App Review Holistic / Illogical. Applicability of LizzyM and WARS scores?

[r2med]

I know many applicants such as myself use LM score and WARS score prior to applying and also during the application process to see if people similar to us are moving along the ladder rather than us. However, I also keep hearing that the application review is holistic. I know the WARS score does take some of these into account and also know that the LM score is just a very quick calc/indicator.

Question, however, is whether there are any studies or trackers out there from years past that correlate IIs and acceptances (not just matriculation) with these scores. Are these scores as useful as we pre-meds think or not?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

The purpose of the LizzyM score was to give people a reality check. Prior to coming up with the score, I'd see people with a LizzyM score of 65 saying that they applied broadly and didn't get any interviews. "Where did you apply?" "I applied broadly: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, NYU, Penn, Hopkins, Georgetown, Duke, Mayo, Northwesern, U Chicago, WashU, Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, USC, Oregon and U Washington. I'm instate for California schools." Can you see where I was going with the LizzyM score. WARS is even better, as you know, becauses it includes some factors beyond MCAT and GPA. However, adcoms are in a really tough place when they only have room to interview 10-20% of applicants and can only admit 30-50% of interviewed applicants. Some excellent candidates are not going to be interviewed just because there is not enough time, space, interviewers, to get it done. The probabililty of being interviewed at least 3 times and getting one offer goes up as you apply to more places which is why we recommend applying to as many schools as you can (and that you'd be willing to attend if it were your only offer) given your time and money.

Sometimes the difference between getting an interview or an offer and not getting it hinges on something that is otherwise inconsequential and essentially random. For example, you worked extensively with a certain population (a specific age group, immigrant group, geographic area) that resonated with the reviewer or you have the same hobby as a reviewer. All else being equal, you might get bumped just enough but if your application had been reviewed by someone else the results might have been different. You just can't tell how these little things will influence the process.

 

[r2med]

The purpose of the LizzyM score was to give people a reality check. Prior to coming up with the score, I'd see people with a LizzyM score of 65 saying that they applied broadly and didn't get any interviews. "Where did you apply?" "I applied broadly: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, NYU, Penn, Hopkins, Georgetown, Duke, Mayo, Northwesern, U Chicago, WashU, Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, USC, Oregon and U Washington. I'm instate for California schools." Can you see where I was going with the LizzyM score. WARS is even better, as you know, becauses it includes some factors beyond MCAT and GPA. However, adcoms are in a really tough place when they only have room to interview 10-20% of applicants and can only admit 30-50% of interviewed applicants. Some excellent candidates are not going to be interviewed just because there is not enough time, space, interviewers, to get it done. The probabililty of being interviewed at least 3 times and getting one offer goes up as you apply to more places which is why we recommend applying to as many schools as you can (and that you'd be willing to attend if it were your only offer) given your time and money.

Sometimes the difference between getting an interview or an offer and not getting it hinges on something that is otherwise inconsequential and essentially random. For example, you worked extensively with a certain population (a specific age group, immigrant group, geographic area) that resonated with the reviewer or you have the same hobby as a reviewer. All else being equal, you might get bumped just enough but if your application had been reviewed by someone else the results might have been different. You just can't tell how these little things will influence the process.

Thanks. I totally agree that there can be no accurate predictor. Even meteorologists are unable to predict the course of a hurricane and pollsters are unable to predict elections etc. However, because I have lately seen a bunch of posts from applicants who have done exactly what you described in your first paragraph - top-heavy school selection - I believe those were because they used predictors that told them all those schools were "target".

Hence, my question of whether there is any study of previous several years of stats on how these correlated with actual II and A stats.

 

[LizzyM]

This might be what you are looking for:

How did WARS work for you?

if you applied in 2018, did you use WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017) ? If yes, how did that work for you? Asking for a friend.

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[r2med]

This might be what you are looking for:

How did WARS work for you?

if you applied in 2018, did you use WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017) ? If yes, how did that work for you? Asking for a friend.

forums.studentdoctor.net

That's a good thread. I will slowly read through those. Is it possible to start one for this year? I think more people will respond if it comes from a Verified Expert and is also a Sticky thread. If I should start one, please let me know. Thank you again @LizzyM

 

[KnightDoc]

That's a good thread. I will slowly read through those. Is it possible to start one for this year? I think more people will respond if it comes from a Verified Expert and is also a Sticky thread. If I should start one, please let me know. Thank you again @LizzyM

They seem to start up every year around March. As anxious as everyone is now, it's very premature. You seem to be looking for a more detailed version of all the "here are my stats and ECs, where are my IIs?, what did I do wrong?" threads, but it's too early for that, because a significant minority of the IIs and the vast majority of the As are still to be issued.

 

[r2med]

They seem to start up every year around March. As anxious as everyone is now, it's very premature because IIs are still going out and MANY schools, especially the top ones, are still months away from issuing the majority of their As.

Makes sense.

 

[r2med]

This might be what you are looking for:

How did WARS work for you?

if you applied in 2018, did you use WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017) ? If yes, how did that work for you? Asking for a friend.

forums.studentdoctor.net

Very quick look of just a few. Looks like WARS worked for C level but not as much for A and S. Again, very few messages read by me. Will continue with more.
@KnightDoc - do you have 2019's link handy, please?

 

[KnightDoc]

Very quick look of just a few. Looks like WARS worked for C level but not as much for A and S. Again, very few messages read by me. Will continue with more.
@KnightDoc - do you have 2019's link handy, please?

It the same one @LizzyM linked. It goes all the way from 3/19 to 3/20. I'm sure someone will either add to it or start a new one when the big A drop happens next March.

There's also the primary thread, if you haven't seen it:

WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

Link to online WARS Calculator Latest version is 1.3 (Released January 2017) Collaborator credit: @To be MD Introduction As some of you may have seen, I've recently been pioneering a new system that helps applicants figure out where they stand with respect to medical school admissions as...

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[KnightDoc]

Very quick look of just a few. Looks like WARS worked for C level but not as much for A and S. Again, very few messages read by me. Will continue with more.
@KnightDoc - do you have 2019's link handy, please?

I haven't applied yet, but I was about to, and I definitely found it helpful to formulate the list, although, of course, I have no idea how good the results will be. My observation, from talking to several friends both in real life and on SDN, is that its ultimate utility comes down to your "X Factor."

People with high scores and the X Factor, who take the advice and apply broadly, often find that they over perform at top schools and find themselves yield protected at the rest. They then regret wasting money on mid tiers that had no interest, and wish they threw more apps at the top schools to give themselves more chances.

On the other hand, those who think their hours and activities deserve the same high scores, but don't have "It," whatever "It" is (and I don't know how to define it, but I'm pretty sure I don't have it! ), think the tool is garbage since they only receive a few mid tier IIs, if that. So, that's the ultimate limitation of the tool -- it relies on subjective self evaluations, and those are really difficult to do accurately.

 

[r2med]

I haven't applied yet, but I was about to, and I definitely found it helpful to formulate the list, although, of course, I have no idea how good the results will be. My observation, from talking to several friends both in real life and on SDN, is that its ultimate utility comes down to your "X Factor."

People with high scores and the X Factor, who take the advice and apply broadly, often find that they over perform at top schools and find themselves yield protected at the rest. They then regret wasting money on mid tiers that had no interest, and wish they threw more apps at the top schools to give themselves more chances.

On the other hand, those who think their hours and activities deserve the same high scores, but don't have "It," whatever "It" is (and I don't know how to define it, but I'm pretty sure I don't have it! ), think the tool is garbage since they only receive a few mid tier IIs, if that. So, that's the ultimate limitation of the tool -- it relies on subjective self evaluations, and those are really difficult to do accurately.

Perhaps add a qualified rating for the "X Factor" to the WARS?

 

[KnightDoc]

Perhaps add a qualified rating for the "X Factor" to the WARS?

If it were that easy, we wouldn't need the tool!!!

Literally, it's the difference between the applicant with all the hours and 10 T20 IIs and the one with the same hours, in the same types of activities, and one or zero IIs. It isn't random, otherwise they'd both have around 5 IIs, but whatever the difference is, it can't be quantified by GPA/MCAT/EC category or hours. That's why it doesn't lend itself to a tool, why the process seems random when it really isn't, and why everyone on the wrong side of the process is so frustrated by it.

 

[r2med]

If it were that easy, we wouldn't need the tool!!!

Literally, it's the difference between the applicant with all the hours and 10 T20 IIs and the one with the same hours, in the same types of activities, and one or zero IIs. It isn't random, otherwise they'd both have around 5 IIs, but whatever the difference is, it can't be quantified by GPA/MCAT/EC category or hours. That's why it doesn't lend itself to a tool, why the process seems random when it really isn't, and why everyone on the wrong side of the process is so frustrated by it.

It is not random nor does there seem to be a science. I understand there may not be an answer for everything that happens in our life, but most of the times, we are able to do some root-cause analysis. Especially when use this tool to get your school list etc is promoted, there must be some factual evidence of whether it is working or not and what the statistical significance is. If not, anyone can claim anything, right?

 

[LizzyM]

Sometimes the X factor is having an activity that you enjoyed and that just happens to be something important to the reader, too. It could be working with kids if your reader is a pediatrician but it could be working with the aged or tutoring the children of migrant workers, or playing the trumpet or having spent a year is Uzbekistan. You just don't what is going to make the reader say "that's cool" while it leaves another reader cold. None of these make you a better applicant than someone who volunteered serving homeless adults, or plays the tuba or spent a year in Albania but it might just be that thing that helps a specific reader connect with you.

 

[r2med]

Sometimes the X factor is having an activity that you enjoyed and that just happens to be something important to the reader, too. It could be working with kids if your reader is a pediatrician but it could be working with the aged or tutoring the children of migrant workers, or playing the trumpet or having spent a year is Uzbekistan. You just don't what is going to make the reader say "that's cool" while it leaves another reader cold. None of these make you a better applicant than someone who volunteered serving homeless adults, or plays the tuba or spent a year in Albania but it might just be that thing that helps a specific reader connect with you.

Thanks. To cover most type of readers, perhaps the applicants should do a bit of everything?
Edit: Just being sarcastic here. I know this is impossible and I also know that there is no science to this. All we can, as applicants, do is to focus on what we love. Everything else is God Willing!!!