Are admissions decisions inevitably random??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
imnastywitit

imnastywitit

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
Members do not see this ad.
We are giving them a 40 page AAMCAS, 2 hour long interviews, and a long list of grades. They then try to internalize it all and come up with a 'holistic' interpretation of the students credentials. Problem is, that task is essentially cognitively intractable... making the decisions more or less random and making the only solution on the applicants part to apply widely.

They 'think' that they made a good decision (since they thought about it extensively), but they were trying to synthesize so much information that decision quality is just bound to be poor. The decision by the adcom will probably end up getting tipped one way or another by a more salient part of the app, without them even noticing it.

Yes, I'm taking a page out of psychologies book, but seriously, how is one supposed to synthesized 40-50 pages of raw text on a person, 2 hours of speech by them, 2 pages of their grades, and then compare that resultant holistic opinion to their holistic opinions on 1000's of other people?


And i'm not trying to diss adcoms at all. I'm just saying that given their circumstances, I don't see how high quality decisions are possible at all.
 
fortunately for adcoms, there are waaaaay too many qualified applicants. so i'd say their decision actually are "high quality." they can't lose because chances are, whoever they pick will contribute to their incoming class in a meaningful way.

i also disagree that this is random-- i think adcoms have reasons for choosing whoever they choose. and they simply cannot choose everyone.

this is where i'll get made fun of, but... i also believe that fate plays a role in this process 😳
 
they are obviously making high quality decisions for the most part. the randomness plays a role sometimes in explaining why one high quality candidate was selected over another high quality candidate.
 
you're right that the adcom doesn't spend hours agonizing over each applicant - at least at harvard, my interviewer told me that they spend about one to a few minutes discussing each applicant at the post-interview adcom meetings. kind of sucks for you if your advocate at the adcom meetings can't sell you to the rest of the committee in under a minute...and maybe it's unfair, considering how much time we've all put into crafting our '40 page AMCASes' and preparing for those two hours of interviews, but that's the way the process works and i think we all knew that going in to it. (we all 'applied broadly' for a reason, no?)
 
This gets discussed frequently every cycle.

Subjective, yes, random, no.

Difficult to understand from the outside, yes, random, no.

High stats do not guarantee admission, yes, random, no.

Bottom Line: Any subjective process appears random to those who are not part of the decision making.

Lesson learned: Apply wisely/widely/broadly to up your chances of admission, no matter how "strong" you think your app is.
 
It's not random, there are just too many factors involved in an acceptance. Maybe you applied too late, maybe you had a bad interview, maybe you sounded like you had a big ego in your PS...just one or two red flags could make adcoms reject an otherwise great applicant.
 
There was actually a cognitive psychology research thing that dealt with admissions into medical school. The final conclusion was that interviewers and what not are poor at deciding who will be more successful. They try to filter out and get personalities that work for them, but who knows. In the end, the seemingly random way of choosing someone helped me, so I don't care. 😉
 
muhali3 said:
It's not random, there are just too many factors involved in an acceptance. Maybe you applied too late, maybe you had a bad interview, maybe you sounded like you had a big ego in your PS...just one or two red flags could make adcoms reject an otherwise great applicant.
Click to expand...

it's random in that your application happened to fall into the hands of a committee member who thought your PS was arrogant, whereas another member might have found it confident. there are probably a few cases where the necessary decision is clear-cut. other times, you're in the gray area, dealing with a lot of subjective variables.
 
slowbutsteady said:
This gets discussed frequently every cycle.

Subjective, yes, random, no.

Difficult to understand from the outside, yes, random, no.

High stats do not guarantee admission, yes, random, no.

Bottom Line: Any subjective process appears random to those who are not part of the decision making.

Lesson learned: Apply wisely/widely/broadly to up your chances of admission, no matter how "strong" you think your app is.
Click to expand...

This covers it, especially the 'lesson learned.'

Also - apply EARLY - it gives you your best shot at rolling admissions schools, and even at non-rollers it boosts your chances at an interview.

If there is any randomness, or variability, it is in the difference between state residency - take one applicant with average stats and put him in, say, Louisiana, and then put him in say, California, and you could have 2 completely different outcomes, all else equal.
 
Contrarian said:
it's random in that your application happened to fall into the hands of a committee member who thought your PS was arrogant, whereas another member might have found it confident. there are probably a few cases where the necessary decision is clear-cut. other times, you're in the gray area, dealing with a lot of subjective variables.
Click to expand...

Just because human beings are making the decisions does not make it "random." Again, it makes it "subjective."

The only alternative is to have the decisions made by a computer. Of course, each school would reach different results depending on how they value each part of the application. And those valuations are also "subjective."

And the only applicants happy with that approach would be the people with high numbers who also check every other box that is important to each school.

They would get into all/most schools. BUT THEY DO ANYWAY!!!!!!
 
There's LOTS of anecdotal evidence that the process is random/subjective.
 
40 page amcas? Mine was more like 20? Did i miss something on the form?
 
slowbutsteady said:
Just because human beings are making the decisions does not make it "random." Again, it makes it "subjective."

The only alternative is to have the decisions made by a computer. Of course, each school would reach different results depending on how they value each part of the application. And those valuations are also "subjective."

And the only applicants happy with that approach would be the people with high numbers who also check every other box that is important to each school.

They would get into all/most schools. BUT THEY DO ANYWAY!!!!!!
Click to expand...

that's not what I'm saying, nor am I complaining about randomness. many, many aspects of life are governed by randomness, and its something we come to terms with.

subjectivity =/= randomness, but the distribution of your application to a committee member who may or may not be on your wavelength is random. Again, no complaints.
 
ezsanche said:
40 page amcas? Mine was more like 20? Did i miss something on the form?
Click to expand...

😱 Dude, didn't you see the PS-plus that they require now starting this year? That's prob. what you missed since it had a 15 page requirement.
 
there is already some inherent randomness in subjectivity..and then throw in the fact that every admissions committee member/applicant screener is going to have a different set of perspectives which adds to the subjectivity and randomness....and then throw in the fact that every medical school has its own set of criteria and ranking systems for their applicants (schools obsessed with US News give A LOT of importance to MCAT scores--usually the higher-ranked schools since they want to keep their high rank and not fall behind the competition, some dont care about MCAT scores as much like Mayo, others care more about overall application, etc) so the admissions process ends up being EXTREMELY subjective and at times a little bit random..but the randomness and subjectivity only come into play once you have met certain minimums for the schools in terms of MCAT and grades which are different for each school...there is definitely some amount of luck by chance in this process..
 
again, subjectivity =/= randomness.

yes, adcom members' individual perspectives will affect how your application is screened. but it's not like they put all the apps on a wall and throw darts at them.
 
Def luck involved, but that's why we apply to a bunch of schools in a wide range, and if you look at the spreadsheet from AAMC website, it has a nice break down that shows the more qualified you are, the more likely you will get in, so yes luck plays a part, but only between two qualified candidates.
 
slowbutsteady said:
This gets discussed frequently every cycle.

Subjective, yes, random, no.

Difficult to understand from the outside, yes, random, no.

High stats do not guarantee admission, yes, random, no.

Bottom Line: Any subjective process appears random to those who are not part of the decision making.

Lesson learned: Apply wisely/widely/broadly to up your chances of admission, no matter how "strong" you think your app is.
Click to expand...
best post on this topic ever
 
slowbutsteady said:
This gets discussed frequently every cycle.

Subjective, yes, random, no.

Difficult to understand from the outside, yes, random, no.

High stats do not guarantee admission, yes, random, no.

Bottom Line: Any subjective process appears random to those who are not part of the decision making.

Lesson learned: Apply wisely/widely/broadly to up your chances of admission, no matter how "strong" you think your app is.
Click to expand...
best post ever on this topic
 
Thanks for the replies guys, interesting stuff. Some stuff I haven't thought about before.


However, there's one thing that I feel like wasn't touched on, and that's informational load.

Essentially, since they are getting SO much information from each applicant, they TRY to make a correct decision, but there decision ends up being random because of the intractability of the situation. However, they report that it isn't random, because after all they thought about it and used reasons.

It's like this. Suppose you had to choose between two apartments, and I gave you 35 pieces of information on each within 1min. The apartments are close in quality from the description, but you have to pick the one that is better.

You will report your decision to be non-random, since you thought about it, listened, and used reason, but your decision effectively will be random because it's too much info for your brain to properly process.

that's what I'm arguing is going on with the application process. 40pg aamcas 2 hours of speech and 2 pgs of grades is just too much information to properly process in a short amount of time.


but again, some really really good answers on this thread. the idea of the adcom you getting being random, and then that adcom is either on your wavelength or not... that can explain a lot probably.
 
imnastywitit said:
Essentially, since they are getting SO much information from each applicant, they TRY to make a correct decision, but there decision ends up being random because of the intractability of the situation.
Click to expand...

Well this is where I would just fundamentally disagree with your argument. I don't think the adcoms experience "information overload" and would argue that given their experience they are actually quite good at triaging down the information to the essential/relevant data points.
 
ziggydoc said:
😱 Dude, didn't you see the PS-plus that they require now starting this year? That's prob. what you missed since it had a 15 page requirement.
Click to expand...
man i knew i screwed up. I guess i am going to have to reapply next year🙁
 
imnastywitit said:
We are giving them a 40 page AAMCAS, 2 hour long interviews, and a long list of grades. They then try to internalize it all and come up with a 'holistic' interpretation of the students credentials. Problem is, that task is essentially cognitively intractable... making the decisions more or less random and making the only solution on the applicants part to apply widely.

They 'think' that they made a good decision (since they thought about it extensively), but they were trying to synthesize so much information that decision quality is just bound to be poor. The decision by the adcom will probably end up getting tipped one way or another by a more salient part of the app, without them even noticing it.

Yes, I'm taking a page out of psychologies book, but seriously, how is one supposed to synthesized 40-50 pages of raw text on a person, 2 hours of speech by them, 2 pages of their grades, and then compare that resultant holistic opinion to their holistic opinions on 1000's of other people?


And i'm not trying to diss adcoms at all. I'm just saying that given their circumstances, I don't see how high quality decisions are possible at all.
Click to expand...

One of my schools stated that if every single person they offered an interview declined, they could interview the next 500 people that they had offered secondaries to, accept 150 of them, and have an equally good class. The point being that there are a ton of qualified applicants, and I don't think adcomms can really make "poor" decisions. I also don't believe it's random in the sense that a school is throwing darts or making otherwise arbitrary decisions. It may seem like a random process from the applicant's perspective because you never know which schools will show you love, but every school is looking for something, and if you get an interview at one place and not somewhere else, you can be pretty sure it was no accident.
 
If you want to experience true random selection, try to become a pop musician.
 
  1. The AMCAS is never more than 20 pages, including transcripts
  2. There is a rating of applications on 5-10 different attributes in the application/supplemental/LORs.
  3. Applicants with the highest overall ratings get invited for interviews.
  4. Interviewers evaluate the candidate on specific attributes and assign and overall recommendation/rating.
  5. Adcom members review the rating of the application and the rating done by the interviewer, as well as comments from interviewers to grade applicants.
  6. Applicants with the highest ratings on paper and in person get offers of admission.
 
student113 said:
If you want to experience true random selection, try to become a pop musician.
Click to expand...
seriously-with autotune you are SET

Admissions are definitely not random. I would say they are hard to predict based on your experience. Your "great connection" isn't another person's "great connection".
I just trust the process. I know that I am a big ole weirdo (and I actually proclaimed that fact in those exact words to one of my Tulane interviewers-interviewed 11/16, accepted 11/18) and I want a school that will accept me for that. Just relax and be as much of yourself as your nerves will allow you.
Last thing I'd want is to be admitted to a school that thinks that I am something other than me.
 
in any experiment, there is always random error by humans.


so i cannot see how the process is not in a sense random... =)

of course, there is a logical way to the process, there are rules and there are guidelines that adcoms adhere to.

example: a school uses a mcat cutoff of 32.

whats the difference between a student with a 32 or a 31?

random!
 
LizzyM said:
  1. The AMCAS is never more than 20 pages, including transcripts
  2. There is a rating of applications on 5-10 different attributes in the application/supplemental/LORs.
  3. Applicants with the highest overall ratings get invited for interviews.
  4. Interviewers evaluate the candidate on specific attributes and assign and overall recommendation/rating.
  5. Adcom members review the rating of the application and the rating done by the interviewer, as well as comments from interviewers to grade applicants.
  6. Applicants with the highest ratings on paper and in person get offers of admission.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. But the way you phrase it makes it seem like, when push comes to shove, the interview is the most important thing outside of grades/mcat. Some of you might rebuttle with 'but the whole application is considered'. Yes, but even if you try to consider it all, the interview will be the most salient to you and influence your decision the most because it happened last and happened in person.
 
imnastywitit said:
Thanks for the insight. But the way you phrase it makes it seem like, when push comes to shove, the interview is the most important thing outside of grades/mcat. Some of you might rebuttle with 'but the whole application is considered'. Yes, but even if you try to consider it all, the interview will be the most salient to you and influence your decision the most because it happened last and happened in person.
Click to expand...

Generally you aren't invited for interview unless you fall into one of two categories: excellent or need more information about x but otherwise excellent. The interviewer will be prepped to ask specifically about x.

Now you can have an applicaiton with the very best of everything on paper but if the applicant in person is unfriendly, condescending, difficult to understand, rambling, meek and lacking in confidence, creepy, rude, socially inappropriate, and so forth, all the excellent LORs and numbers are not going to help. Does that mean we put most of the emphasis on the interview? No, it means that the paper application is the first screen and many never get past that. Once you've passed through the first screen, the interview is the second screen.
 
I think this whole dichotomy between randomness and subjectivity is false.

Does the particular person(s) looking at your file look for particular things that other reviewers might not? Does he or she have certain innate biases? Does the person reading a file try to infer the applicant's true motivations (a process based largely upon hunches)?

The only way to eliminate subjectivity is to have a program come up with all the computations, which I doubt most schools do. Obviously if there is a large group of people simultaneously reviewing the files this can eliminate a large amount of the inherent subjectivity (and hence randomness) but can never do so completely.

Most importantly, does the committee lose anything by picking some students who are slightly "less qualified" than some of those rejected? Obviously the answer is no, which means that there is a large disincentive (in terms of time and overall cost) into picking the most qualified applicants.
 
LizzyM said:
Generally you aren't invited for interview unless you fall into one of two categories: excellent or need more information about x but otherwise excellent. The interviewer will be prepped to ask specifically about x.

Now you can have an applicaiton with the very best of everything on paper but if the applicant in person is unfriendly, condescending, difficult to understand, rambling, meek and lacking in confidence, creepy, rude, socially inappropriate, and so forth, all the excellent LORs and numbers are not going to help. Does that mean we put most of the emphasis on the interview? No, it means that the paper application is the first screen and many never get past that. Once you've passed through the first screen, the interview is the second screen.
Click to expand...

just out of curiosity, what percentage of applicants would you say come to interviews and sound "unfriendly, condescending, difficult to understand, rambling, meek and lacking in confidence, creepy, rude, socially inappropriate, and so forth?" i really am just curious because most of the people i met at interviews seemed pretty cool. some were certainly arrogant, but not in ways that made them socially inept. would i be surprised to hear how many of them interviewed badly, or is that percentage pretty small?
 
LizzyM said:
Generally you aren't invited for interview unless you fall into one of two categories: excellent or need more information about x but otherwise excellent. The interviewer will be prepped to ask specifically about x.

Now you can have an applicaiton with the very best of everything on paper but if the applicant in person is unfriendly, condescending, difficult to understand, rambling, meek and lacking in confidence, creepy, rude, socially inappropriate, and so forth, all the excellent LORs and numbers are not going to help. Does that mean we put most of the emphasis on the interview? No, it means that the paper application is the first screen and many never get past that. Once you've passed through the first screen, the interview is the second screen.
Click to expand...

...unless you're interviewing somewhere that invites thousands of people (Pitt, for example).
 
dw2158 said:
just out of curiosity, what percentage of applicants would you say come to interviews and sound "unfriendly, condescending, difficult to understand, rambling, meek and lacking in confidence, creepy, rude, socially inappropriate, and so forth?" i really am just curious because most of the people i met at interviews seemed pretty cool. some were certainly arrogant, but not in ways that made them socially inept. would i be surprised to hear how many of them interviewed badly, or is that percentage pretty small?
Click to expand...

I'd say it is 10% or less where it becomes a deal breaker. Only ~1% are completely nuts so your likelihood of crossing paths with them on the interview trail are slim.
 
LizzyM said:
I'd say it is 10% or less where it becomes a deal breaker. Only ~1% are completely nuts so your likelihood of crossing paths with them on the interview trail are slim.
Click to expand...

:laugh: i think i may have encountered a couple of those 1%ers. thanks for the info.
 
LizzyM said:
Generally you aren't invited for interview unless you fall into one of two categories: excellent or need more information about x but otherwise excellent. The interviewer will be prepped to ask specifically about x.

Now you can have an applicaiton with the very best of everything on paper but if the applicant in person is unfriendly, condescending, difficult to understand, rambling, meek and lacking in confidence, creepy, rude, socially inappropriate, and so forth, all the excellent LORs and numbers are not going to help. Does that mean we put most of the emphasis on the interview? No, it means that the paper application is the first screen and many never get past that. Once you've passed through the first screen, the interview is the second screen.
Click to expand...

Thanks a ton for the clear explanation. I now feel that I understand what the interview is all about, where as before I was extremely unclear (despite being premed and being around tons of info about the interview, it was never really made clear).
 
LizzyM said:
I'd say it is 10% or less where it becomes a deal breaker. Only ~1% are completely nuts so your likelihood of crossing paths with them on the interview trail are slim.
Click to expand...

nuts? no. eccentric? absolutely.
 
Most medical school applicants are very well qualified whether it be grades, MCAT, research or experience. I believe that medical schools accept people based on quotas disguised as their diversity statements.
 
I don't think the process is really random per se, but that some schools have a better process than others to find what it is that they are seeking.

The problem is knowing what the school wants: you just never know how YOUR application will be perceived in light of each school's "wants."

And I'm sure most people are not completely consistent nor capable of portraying themselves in the strongest light with EVERY combination of interviewers, each coming at you with their own personal bias, possible through this process.

But yes, I agree that it all SEEMS random.

Whatever.

:luck:
 
LizzyM said:
I'd say it is 10% or less where it becomes a deal breaker. Only ~1% are completely nuts so your likelihood of crossing paths with them on the interview trail are slim.
Click to expand...
Hi LizzyM-
I was wondering if you'd say if you guys see a lot of people who may not be arrogant and all in all jerks per say but those who appear to really not have any particular interest in medicine and seem to be bored during the entirety of the interview day. And how do you see someone like that who does well in school but really appears to view medical school as something to pass the time.
I ask because I have met an interviewee like that. I have no doubt that she is a brilliant girl but it really hurt my stomach to think that someone like that could get the spot of someone who is passionate about medicine but has more of "average stats" (like 3.6 or so GPA and 30ish MCAT). But I can also see how some people grow to love medicine-so I don't know how AdComs see this issue.
I don't even know if my question makes sense, but I appreciate your insight 🙂
 
They are not random. Adcoms know exactly what they are looking for. The reason that decisions seem random is that every school looks for something different in an applicant and, as applicants, we rarely know what that is. There is an argument to be made that your interview evaluation is a little more random due to the fact certain applicants may click better with their interviewer, but overall, schools put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that they choose students that best fit the school.
 
There are many arbitrary things that influence your application process, especially when it comes to the interview. Did the interviewer's coffee machine break this morning? Are you just not connecting? etc. These little things are random, but I think there cumulative influence is not that large, but maybe big enough every once in a while.

My theory is:
randomness may have a significant effect on whether you get into one specific school
randomness does not have a significant effect on whether you get in at all, or on what kind of school you end up going to (ie top-20 candidates will end up going to a top-20 school, by and large).
 
Every accepted student: "No. Admission decisions are entirely merit based."

reality

Every rejected student: "Yes. Admission is just luck of the draw."
 
I'll second the "subjective with a little bit of random" claim. I think for the most part, what appears to be a random process on the outside can be generally attributed to what schools are looking: not just what they want in an applicant, but how they envision seeing their class fit together.

With that said, I think there's definitely some luck and "randomness" involved. There are interviewers who do a subpar job of evaluating applicants, and it's bad luck to draw one of them instead of an interviewer who really tries to get to know you.
WaterBird said:
My theory is:
randomness may have a significant effect on whether you get into one specific school
randomness does not have a significant effect on whether you get in at all, or on what kind of school you end up going to (ie top-20 candidates will end up going to a top-20 school, by and large).
Click to expand...
Well stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TibiaOrNotTibia
How do Admissions Committees Make Post-II Decisions?
Replies
5
Views
2K
TibiaOrNotTibia
TibiaOrNotTibia
U
Are Admissions to Top Undergrad or Top Med School Harder?
Replies
3
Views
597
eigen
eigen
E
SDN Article: Admissions Committees: The Art of the Decision
Replies
0
Views
653
Emil Chuck, PhD
E
GuavaIsland
Nervous about how C's affect admission decisions
Replies
5
Views
1K
LizzyM
LizzyM
Y
When do schools that are not rolling admissions make their decisions?
Replies
26
Views
4K
pablo213
pablo213
Top