Any 38+ MCAT with NO interviews?

[Cmdr_Shepard]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Well, as I understand it, the numbers in the MSAR and other related books that show matriculation rates for different demographics are statistics. Simply a collection of data presented in an informative way that describes what happened in the past. But statistics mean nothing for the individual, especially in a non-random process like med school applications.

What you really want to know is the probability that your application will be looked at favourably (and eventually accepted) by any one particular med school. You want to ask questions about your future situation as an individual (probability), not about the collective past (stats). The former is not known for sure, but the latter is.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

Well, as I understand it, the numbers in the MSAR and other related books that show matriculation rates for different demographics are statistics. Simply a collection of data presented in an informative way that describes what happened in the past. But statistics mean nothing for the individual, especially in a non-random process like med school applications.

What you really want to know is the probability that your application will be looked at favourably (and eventually accepted) by any one particular med school. You want to ask questions about your future situation as an individual (probability), not about the collective past (stats). The former is not known for sure, but the latter is.

It is impossible for me to know my probability of being accepted. That number will either be 0% or 100% depending on the school (assuming their selection process is non-random). Because it is impossible for me to know this, I can try to predict the chances that my probability is 100% by looking at "statistics". I am saying that the chances that my probability of admission at a school is 100% is always >0% unless I know that I fail a strict screening process (e.g. said school accepts no students OOS no matter what, or said school accepts no students with MCAT less than 20 no matter what). I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that no schools publicly list 100% strict screens other than, like, class pre-reqs and LOR.

 

[LizzyM]

It is impossible for me to know my probability of being accepted. That number will either be 0% or 100% depending on the school (assuming their selection process is non-random). Because it is impossible for me to know this, I can try to predict the chances that my probability is 100% by looking at "statistics". I am saying that the chances that my probability of admission at a school is 100% is always >0% unless I know that I fail a strict screening process (e.g. said school accepts no students OOS no matter what, or said school accepts no students with MCAT less than 20 no matter what). I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that no schools publicly list 100% strict screens other than, like, class pre-reqs and LOR.

You have to learn about each school that you put on your list. Some do take OOS students but only for the MD/PhD so although it might show 2-3 OOS students admitted, if you dig deeper you'll discover that if you are applying for MD-only and are OOS, that application is going right into the trash bin. I saw this with a top flight applicant who got into 8 really great schools (at least 5 were top 20) but couldn't get an interview at U Washington because he was OOS.

 

[Cmdr_Shepard]

You have to learn about each school that you put on your list. Some do take OOS students but only for the MD/PhD so although it might show 2-3 OOS students admitted, if you dig deeper you'll discover that if you are applying for MD-only and are OOS, that application is going right into the trash bin. I saw this with a top flight applicant who got into 8 really great schools (at least 5 were top 20) but couldn't get an interview at U Washington because he was OOS.

I'm slightly embarrassed to admit it, but this happened to me too. I saw that UWash accepted internationals, but didn't realize it wasn't for MD only.

Ah well, they've got my donation so I'm helping to improve the healthcare of the people of WA state.

 

[compstomper]

While I agree that a targeted approach works very well for high stat candidates who can have their veritable pick of the litter, I personally think that a combined approach somewhere between the targeted and shotgun method is more fitting for a middle of the road or unbalanced candidate.

There are essentially two metrics that determine a candidate's chances: the first being what the schools look for in a candidates, the second being what you can offer to the schools as a candidate. The first metric is relatively speaking a constant, the second metric is more of a variable. So it seems reasonable that as this variable changes, so should your strategy for applying to schools.

For someone like myself with extensive EC but lower-mid stats (especially for my demographic), there simply are too many schools (much greater than 10) that are within reach (my stats fall somewhere on their MSAR spectrum) yet are at the same time far from a sure thing (LizzyM score lower than their median accepted stats). So I think it's best to apply broadly within your list of applicable schools as you cannot be sure which schools within this group of schools you would have been successful as an applicant.

 

[DermViser]

100% agree with the two previous posts from my very sage colleague. The whole idea of clinical experience is to show us that you actually want to be around sick and injured people AND their families, for the next 30-40 years.

I knew a woman who hated, absolutely hated touching patients. She went into pathology. That's all well and good, but we're not in the business of solely producing pathologists, radiologists or hospital administrators.

Here's another way of looking at it: would you buy a new car without test driving it? Buy a new suit or dress without trying it on??

I'm just a pre-med and know nothing about what makes a prospective medical student successful, but I have always been skeptical of this whole "clinical experience" as a reason for rejecting people. I've seen what people consider clinical experience and it usually doesn't teach anyone anything about what being a doctor means. I'd be very interested to see data on whether or not clinical experience itself deters anyone from pursuing medicine (e.g. a pre-med with great GPA/MCAT who is interested in medicine suddenly decides not to apply after volunteering in a hospital). Not saying it doesn't, but a lot of people assume that it does without any evidence. If it doesn't, then your proposal that "the candidate has no idea what s/he is getting into" is not valid.

This post should be stickied.
The whole point of doing clinical experiences is to figure out that you are ok with being around sick people and their families (some of whom will be annoying). Too often it's used to rack up points. It's not the med schools fault that you used the purpose of getting clinical experiences improperly and tried to game the system, by only having "clean" experiences and not what it is actually like.

Going to med school with the intention from the beginning of doing Path, Radiology, Derm, Ophtho, etc. where it's quite focus and limited, is quite foolhardy IMHO.

 

[G_Marker]

This is scary to me. A 38 MCAT? Did you have any red flags? Maybe you should have applied to more schools? Even with a 38 MCAT and an MS, you do have a 3.4 GPA, and I get the feeling that this process can be very arbitrary.

 

[DokterMom]

If I were reviewing this applicant, my reactions would be:

1. Hmm... Excellent MCAT
2. Low GPA - Oh. Not so hot... (This applicant is obviously bright. What school? Lazy? Unfocused? Troubled home life?)
3. Personal Statement: --- Could this have been what kept you out?