etc, etc. There is also nothing to prevent a Williams undergrad from getting summer gigs at Boston hospitals or a Davidson undergrad at Duke or UNC or at major training centers in Charlotte or even Atlanta, Birmingham, etc. A key factor, aside from pure academics where I would contend these schools are very much on equal footing, is what kind of environment will allow someone to grow personally and become the kind of person who will be an attractive candidate down the road. I know kids that have thrived in both the university and LAC environments. Some of course would likely thrive anywhere, but being relatively happy during the undergrad years can be a big deal.

 

[Salt Salt]

Actually you are "criminal" in this regard by depraved indifference. That is giving false hope, rumor, and misinformation in this case by misapplication of the the math

No, I do not. And why is that? what is the difference between case 1 and case 2? why is the model wrong?

What do you have to assume in the model to this probability formula applicable? And why is that assumption wrong in this scenario of two application cycles?

I'm still so confused how we're not seeing eye-to-eye on this. (Is it possible that you think the "41%" statistic is referring to lifetime chance of matriculation and not yearly chance of matriculation?)

Do you agree that the average individual's chance of matriculating in a given year is 41%? If yes, I don't see how you can possibly believe that an applicant's lifetime chance of matriculation is not over 41%. If they are allowed to try as many times as they want, then their lifetime chance of matriculating must necessarily be higher than their chance if they were only allowed to try once (e.g. it must be greater than 41%).

(Ignoring all this bizarreness about me being criminal/depraved/indifferent for now.)

 

[Salt Salt]

You make the assumption that the model is the same for cycle 1 and cycle 2, which it is not. Why? In cycle 1 the student is an first time applicant, in cycle 2, the student is a reapplicant. Data shows that first time applicants and reapplicants have significant difference in acceptances (ie chance per cycle per applicant are different).

It literally does not matter at all. It doesn't matter if a reapplicant's chance of being accepted is 0.01% on their second application. The point is that *an individual's chance of being accepted ever is necessarily higher than an individual's chance of being accepted on their first try*

(Again ignoring this weird rant about criminality. You may just as well be criminal for discouraging students from applying because they think the rate of lifetime acceptance is 41% when it is necessarily somewhere north of that.)

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Salt Salt]

My discouragement is from having students apply prior to when they are strong candidates under the false premise that applying in multiple cycles will increase their overall life time chances of being accepted. I have never heard anything more asinine or worst advice from a premedical student or by the misunderstanding and misapplication of the binomial distribution.

You're gradually shifting your tone to complaining about the effect that I could have and not why I'm wrong. Interesting!

In any case, I want to pull us back to the main argument.

Do you agree that the chances of a random individual being accepted on their first application is 41%?

And do you believe that chances of acceptance *ever* are higher than chances of being accepted on the first try?

Then you agree with me.

(Again ignoring the big about me being asinine or whatever. Also, I'm a med student.)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Salt Salt]

Your "proof" may encourage a weaker student to apply under the impression he/she will have even a better chance on the second application.

No. This is where you're wrong. I'm not telling a student they'll have a better chance on the second application than their first; what I'm telling them is they'll have a better chance of acceptance on their second application than if they don't apply a second time at all.

I think the reason you are confused is because you are thinking of the *probability of eventual acceptance of a student who has already been rejected once*, in which case it may be lower than 41%. In reality, what we've been talking about is the *probability of eventual acceptance for an applicant who has yet to apply*, in which case it is clearly >41%.

Put another way, the probability of acceptance-then-matriculation on their first attempt is 41%.*** Their second attempt may be 30%. Their third attempt may be 20%. But this entails that their overall lifetime probability of matriculation, before their first attempt, is greater than 41%.

It's sad to think there are pre-med students who are discouraged because they think the overall lifetime rate of acceptance/matriculation is 41%, when in actuality 41% is just the average for a single attempt.

***Technically it's higher since the 41% statistic is an average of the 75% who are first-time applicants and the rest who are reapplicants.

(Still ignoring this weird rant against me being asinine, criminal etc. I'm refusing to let this be anything but a civil discussion about statistics.)

 

[Salt Salt]

To rehash a point in my last post:

If the 41% matriculation statistic is based on a population composed of 3/4 first-time applicants and 1/4 reapplicants, and the reapplicants have a lower chance of matriculation (as you yourself insist), then the 3/4 of this sample that are first-time applicants must have matriculation rates higher than 41% on that one attempt alone. This alone shows that you must be misunderstanding the statistics.

 

[Goro]

In addition to what the wise Gonnif is saying, you have to also temper the 41% stat with the observation that accepts are skewed by URM, and residents who live in lucky states like LA, TX, FL, ND, SD etc. You have to look at the success for any given school, which is going to be about 3-10%. Look at the % matriculated compared to # of apps at any given school in MSAR, and then 2x-3x that number for accepts.

I'm still so confused how we're not seeing eye-to-eye on this. (Is it possible that you think the "41%" statistic is referring to lifetime chance of matriculation and not yearly chance of matriculation?)

Do you agree that the average individual's chance of matriculating in a given year is 41%? If yes, I don't see how you can possibly believe that an applicant's lifetime chance of matriculation is not over 41%. If they are allowed to try as many times as they want, then their lifetime chance of matriculating must necessarily be higher than their chance if they were only allowed to try once (e.g. it must be greater than 41%).

(Ignoring all this bizarreness about me being criminal/depraved/indifferent for now.)

 

[Salt Salt]

In addition to what the wise Gonnif is saying, you have to also temper the 41% stat with the observation that accepts are skewed by URM, and residents who live in lucky states like LA, TX, FL, ND, SD etc. You have to look at the success for any given school, which is going to be about 3-10%. Look at the % matriculated compared to # of apps at any given school in MSAR, and then 2x-3x that number for accepts.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it's not what we're debating. What we're debating is whether the overall lifetime probability of matriculation is >41%.

The actual probability will vary greatly depending on the individual (we all agree on this). But, all other things being equal, the probability of lifetime matriculation is >41%.

 

[Salt Salt]

This confuses me. How can anyone not believe that the chance of being accepted ever is bigger than the chance of being accepted on the first cycle alone?

The only way this could mathematically be true is if the chance of acceptance on all reapplications is always 0% for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[tantacles]

Just a general reminder to respond to others without name-calling and in a non-inflammatory way. Let's keep our discussions civil!

 

[randomguy123456]

Hi, I am admitted to DUKE University ,WILLIAMS College, and DAVIDSON College with majoring Biology. Which school has a better pre-med program? Any advice is welcomed. I live in NC.

There's no such thing as a better "pre-med school". As long as you have a stellar GPA, stellar MCAT score, and lots of medical exposure you will get into medical school. I have a friend who went a university nobody heard of and got into Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Choose the one that saves you the most money. Cheers.