What Duke dean? @PhDnontrad compared screenshots from October web pages, 2021 to 2020, from Wayne State, Michigan and Vanderbilt. In addition, we now have this from TMDSAS:
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of August 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
What Duke dean? @PhDnontrad compared screenshots from October web pages, 2021 to 2020, from Wayne State, Michigan and Vanderbilt. In addition, we now have this from TMDSAS:
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of August 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
I think TMDSAS is of substantial importance here too. I just did a quick check at the past 5 years of TMDSAS submission numbers and AMCAS total submission numbers, and they both correlate pretty well (partly because TMDSAS applicant numbers are included in AMCAS total numbers, I think?). I would be very surprised if overall AMCAS numbers were up given just how much lower TMDSAS med school apps are (8%).
btw, you sent the older august link. This is the most updated data (which took me a long time to find, idk why google is terrible crawling through TMDSAS weblinks):
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
www.txhes.com
On a bit of a side note, a substantial number of my friends are taking unplanned gap years this academic year and applying next cycle since their ECs were impacted by COVID. Every single one of my friends that was rejected last year are also taking an extra year before applying as they couldn't get more ECs in this COVID period. I think next cycle will be absolutely brutal, and we are going to top 65k apps.
I think TMDSAS is of substantial importance here too. I just did a quick check at the past 5 years of TMDSAS submission numbers and AMCAS total submission numbers, and they both correlate pretty well (partly because TMDSAS applicant numbers are included in AMCAS total numbers, I think?). I would be very surprised if overall AMCAS numbers were up given just how much lower TMDSAS med school apps are (8%).
btw, you sent the older august link. This is the most updated data (which took me a long time to find, idk why google is terrible crawling through TMDSAS weblinks):
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
www.txhes.com
On a bit of a side note, a substantial number of my friends are taking unplanned gap years this academic year and applying next cycle since their ECs were impacted by COVID. Every single one of my friends that was rejected last year are also taking an extra year before applying as they couldn't get more ECs in this COVID period. I think next cycle will be absolutely brutal, and we are going to top 65k apps.
Even better! I was looking for the October report but couldn't find it!!
I'd be careful about predicting another wild spike up based on anecdotal evidence. Your circle of friends aside, most people take at least one gap year, planned or unplanned, so that's not a huge disruptive force here. Also, everyone's ECs were impacted between March 2020 and this past spring, so that wasn't a good reason not to apply this cycle unless nothing was done before then. Again, that shouldn't move the numbers a ton.
Bottom line -- if apps are down around 10% this year and stabilize at that level, they would still be around 10% higher than 2 years ago. How much higher than that should they be? IMHO, 60K is plenty and 65K is a big stretch, this year or next year, the wise @gonnif's prediction notwithstanding .
Even better! I was looking for the October report but couldn't find it!!
I'd be careful about predicting another wild spike up based on anecdotal evidence. Your circle of friends aside, most people take at least one gap year, planned or unplanned, so that's not a huge disruptive force here. Also, everyone's ECs were impacted between March 2020 and this past spring, so that wasn't a good reason not to apply this cycle unless nothing was done before then. Again, that shouldn't move the numbers a ton.
Bottom line -- if apps are down around 10% this year and stabilize at that level, they would still be around 10% higher than 2 years ago. How much higher than that should they be? IMHO, 60K is plenty and 65K is a big stretch, this year or next year, the wise @gonnif's prediction notwithstanding .
It's not just that, a lot of clinical opportunities opened up right as application cycle began, and you have a substantial amount of people that couldn't get a lot of EC's for the past year. You're right that everyone's ECs were impacted, but not literally "everyone", and I think people without ECs wouldn't want to be in competition with people who did have them.
Of course, this is purely subjective and I can't prove it one way or the other. Just my initial thoughts.
I also worded that paragraph terribly, and I don't feel like putting in the effort to fix it so hopefully it still makes some sense lol.
I think TMDSAS is of substantial importance here too. I just did a quick check at the past 5 years of TMDSAS submission numbers and AMCAS total submission numbers, and they both correlate pretty well (partly because TMDSAS applicant numbers are included in AMCAS total numbers, I think?). I would be very surprised if overall AMCAS numbers were up given just how much lower TMDSAS med school apps are (8%).
btw, you sent the older august link. This is the most updated data (which took me a long time to find, idk why google is terrible crawling through TMDSAS weblinks):
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
www.txhes.com
On a bit of a side note, a substantial number of my friends are taking unplanned gap years this academic year and applying next cycle since their ECs were impacted by COVID. Every single one of my friends that was rejected last year are also taking an extra year before applying as they couldn't get more ECs in this COVID period. I think next cycle will be absolutely brutal, and we are going to top 65k apps.
This would also help explain the “influx” of October IIs. Schools were likely holding IIs to compare to what they thought would be a larger remaining applicant pool, but that larger pool never came
This would also help explain the “influx” of October IIs. Schools were likely holding IIs to compare to what they thought would be a larger remaining applicant pool, but that larger pool never came
I was wondering the same. I had a bit of a stall, and then 3 IIs in a week right after the 15th, which many on this site said wouldn't happen due to virtual interviews.
It's not just that, a lot of clinical opportunities opened up right as application cycle began, and you have a substantial amount of people that couldn't get a lot of EC's for the past year. You're right that everyone's ECs were impacted, but not literally "everyone", and I think people without ECs wouldn't want to be in competition with people who did have them.
Of course, this is purely subjective and I can't prove it one way or the other. Just my initial thoughts.
I also worded that paragraph terribly, and I don't feel like putting in the effort to fix it so hopefully it still makes some sense lol.
You're fine, I totally got what you meant. And, by the way, what you are describing is exactly why I delayed my cycle last year. Things were suddenly shut down in March, and I was behind in my ECs. I lost shadowing and research that I needed, and I had no idea when they would return. I would be competing with a ton of people who didn't wait until the last minute, and I knew I'd be screwed.
This year is different. EVERYONE has been impacted. As a result, pushing back a year because hours are light is, IMHO, foolish. Everyone's hours are light. Adcoms will have no choice but to understand, unless they want to fill their classes with reapplicants. Again, even with a 10% pullback, there are still 5-7,000 more applicants than 2 years ago. That's not insignificant, if it stabilizes at that higher number.
I was wondering the same. I had a bit of a stall, and then 3 IIs in a week right after the 15th, which many on this site said wouldn't happen due to virtual interviews.
Not true. It wasn't an "influx." It was the normal distribution. While we are just looking for and finding the numbers now, the schools have had real time access to them from Day 1.
The early numbers looked high, because they were comparing to suppressed numbers from last year. By August, they saw things level off, as we can now see from the August TMDSAS report.
This does not account for a so-called October influx. The fact that they all have a tremendous backlog, from the first day of AMCAS transmission, is why IIs are distributed from whenever they start issuing them through the fall and winter.
There is no hold while they wait to see the pace of new applications. While you guys had a stall, many others didn't, and still others haven't received anything yet, but will. This is just luck of the draw -- which schools you applied to, the priority with which you happen to be reviewed at each of them, and whether they send IIs out months in advance or hold them until closer to the interview date.
Here to add some more data points. Some of these may already be included in earlier posts.
This one is a pretty big decrease: University of Arizona Tucson School of Medicine
2020-21: 8636 Applications
2021-22: 7040 Applications
That's almost a 20% decrease.
Sources:
Through hands-on clinical education in the heart of a rapidly evolving city, the Wayne State University School of Medicine provides a distinct experiential advantage that sets you apart from your peers at other colleges. When you become a Warrior M.D., yo
Through hands-on clinical education in the heart of a rapidly evolving city, the Wayne State University School of Medicine provides a distinct experiential advantage that sets you apart from your peers at other colleges. When you become a Warrior M.D., yo
www.med.wayne.edu
Moderate decrease here: University of Arizona Phoenix School of Medicine
2020-21: 6691 Applications
2021-22: 6111 Applications
Almost a 10% decrease
Sources:
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
www.txhes.com
I would be very very surprised if applications are somehow higher this cycle. @gonnif do you still think it's likely?
Here to add some more data points. Some of these may already be included in earlier posts.
This one is a pretty big decrease: University of Arizona Tucson School of Medicine
2020-21: 8636 Applications
2021-22: 7040 Applications
That's almost a 20% decrease.
Sources:
Through hands-on clinical education in the heart of a rapidly evolving city, the Wayne State University School of Medicine provides a distinct experiential advantage that sets you apart from your peers at other colleges. When you become a Warrior M.D., yo
Through hands-on clinical education in the heart of a rapidly evolving city, the Wayne State University School of Medicine provides a distinct experiential advantage that sets you apart from your peers at other colleges. When you become a Warrior M.D., yo
www.med.wayne.edu
Moderate decrease here: University of Arizona Phoenix School of Medicine
2020-21: 6691 Applications
2021-22: 6111 Applications
Almost a 10% decrease
Sources:
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
www.txhes.com
I would be very very surprised if applications are somehow higher this cycle. @gonnif do you still think it's likely?
@TheDarkKnightDoc we need to compare MD to MD numbers, those TX numbers you quote are MD, Dental, plus Veterinary.
TheTX MD numbers as of October 1 were down about 3%.
@TheDarkKnightDoc we need to compare MD to MD numbers, those TX numbers you quote are MD, Dental, plus Veterinary.
TheTX MD numbers as of October 1 were down about 3%.
No, the numbers I quoted were specifically MD. The overall numbers are 15294 and 15029 respectively. The gap has widened since you last posted about this topic!
No, the numbers I quoted were specifically MD. The overall numbers are 15294 and 15029 respectively. The gap has widened since you last posted about this topic!
Okay, but the comparisons all along have been to the same point in time last year. Given that last year was a delayed cycle for many, and this year isn't, what are the odds that the last month this year will include a surge that wasn't present last year, and that the 7% gap will be closed?
I think it's much safer to assume that while the final number will certainly tick up a little, it also did so in the final month last year, and apps will be down by around 7% +/-. Doesn't seem like such a stretch to go out on that limb with only one month remaining.
Okay, but the comparisons all along have been to the same point in time last year. Given that last year was a delayed cycle for many, and this year isn't, what are the odds that the last month this year will include a surge that wasn't present last year, and that the 7% gap will be closed?
I think it's much safer to assume that while the final number will certainly tick up a little, it also did so in the final month last year, and apps will be down by around 7% +/-. Doesn't seem like such a stretch to go out on that limb with only one month remaining.
I think Univ of Colorado is a good comparison. They have many OOS applications. Primary deadline was Oct 15th, secondary application is Nov 30th. Last year they were around 14000 for primary applicants and 8500 for secondaries. So it is a decrease so far.
It would be possible for the total number of applicants to be up but the number of applications submitted to specific schools to be down if many applicants were applying to fewer schools than in years past. It might also be possible that some applicants made an initial application with a throw away school in anticipation of MCAT scores and then chose not to go forward with the rest of the application.
Just thinking logically how these facts could both be true at the same time:
AMCAS reporting an up-tick and schools reporting a down-tick.
It would be possible for the total number of applicants to be up but the number of applications submitted to specific schools to be down if many applicants were applying to fewer schools than in years past. It might also be possible that some applicants made an initial application with a throw away school in anticipation of MCAT scores and then chose not to go forward with the rest of the application.
Just thinking logically how these facts could both be true at the same time:
AMCAS reporting an up-tick and schools reporting a down-tick.
Is AMCAS actually reporting an uptick? My understanding was that reports of upticks were anecdotal, from the beginning of the cycle, at individual schools, and that reports of decreases are from publicly available data from individual schools, as compared to the same period last year.
Your theory would be plausible, but there is zero indication that AMCAS is reporting anything in conflict with what is being reported by TMDSAS or by individual schools. In fact, I haven't seen any AMCAS reports at all.
preliminary "gossip" from people at AMCAS suggest 7% rise over last cycle. The two pandemic cycles together be 20%-25% increase in applications over pre-pandemic levels
Is AMCAS actually reporting an uptick? My understanding was that reports of upticks were anecdotal, from the beginning of the cycle, at individual schools, and that reports of decreases are from publicly available data from individual schools, as compared to the same period last year.
Your theory would be plausible, but there is zero indication that AMCAS is reporting anything in conflict with what is being reported by TMDSAS or by individual schools. In fact, I haven't seen any AMCAS reports at all.
Being able to predict whether a numerical metric will fall short of, meet or exceed expectations is a skill that would come in very useful in the investment world. Perhaps some of us are looking to break into the wrong industry . . .
I'm hard pressed to believe they'd be too far down, there were multiple things pushing me to apply this cycle.. from having COVID relief funds thrown at me to having all interviews being virtual, as someone on the bottom of the SES charts this cycle was actually manageable in ways the typical cycle would not have been. That said there are still a lot of people who have struggled to get a lot of experiences.
And again, this is coming from a place of mostly ignorance.. certainly not pretending to know more than some of you here.
“We are especially encouraged by the growth in applications and new enrollments by students in racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine..."
Woot woot! My Native American brothers and sisters are representing, up 22.8% in applications from the previous cycle it says. You love to see it!
The AAMC always refers to the school year of first year matriculation. It’s confusing, but it’s in the fine print of all their data tables. The 2021 cycle (last year) is the one in which the matriculants are M1s in 2021-2022.
The current cycle is the 2022 cycle, referred to as 2022-2023 because that is the year we will be M1s.
The AAMC always refers to the school year of first year matriculation. It’s confusing, but it’s in the fine print of all their data tables. The 2021 cycle (last year) is the one in which the matriculants are M1s in 2021-2022.
The current cycle is the 2022 cycle, referred to as 2022-2023 because that is the year we will be M1s.
FWIW, this nugget was embedded in the document, in case you are interested in a preview of this year's numbers:
Cautionary observations
Admissions leaders don’t believe that many people were freshly inspired to become doctors by witnessing overwhelmed health care workers caring for stricken patients or because they admired Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — the so-called “hero” or “Fauci” effect. Rather, events around the pandemic appear to have influenced people who were, in the words of Quezada and Holcomb, “sitting on the fence” to take the leap.
“No one in our new class said they had this epiphany because of COVID,” said Woodson at Tulane University. “They were always planning on applying” to medical school.
The increased competition made it harder for people to get accepted. The number of accepted students did increase by 2.6%, but medical schools cannot quickly expand classes sizes significantly, as they need to develop everything from space and equipment to teachers and future clinical sites.
The unprecedented application increases of 2021-22 are unlikely to continue. Medical schools report that applications for the 2022-23 school year are coming in closer to pre-pandemic levels.
More recent TMDSAS numbers from the beginning October provide further support of a reduction in applications this application cycle. They show a 6-7 percent reduction in TMDSAS applications (started and submitted).
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
More recent TMDSAS numbers from the beginning October provide further support of a reduction in applications this application cycle. They show a 6-7 percent reduction in TMDSAS applications (started and submitted).
Take a look at how Entry Year 2022 compares to other application cycles. All numbers below represent applications started and submitted as of October 1, 2021 and on the same date for each application cycle represented.
It makes sense that it would go down eventually. Medical school isn't something you can just sporadically decide to do so people who applied had at least some desire to do so beforehand. Maintaining a high GPA doing well on the MCAT and all the extracurricular activities aren't something a business major turned premed can do overnight or realistically within a year.
Take this for what it’s worth, but I’ve had a few people who work in various admissions offices say that they prefer virtual interviews and hope that they become the new normal. Personally, I haven’t heard too much of a desire for going back to in person interviews.
Way too soon to tell. Historically, you would have been SOL, because schools traditionally felt the need to size you up in person, plus they insisted on the opportunity to wine, dine and sell you in person. The pandemic imposed changes on them, and it turns out the technology works pretty well, even if it is less than ideal for the schools.
It also has the advantage of making it far easier and less expensive for all of us to attend interviews. Perhaps too easy, since there is now no reason to be selective and turn anything down, which increases the risks to the schools that we will hoard IIs and As.
So, I just spelled out the pros and cons of virtual interviews. Pros are for the applicants; cons are for the schools. Once the pandemic is a memory, maybe next year and maybe sometime after that, will schools make the accommodation and make interviews more accessible for candidates, or will they go back to what works best for them?
No one can answer that now. In the middle of the current cycle, no, nobody is speculating about what form interviews will take a year from now. We did not start receiving news about what interviews would look like this cycle until late spring/early summer. You should expect the same for next year.
Way too soon to tell. Historically, you would have been SOL, because schools traditionally felt the need to size you up in person, plus they insisted on the opportunity to wine, dine and sell you in person. The pandemic imposed changes on them, and it turns out the technology works pretty well, even if it is less than ideal for the schools.
It also has the advantage of making it far easier and less expensive for all of us to attend interviews. Perhaps too easy, since there is now no reason to be selective and turn anything down, which increases the risks to the schools that we will hoard IIs and As.
So, I just spelled out the pros and cons of virtual interviews. Pros are for the applicants; cons are for the schools. Once the pandemic is a memory, maybe next year and maybe sometime after that, will schools make the accommodation and make interviews more accessible for candidates, or will they go back to what works best for them?
No one can answer that now. In the middle of the current cycle, no, nobody is speculating about what form interviews will take a year from now. We did not start receiving news about what interviews would look like this cycle until late spring/early summer. You should expect the same for next year.
In some ways I think not turning things down can be a benefit for the schools. Personal n=1 anecdote, but there are schools I wouldn’t have applied to/interviews I would have turned down due to distance if they were in-person interviews. But now that I was able to explore the school virtually, I really liked what they had to offer and they became my top choice. Pre-COVID, they would have lost me to my state school, but now they’re the top of my list.
So I think that having a broader interview pool economically/geographically can still benefit schools. At least, it’s not all a negative for them. And they still have the opportunity to wine and dine and impress during the in-person second-look weekend. Which arguably saves them resources because they’re only expending the wine&dine energy on students who care enough to take the second look visit.
Way too soon to tell. Historically, you would have been SOL, because schools traditionally felt the need to size you up in person, plus they insisted on the opportunity to wine, dine and sell you in person. The pandemic imposed changes on them, and it turns out the technology works pretty well, even if it is less than ideal for the schools.
It also has the advantage of making it far easier and less expensive for all of us to attend interviews. Perhaps too easy, since there is now no reason to be selective and turn anything down, which increases the risks to the schools that we will hoard IIs and As.
So, I just spelled out the pros and cons of virtual interviews. Pros are for the applicants; cons are for the schools. Once the pandemic is a memory, maybe next year and maybe sometime after that, will schools make the accommodation and make interviews more accessible for candidates, or will they go back to what works best for them?
No one can answer that now. In the middle of the current cycle, no, nobody is speculating about what form interviews will take a year from now. We did not start receiving news about what interviews would look like this cycle until late spring/early summer. You should expect the same for next year.
not to mention, news can change sporadically too. In july, masks were coming off and many schools didn't make the call to keep interviews virtual (they made no call whatsoever). Several of my early IIs gave us appointments to visit the campus too (outside of interview). All those appointments were later cancelled.
Seems like the pandemic initially convinced people who were going to take a gap year to apply immediately but then disrupted the prep of the next cohort (eg. no in person labs, reduced opportunities for shadowing/volunteering etc.)
Seems like the pandemic initially convinced people who were going to take a gap year to apply immediately but then disrupted the prep of the next cohort (eg. no in person labs, reduced opportunities for shadowing/volunteering etc.)
Nope. You're overthinking it. There are only so many people available to apply each year. Press reports of a so-called "Fauci Effect" creating thousands of additional people interested in a career in medicine, and magically being ready to apply in 3 months, were vastly overstated.
Reduced EC opportunities impacted everyone equally, and are not causing people to push back applications. Hours will be lower across the board, and med schools will accept it, because we are being compared to each other, not to some arbitrary metric. Moreover, someone like me, who has been working diligently for years, would have plenty of hours, albeit a lot less than if things weren't shut down between spring 2020 and winter 2021. If you were right, there would be no first time applicants this cycle. 🙂
The marginal person who put things off until the last minute (that was me last cycle! 🙂) would not cause a measurable drop in total applications. After all, EC opportunities have been available, both in person and virtually, for almost a year now.
As you said, the pandemic induced a ton of people to apply who otherwise would have waited because they had no visibility into whether or when things would open back up. In hindsight, all that did was push applications forward from this cycle to last. That cannot go on indefinitely, and this year is just the snap back.
In fact, I happen to think the only reason applications are elevated at all over 2 years ago is on account of an abnormally large number of reapplicants, due to the fact that the acceptance rate was so low last year. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I'd be shocked if the number of first time applicants wasn't very close to where it was 2 years ago, if not below, depending on just how many applications were pulled forward last year.
Nope. You're overthinking it. There are only so many people available to apply each year. Press reports of a so-called "Fauci Effect" creating thousands of additional people interested in a career in medicine, and magically being ready to apply in 3 months, were vastly overstated.
Reduced EC opportunities impacted everyone equally, and are not causing people to push back applications. Hours will be lower across the board, and med schools will accept it, because we are being compared to each other, not to some arbitrary metric. Moreover, someone like me, who has been working diligently for years, would have plenty of hours, albeit a lot less than if things weren't shut down between spring 2020 and winter 2021. If you were right, there would be no first time applicants this cycle. 🙂
The marginal person who put things off until the last minute (that was me last cycle! 🙂) would not cause a measurable drop in total applications. After all, EC opportunities have been available, both in person and virtually, for almost a year now.
As you said, the pandemic induced a ton of people to apply who otherwise would have waited because they had no visibility into whether or when things would open back up. In hindsight, all that did was push applications forward from this cycle to last. That cannot go on indefinitely, and this year is just the snap back.
In fact, I happen to think the only reason applications are elevated at all over 2 years ago is on account of an abnormally large number of reapplicants, due to the fact that the acceptance rate was so low last year. I don't have numbers to back this up, but I'd be shocked if the number of first time applicants wasn't very close to where it was 2 years ago, if not below, depending on just how many applications were pulled forward last year.
I do think the interview process going virtual and the changes to the FAP have made it possible for low-income applicants to have a much more reasonable time applying, and while I also have no statistics off-hand to back that up, other than the fact that I'm one of them, it is something that I hope isn't forgotten. Are higher percentages of those low SES applicants, or even URM applicants in general getting in? No, in fact we saw a smaller percentage of those applicants getting in last year compared to the figures before COVID, which is certainly in-line with the claim that this year isn't really a "disruption", it's more so back to business as usual. An 8% increase over 2 years is a bigger increase than expected over the normal trends we were seeing, and this is where your final paragraph comes in, as well as mine.
I just hope going back to business as usual doesn't mean going back to a cycle style that further displaces low SES applicants.
The biggest indicator will be whether schools go back to in-person interviews, which they prefer for multiple reasons, or whether they stick with virtual, which is to the advantage of all applicants, particularly low SES.
Lower percentages of everyone were successful last cycle, due to the surge in applicants. I haven't seen anything to suggest that low SES or URM applicants were disproportionately impacted. What did you see that suggests otherwise?
More so me looking too much into things, but it was this thread actually if I'm not mistaken. Let me track down my previous response a few weeks ago...
This shows a 22% increase in the number of Native American applicants from 2020 to 2021, and they heralded this as a great thing which it is.. but upon further inspection, we see an 8.5% decrease in the number of Native American matriculants from 2020-2021. This is where it becomes more about me and the way I was looking at things because across the board it's positive percentages for URMs. In any case, it's more so a defense mechanism of me maintaining a perspective of "we can do better" no matter how much better we all do, and just sort of naturally wanting to be in defense of any progress made. Which I can admit isn't 100% objective.
After all looking at enrollment changes on page 16, the percentage increase in enrollment is trending upwards toward 4% and it might be natural for that to be reflected in the applicant pool, and that margin could then partially explain this year being 8% higher than 2 years ago.
More so me looking too much into things, but it was this thread actually if I'm not mistaken. Let me track down my previous response a few weeks ago...
This shows a 22% increase in the number of Native American applicants from 2020 to 2021, and they heralded this as a great thing which it is.. but upon further inspection, we see an 8.5% decrease in the number of Native American matriculants from 2020-2021. This is where it becomes more about me and the way I was looking at things because across the board it's positive percentages for URMs. In any case, it's more so a defense mechanism of me maintaining a perspective of "we can do better" no matter how much better we all do, and just sort of naturally wanting to be in defense of any progress made. Which I can admit isn't 100% objective.
After all looking at enrollment changes on page 16, the percentage increase in enrollment is trending upwards toward 4% and it might be natural for that to be reflected in the applicant pool, and that margin could then partially explain this year being 8% higher than 2 years ago.
I hear you. We can all always do better. To me, the important thing is that the schools finally recognize the issue and are taking steps to address it. Things aren't going to magically get better overnight, because a lot of applicants, of all races and backgrounds, but disproportionately low SES, just did not have adequate resources while growing up to be competitive, at least stat-wise, in a hyper-competitive pool.
Some allowances are made, as evidenced by lower average stats for some groups as compared to others. It's a start, but it will never be enough for those impacted. To fix that, changes really need to be made a decade or more before people even apply, so that everyone has the same opportunity to achieve, and allowances won't be necessary.
Anyway, I'm no expert here, but just looking at your Native American example reminds me of the old saying about "lies, damn lies, and statistics." 🙂 Everything you are saying is true, but I'm not sure you can draw any conclusion from it when it only involves 700 applicants out of 62,000, or 200 matriculants out of 22,000. The numbers just aren't jumping out at me because they represent 1.1% of the applicant pool and 1.0% of matriculants. The number is so tiny that the 0.1% divergence doesn't necessarily mean anything.
This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies and terms of service.
