Any cons to being a reapplicant?

[TheBiologist]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am applying this cycle; my stats are good and I do hope to get into at least 1 school but of course chance is part of the process, so just in case I get back luck I am wondering if being a reapplicant is just doing the same thing again or if it is a different process, if its harder to get in or if there is anything different etc.

thanks!

 

[P0ke]

I am applying this cycle; my stats are good and I do hope to get into at least 1 school but of course chance is part of the process, so just in case I get back luck I am wondering if being a reapplicant is just doing the same thing again or if it is a different process, if its harder to get in or if there is anything different etc.

thanks!

Hopefully you've made significant changes between applications. Submitting the same application twice looks bad.

 

[tessellations]

If you reapply to schools you were rejected from they will be aware that you applied and will expect to see that you've significantly improved your application. Just something to keep in mind.

Edit: P0ke beat me! Still an important point.

 

[libertyyne]

the schools that report on reapplicants generally find they have worse acceptance rates then 1st time applicant

Yes, bubt is that due to the reapplicant status or the incomplete app that hasnt improved from the first time status?

 

[Alienman52]

I am applying this cycle; my stats are good and I do hope to get into at least 1 school but of course chance is part of the process, so just in case I get back luck I am wondering if being a reapplicant is just doing the same thing again or if it is a different process, if its harder to get in or if there is anything different etc.

thanks!

It's only harder if you haven't shown significant (very significant) improvement. If you've shown how you've made yourself a much stronger candidate now as opposed to your first cycle then it shouldn't hurt you much.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Spr1ngrolls]

reapplicant from the start says 2 things. First this applicant has already been reviewed and denied at this school already. Additionally it implied that the applicant was denied at all the other schools the he/she has most likely applied to. So reapplicants have a much larger energy of activation hill than first time applicants prior to any reconsideration

This is true SDN art

 

[DrDwayneJohnson]

So for the schools I didn't apply to last cycle, I don't need to fill out their reapplicant secondary prompts, correct? That's only if I have applied to the school in question previously? They'll be able to tell since I'm not going to be in school I suppose...

 

[gyngyn]

So for the schools I didn't apply to last cycle, I don't need to fill out their reapplicant secondary prompts, correct? That's only if I have applied to the school in question previously? They'll be able to tell since I'm not going to be in school I suppose...

Some secondaries ask if you have ever previously applied to any medical school.

 

[DrDwayneJohnson]

Some secondaries ask if you have ever previously applied to any medical school.

Fair, I guess I was thinking of two schools in particular based on their past prompts. If they don't specify, then I can leave it be probably it sounds like.

 

[jqueb29]

If your stats are legitimately good, it'll be the same process essentially. I should have been accepted my first cycle and sent off essentially the exact same application next year, and it worked out well.

 

[TheBiologist]

what if the problem is not applying broad enough?

 

[gyngyn]

what if the problem is not applying broad enough?

We won't know that.
Even then, judgement is important. It's not how broadly, but how wisely you selected schools that counts.

 

[Gryffindor20]

If you don't think that your application is solid enough to warrant acceptance by at least one medical school, then why don't you just wait and apply next cycle and use this year to buff up your app?

 

[Thienyl15]

Depends on the reasons why you have to reapply. Fixing poor stats is a lot harder than tacking on more clinical experience or rewriting a PS, plus I'd wager plenty of students don't put in the effort to make truly significant improvements. From all of the adcoms I've spoken to about this (T20 schools only), it's not a problem if you make big changes.

Also, how you do on the first cycle says a lot about future outcomes. Did you interview? Where did you interview? Were you waitlisted or outright rejected post-interview?

 

[DameJulie]

Regarding EC for research, does having one more publication considered as "significant improvement"?

 

[libertyyne]

Regarding EC for research, does having one more publication considered as "significant improvement"?

High impact ? If you already have publications I doubt it would wow adcoms. If you didn't have any research before and and now you have many hours plus a pub , probably would be in those circumstances.

 

[DameJulie]

High impact ? If you already have publications I doubt it would wow adcoms. If you didn't have any research before and and now you have many hours plus a pub , probably would be in those circumstances.

higher impact than previous publication, but not high-impact like CNS. Sounds like more pub doesn't make a diff.

 

[Thienyl15]

High impact ? If you already have publications I doubt it would wow adcoms. If you didn't have any research before and and now you have many hours plus a pub , probably would be in those circumstances.

Agreed, besides not getting in with research/pubs the first time doesn't mean your research was bad, but rather that something else entirely was lacking (clinical, volunteering, PS, school list).

 

[JJRousseau]

If I recall, a recently accepted student on the Lerner thread was a re-applicant. If a re-applicant can get into the Lerner I would worry less about being a re-applicant and more about putting forth the strongest application possible for the next cycle in which you apply, even if that means waiting another year.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile