Are Med Admissions Random or Inexplicable?

[JoshuaGuit]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Every person has at least a few thousand base pairs of DNA that is unique to their own person. Listen to your mother.

I guess I'm just too stressed out by this time in the application cycle and I'm becoming slightly cynical. The human genome has something like 3.2 billion base pairs.. A few thousand is nothing 😛.

Unless someone changes the world in such a profound way such as preventing HIV or some orphan disease, there will be essentially no difference if person A gets into medical school than person B. I'm not considering micro effects such as a singular patient-physician interaction, but rather the macro world-wide effects. Where's the meaning in anything?

 

[Bangersandmash]

I guess I'm just too stressed out by this time in the application cycle and I'm becoming slightly cynical. The human genome has something like 3.2 billion base pairs.. A few thousand is nothing 😛.

Unless someone changes the world in such a profound way such as preventing HIV or some orphan disease, there will be essentially no difference if person A gets into medical school than person B. I'm not considering micro effects such as a singular patient-physician interaction, but rather the macro world-wide effects. Where's the meaning in anything?

But aren't we something like 99.8% similar to chimps? So clearly a few million are important enough for key differences. Those few thousand could be the difference maker!

 

[911 Turbo]

But aren't we something like 99.8% similar to chimps? So clearly a few million are important enough for key differences. Those few thousand could be the difference maker!

it only takes one mutation to kill you

 

[JoshuaGuit]

But aren't we something like 99.8% similar to chimps? So clearly a few million are important enough for key differences. Those few thousand could be the difference maker!

Compare the difference in two people of another race from yours to the difference that another being might observe of humans in general. For the most part, people have a hard time distinguishing one person from another after quick glance. I'd imagine it would be the same for a non-human observing a human. Even larger, do you distinguish between different types of ants as you walk over them? Probably not, everything is grouped together. I think this makes your point pretty moot.

My conclusion here is that this process really doesn't matter. Do I want to get into medical school? Of course, it has been my dream for a long time. I just acknowledge that the world won't stop turning if I don't become a physician, I am far too insignificant in that regard to the world as a whole. Would I ever bring up this discussion in an interview? No way in hell.

Sorry if I slightly derailed the thread/missed the entire point.

 

[Frazier]

Compare the difference in two people of another race from yours to the difference that another being might observe of humans in general. For the most part, people have a hard time distinguishing one person from another after quick glance. I'd imagine it would be the same for a non-human observing a human. Even larger, do you distinguish between different types of ants as you walk over them? Probably not, everything is grouped together. I think this makes your point pretty moot.

My conclusion here is that this process really doesn't matter. Do I want to get into medical school? Of course, it has been my dream for a long time. I just acknowledge that the world won't stop turning if I don't become a physician, I am far too insignificant in that regard to the world as a whole. Would I ever bring up this discussion in an interview? No way in hell.

Sorry if I slightly derailed the thread/missed the entire point.

It's harder to make a difference as an unlikely hero without a cause than it is for the same person to do so while bearing one.

 

[LizzyM]

Well I enjoy running and playing chess but those sorts of clubs require enormous time dedications 🙁

I'll look into it for next semester.

Thanks again!

Your "fun thing" need not involve club membership. Just leave one slot in your experience section for "hobbies/advocations", call it "leisure time activities" or "stress busters" and provide a few words about enjoying running and chess. Do try to find an hour or more per week to do a fun activity (or two) that you will continue to enjoy throughout your life.

 

[skiing]

I think the source of what people call 'randomness' in the process is hard to pinpoint.

A friend of mine from the same school with the exact same research scholarships and the exact same GPA and MCAT applied a year before me. On paper however, we had very different activities. Her essays were poorly written (she showed them to me), and although we had similar clinical experiences, I also had very different ec emphases and highlights, as well as a lot more pubs.

To our friends, based on our stats and awards, we probably seemed the same. Still, our interview results have been dramatically different.

So I think what looks like randomness may not really be random; it is hard to tell as applicants what's really going on from the limited number and quality of data points we have.

 

[alamofire]

.

 

[idontcaureuknow]

Compare the difference in two people of another race from yours to the difference that another being might observe of humans in general. For the most part, people have a hard time distinguishing one person from another after quick glance. I'd imagine it would be the same for a non-human observing a human. Even larger, do you distinguish between different types of ants as you walk over them? Probably not, everything is grouped together. I think this makes your point pretty moot.

My conclusion here is that this process really doesn't matter. Do I want to get into medical school? Of course, it has been my dream for a long time. I just acknowledge that the world won't stop turning if I don't become a physician, I am far too insignificant in that regard to the world as a whole. Would I ever bring up this discussion in an interview? No way in hell.

Sorry if I slightly derailed the thread/missed the entire point.

Just cause this is an interesting point, I'll continue your derail. I agree with the fact that you and I are far too insignificant right now to save the world as a whole. If we do not get into medical school, the world will continue ticking in it's own way and we'd have to find new ways to influence it. But that's the thing, I wish to influence the world in some way, even IF I do not get passed the bottle neck of medical school admissions. I'm not content to say "well, I don't matter and never will." I just feel "well, I don't matter, yet." I would love to matter as a physician though, and that's my dream. I'm not sure I'm going to let anything stop me from that (except death... which I can't completely control).

Back on topic: One thing I've learned, admissions are far from random. I agree with LizzyM's initial post. School's look for certain types of applicants, and for the most part seem to be screening out applicants such that they find the ones who "fit." This process is far from perfect, but in general, I feel they are doing a good job. I know most schools I interviewed at fit my personal philosophies perfectly (now to just hope they think I am a better fit than the top person on the not-admitted list come August).

The problem arises where one has to feel perfect. Grades, MCAT, EC's, Fun. It's a lot of stuff. And quite overwhelming. I see why the average is 5 years to matriculate, I applied last year and fell on my face (it would have been 4 years from HS to matriculation). This cycle I feel much better off. From a mere 6 extra months. It took me approximately a full 4 years since HS to feel like "hey, I'm a well-rounded applicant."

 

[Bangersandmash]

Compare the difference in two people of another race from yours to the difference that another being might observe of humans in general. For the most part, people have a hard time distinguishing one person from another after quick glance. I'd imagine it would be the same for a non-human observing a human. Even larger, do you distinguish between different types of ants as you walk over them? Probably not, everything is grouped together. I think this makes your point pretty moot.

My point was pretty facetious 😉

And I don't walk over ants. I crush them. They all look the same squished on the ground.

 

[Geebeejay]

I certainly agree with the process not being random. I think it does seem random at first glance, but well into the process, I don't really think it's quite as random (sure, sometimes you might not make it past primary screening for who knows what reason) as I thought.

For instance, there are certain schools that I am perfectly qualified (or overqualified) for that have either rejected me or not responded to me yet. More "strange" and "random" is that I have a friend who is an applicant with better stats and more ECs and more research than I do, yet he has been rejected from schools that I have interviewed at. Random huh?

However, looking a little more closely, every school I've interviewed at has been a great match for my background, which is that I'm from the city, an EMT, worked in inner-city ED, extensive clinical experience, little research experience. My personal statement very strongly reflects these characteristics, and my LORs (I haven't read any of them) I would imagine reflect the info In my statement. I have a certain "mission" just like medical schools do.

My point is that schools know which kinds of student they want, and they are pretty good at only interviewing these types of students. The schools which I have been rejected from, while I certainly liked their programs, their mission was different from mine.

In retrospect, it has made a lot of sense which schools have given me interviews so far and which ones haven''t. You might be an excellent and "competitive" applicant, but if you're not a match for a certain school as judged by the adcoms when they read through your application, they won't interview you no matter how generically "good" your application looks.

 

[circulus vitios]

However, looking a little more closely, every school I've interviewed at has been a great match for my background, which is that I'm from the city, an EMT, worked in inner-city ED, extensive clinical experience, little research experience. My personal statement very strongly reflects these characteristics, and my LORs (I haven't read any of them) I would imagine reflect the info In my statement. I have a certain "mission" just like medical schools do.

My point is that schools know which kinds of student they want, and they are pretty good at only interviewing these types of students. The schools which I have been rejected from, while I certainly liked their programs, their mission was different from mine.

In retrospect, it has made a lot of sense which schools have given me interviews so far and which ones haven''t. You might be an excellent and "competitive" applicant, but if you're not a match for a certain school as judged by the adcoms when they read through your application, they won't interview you no matter how generically "good" your application looks.

What if you live in a large city and are applying to rural schools with the goal of practicing rural FM. Are rural medical schools justified in rejecting you because you're not a "good fit?" What if an interviewer genuinely believes that you want to do rural FM despite coming from a large city, while another interviewer thinks that you're clueless because you've never lived in a rural town, nor do you have years of exposure to rural medicine? How can you call the process deliberate when everything is riding on nebulous and poorly defined ideals?

 

[LizzyM]

What if you live in a large city and are applying to rural schools with the goal of practicing rural FM. Are rural medical schools justified in rejecting you because you're not a "good fit?" What if an interviewer genuinely believes that you want to do rural FM despite coming from a large city, while another interviewer thinks that you're clueless because you've never lived in a rural town, nor do you have years of exposure to rural medicine? How can you call the process deliberate when everything is riding on nebulous and poorly defined ideals?

It often comes down to the question, "has this applicant walked the walk?"

It is easy to tell a school what you think that the school wants to hear ("I want to be a family medicine doc in a rural area") but if you've never lived in a rural area, a school might wonder what makes you think that you would like that lifestyle or that you wouldn't be a fish out of water. It is legitimate for an interviewer or application reader to ask, "Where is the evidence that this applicant means what he says? Where are the activities whether volunteer or paid or just life experience that indicates that the applicant has a clue that this a well informed career decision?

Given the desperation of some rural areas, you might be able to graduate from a big city med school and do a residency in a rural area and practice in a rural area but medical schools might be hesitant to take someone who claims to have an interest in X (pediatrics, rural medicine, women's health, etc) and absolutely no activities to back up that claim.

 

[Fivo]

...

My point is that schools know which kinds of student they want, and they are pretty good at only interviewing these types of students. The schools which I have been rejected from, while I certainly liked their programs, their mission was different from mine.

...

Eh, don't all schools pretty much have the same mission just worded differently?

 

[iave9963]

Eh, don't all schools pretty much have the same mission just worded differently?

Pretty much I would think, but some schools have much more of an emphasis on certain aspects of their mission statement. EX: UC Davis mission to care for those in under served rural communities vs NYU: under served urban communities........... Actually yeah it's pretty much the same

 

[PreMedOrDead]

Who ever argued this process was random? Simply saying schools want certain MCAT and GPAs discredits such misinformation.

The true issue isn't microscalar, it's macroscalar. Why does an applicant get in to a top research school, a middle tier that he doesn't fit the mission for, and a lower tier state school, yet get rejected by eighteen other programs without even just an interview? It's not random, it's just unpredictable. Regardless of whether you follow the cookie-cutter applicant Lizzy described, you're likely going to face some humbling times.

 

[LizzyM]

Who ever argued this process was random? Simply saying schools want certain MCAT and GPAs discredits such misinformation.

The true issue isn't microscalar, it's macroscalar. Why does an applicant get in to a top research school, a middle tier that he doesn't fit the mission for, and a lower tier state school, yet get rejected by eighteen other programs without even just an interview? It's not random, it's just unpredictable. Regardless of whether you follow the cookie-cutter applicant Lizzy described, you're likely going to face some humbling times.

Very true. And it is important to keep in mind that 53% of applicants do not get admitted to any medical school. 🙁

It is Saturday and time for NCAA football so perhaps it is reasonable to repeat the cruel truth:

Pre-meds: Most of us are going pro in something other than medicine.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Med school admissions is in fact a poisson random process.

And lol at that stupid slogan.

 

[Disambiguation]

Going off of a GPA + MCAT system alone would not suffice, since schools have different levels of "toughness" and professors may treat each class with varying degrees of leniency and harshness depending on their personal stake or current situation. Professors are people, not grading machines, and this becomes an issue when their life or their research reach turbulence and it has an effect on their ability to grade objectively. This ignores several other factors such as "department student bias" in which students who take a class related to a department of their major tend to have some advantage when it comes to class due to outside of class factors. This tends to be the case more for exclusive and smaller majors that usually factor in third and fourth year of undergrad.

People who try to push the notion that grades are the most objective form of merit that can be used to determine a candidate's ability to function as a doctor are confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient. It is necessary to have the mental capacity to digest medical knowledge in order to become a doctor, but that alone does not suffice. It tends to be one of the highest bars facing applicants and the most visible, therefore some assume it is the most stringently considered factor when it comes to deciding on the final decision.

Admissions considers candidates who are expected to perform well in medical school and also have the mindset to become proficient doctors. It's why factors like a crime, DUI, and violation of academic integrity being one slip in the life of a candidate can bar even the most academically proficient. Aside from just moral integrity, being a doctor in and of itself is a fundamentally complex role that has central importance for the life of a patient. Regardless of how responsible a steward is over their own life, there is no guarantee that this will transition into effective managing of the life of another.

Many people get intimidated or frustrated by the high bar of admission that keeps many from submitting application. However, this is largely necessary for the integrity of the profession. It is taken for granted that someone who does well in Medical School will likely have the ability to match into a residency where they can act the role of a physician. For other professions, this is not true. Law School for instance faces a degree saturation issue in which the supply of JDs far exceed the demand that Big Law and any firm has for them resulting in many of them having to go private practice in a hugely competitive community.

Despite issues with the medical admissions process being stringent on some criteria, I don't believe that adcoms or amcas is intrinsically corrupt or gain any personal benefit from the admissions process. Ethical issues are usually issues that most competent pre-med applicants don't need to consider in the scope of admissions. If they do have ethical issues, then it is likely to do with them lying or misrepresenting information, but I have never heard of a medical applicant being conscientious of how to deal with an interview with a school that they know is misrepresenting themselves due to publishing fraudulent data on employment viability of graduates.

So whereas I wouldn't agree that there is a straight forward assessment of what qualities constitute a sure-fire solid performing medical school student or an infallible doctor which reflects on the decision at times being skewed to some form of perceptive bias, the decision making process itself holds some ground of well... actually trying to establish prospective doctors (but only after affirmative action).

 

[bigbird23]

I thought I'd share my thoughts after reading every one of your posts.


I am a two-time applicant having taken the mcat 3 times to only get a humble 29N on my latest effort. 3.6s/3.7cGPA as a biochemistry major.

if adcoms doubt my "motivation" for medicine, kindly see me fighting after 3 mcat re-takes
if adcoms doubt my "service" kindly check out the literally thousands of hours of service/clinical exp
if adcoms doubt my "academics", biochemistry aint easy when combined with my extracurricular s
if adcoms doubt my "personality", then offer me an interview (i've got 0 II's)

if adcoms reject me pre-interview, i demand to know WHY.

LizzyM i LOVE, LOVE, LOVE you for all the work you do here, no other person will show the dedication you have for us internet folk. but seriously you want to know what is really "inexplicable" in this process? When a candidate is rejected before even getting face time with the adcoms, and the school sends you a cheap 4 sentence email, and you call and ask how you can improve next time, and all they say is "sorry we do not give advise" THAT IS INEXPLICABLE. when they say tailor your app to the school (read our mission statement, because its sooo unique), yet dont expect any feedback from said school, that is inexplicable. when students shell out thousands hoping to land at least an interview and do not even get some feedback like, "if you focused more on this, this and that, it would make you a better fit at our school next year, etc." it is inexplicable. Feedback must be a freaking requirement, it needs to be a law. we pay money for adcoms to supposedly review our app, so when all we get at the end is a lame email, we hear "thanks for the money! good luck!", you darn right we feel like its random.

so we must apply to as schools many as we can, we have to do these cookie-cutter things just to get you to notice us, but really what you end up creating is mindless zombies...


personally i believe if you want to go to med-school you have to take a year off after ugrad and do something medically related for one year as a requirement, i bet you will see all those cookie cutters drop from your pool immediately. the school will have a more diverse, service/research/ whatever oriented applicant pool-- maybe some realize med aint for them and pursue other passions while others become even more inspired.

at the end of the day when we take hours and hours tailoring our secondaries for you, we should expect feedback.. its just common courtesy. i mean we're paying almost $100 on avg PER secondary, would a small personalized reason for our rejection be so hard to type into that rejection email? At least say, "you applied late, so the interview days were filled up".... jeezzz

disclaimer: i hope i didnt sound like i was entitled to be in med school just because i took the mcat 3 times or something arrogant like that. to be honest i had a poor mcat on my first attempt so i understand the automatic rejections, but this cycle my latest mcat/gpa is at par with the schools i applied to so I'm really frustrated when i dont know WHY i cant even get an interview this cycle. its like im yelling in the dark hoping someone hears me.

(a few schools DO give personalized feedback, to whom i am eternally grateful!! sadly most of them have much higher mcat scores than me so i had no chance but they did say other parts of my apps, including LORs, were, to quote, "solid" so that just makes me more frustrated because i dont know why the "lower" schools reject me pre-interview)

/rant

 

[occams_razor]

I thought I'd share my thoughts after reading every one of your posts.


I am a two-time applicant having taken the mcat 3 times to only get a humble 29N on my latest effort. 3.6s/3.7cGPA as a biochemistry major.

if adcoms doubt my "motivation" for medicine, kindly see me fighting after 3 mcat re-takes
if adcoms doubt my "service" kindly check out the literally thousands of hours of service/clinical exp
if adcoms doubt my "academics", biochemistry aint easy when combined with my extracurricular s
if adcoms doubt my "personality", then offer me an interview (i've got 0 II's)

if adcoms reject me pre-interview, i demand to know WHY.

LizzyM i LOVE, LOVE, LOVE you for all the work you do here, no other person will show the dedication you have for us internet folk. but seriously you want to know what is really "inexplicable" in this process? When a candidate is rejected before even getting face time with the adcoms, and the school sends you a cheap 4 sentence email, and you call and ask how you can improve next time, and all they say is "sorry we do not give advise" THAT IS INEXPLICABLE. when they say tailor your app to the school (read our mission statement, because its sooo unique), yet dont expect any feedback from said school, that is inexplicable. when students shell out thousands hoping to land at least an interview and do not even get some feedback like, "if you focused more on this, this and that, it would make you a better fit at our school next year, etc." it is inexplicable. Feedback must be a freaking requirement, it needs to be a law. we pay money for adcoms to supposedly review our app, so when all we get at the end is a lame email, we hear "thanks for the money! good luck!", you darn right we feel like its random.

so we must apply to as schools many as we can, we have to do these cookie-cutter things just to get you to notice us, but really what you end up creating is mindless zombies...


personally i believe if you want to go to med-school you have to take a year off after ugrad and do something medically related for one year as a requirement, i bet you will see all those cookie cutters drop from your pool immediately. the school will have a more diverse, service/research/ whatever oriented applicant pool-- maybe some realize med aint for them and pursue other passions while others become even more inspired.

at the end of the day when we take hours and hours tailoring our secondaries for you, we should expect feedback.. its just common courtesy. i mean we're paying almost $100 on avg PER secondary, would a small personalized reason for our rejection be so hard to type into that rejection email? At least say, "you applied late, so the interview days were filled up".... jeezzz

disclaimer: i hope i didnt sound like i was entitled to be in med school just because i took the mcat 3 times or something arrogant like that. to be honest i had a poor mcat on my first attempt so i understand the automatic rejections, but this cycle my latest mcat/gpa is at par with the schools i applied to so I'm really frustrated when i dont know WHY i cant even get an interview this cycle. its like im yelling in the dark hoping someone hears me.

(a few schools DO give personalized feedback, to whom i am eternally grateful!! sadly most of them have much higher mcat scores than me so i had no chance but they did say other parts of my apps, including LORs, were, to quote, "solid" so that just makes me more frustrated because i dont know why the "lower" schools reject me pre-interview)

/rant

I empathize with your frustration. Unfortunately this really comes down to a numbers issue. You and I have basically the opposite problem. My MCAT score is 34Q on my 1st try, but my cGPA is only 3.45 and BCPM is 3.3. My GPA is below average even though my MCAT shows I'm capable. so that's why I'm taking postbac classes to try to raise my GPA to 3.5 but it's really tough because I have so many credits. And I've got good ECs - clinical research, 170 shadowing hours, volunteering at a nursing home and a hospital, global healthcare experience through project hope, worked on an HIV/AIDS prevention project + other nonclinical volunteering, but at the end of the day I have to be very realistic about the fact that my GPA will hurt me and adcoms might not even really look at my ECs or get to know me as a person because of that

 

[LizzyM]

I thought I'd share my thoughts after reading every one of your posts.


I am a two-time applicant having taken the mcat 3 times to only get a humble 29N on my latest effort. 3.6s/3.7cGPA as a biochemistry major.

if adcoms doubt my "motivation" for medicine, kindly see me fighting after 3 mcat re-takes
if adcoms doubt my "service" kindly check out the literally thousands of hours of service/clinical exp
if adcoms doubt my "academics", biochemistry aint easy when combined with my extracurricular s
if adcoms doubt my "personality", then offer me an interview (i've got 0 II's)

if adcoms reject me pre-interview, i demand to know WHY. <snip>(a few schools DO give personalized feedback, to whom i am eternally grateful!! sadly most of them have much higher mcat scores than me so i had no chance but they did say other parts of my apps, including LORs, were, to quote, "solid" so that just makes me more frustrated because i dont know why the "lower" schools reject me pre-interview)

/rant

I don't know if my school still does this but it was offering feedback at the end of the season if the applicant didn't get in anywhere.

Do keep in mind that schools get thousands of applications and despite the hefty application fees, there just isn't the manpower to send personalized letters with information about how to strengthen one's application. (Keep in mind that the fee covers "rent and utilities" on the space occupied by the admissions office staff, furnishings, phone communications, computers, software, IT support for all those electronic documents and the software to organize it, office staff salaries & benefits, viewbooks and other promotional materials, campus visits and fairs by school promoters, refreshments and materials distributed on interview day, the costs associated with second look.)

I developed the LizzyM score to help you target your applications. In your first cycle, your MCAT was really too low for you to have a reasonable shot at admission. Sad to say, the average MCAT over all attempts is the best predictor of performance in medical school.

Academics can't be balanced with ECs; they have to be strong regardless of whatever else was going on. The MCAT has to be strong (average >30, for the top tier avg >34). If you don't have both of those two things, that's what you don't have and nothing else is going to matter because schools want to admit students who are going to do well in medical school.

There is room in medical school for less than half of all applicants. In some instances, it isn't that you aren't good, but that you aren't good enough compared with the rest of the pool.

 

[Geebeejay]

What if you live in a large city and are applying to rural schools with the goal of practicing rural FM. Are rural medical schools justified in rejecting you because you're not a "good fit?" What if an interviewer genuinely believes that you want to do rural FM despite coming from a large city, while another interviewer thinks that you're clueless because you've never lived in a rural town, nor do you have years of exposure to rural medicine? How can you call the process deliberate when everything is riding on nebulous and poorly defined ideals?

Sure they are...how can you really say you want to be a rural FM physician if you have no idea what it's like to live in a rural area? Moreover, what if there are literally thousand of applicants who HAVE lived in rural areas, and have a better idea of what it's like?

And medical schools are certainly justified in picking students who are arbitrarily better fit for their school....we as applicants are not entitled to entirely equal consideration despite relative shortcomings in our applications. A 34S applicant is not the same as every other 34S applicant. Med schools can admit whoever they want to admit, and reject whoever they want to reject based on whatever standard they want to set.

This process seems "poorly defined" only to us, because we are outsiders....I think it's a little closed-minded to think that ADCOMs don't actually follow very strict standards by which they consider interviewing candidates....afterall, they are selecting which people, out of tens of thousands of possible candidates, are going to forever represent their institution and its mission as DOCTORS and alumni of their school.

Eh, don't all schools pretty much have the same mission just worded differently?

Some schools might have similar missions, sure, but I don't agree with this blanket statement at all.

 

[Jas1360]

For the LizzyM score, do you use the sGPA or the overall GPA? Or do you use the higher of the two?

 

[LizzyM]

For the LizzyM score, do you use the sGPA or the overall GPA? Or do you use the higher of the two?

compare your overall gpa with the average overall gpa for that school. If a school publishes its average sGPA, you can compare that to your sGPA.

 

[Jas1360]

compare your overall gpa with the average overall gpa for that school. If a school publishes its average sGPA, you can compare that to your sGPA.

Thank you, I was just curious because I am one of the rare cases that has a higher sGPA than overall because of a freshman year, 10 years ago.

 

[aurora90]

compare your overall gpa with the average overall gpa for that school. If a school publishes its average sGPA, you can compare that to your sGPA.

what if your science GPA is noticeably higher?

 

[LizzyM]

what if your science GPA is noticeably higher?

Sad but true, some schools will disqualify you, or send you to the back of the queue because your total GPA is "too low". If you are lucky enough to get a pair of eyeballs on your application, a school may see your age, breakdown of gpa by academic year, sGPA and other information that suggests that you will be a strong student despite a poor showing 10 years ago. If you can manage to get a LOR sent directly to the school or a telephone call directly to the admissions office from someone who knows you well and who has a connection to the school (faculty member, alumnus, etc) it can help you get noticed and then the rest is up to you.

 

[CarlisleBeans]

earning an excellent gpa and scoring very well on the MCAT are the two greatest predictors of success as a medical school applicant.

But are they the greatest predictors of success as a physician?

 

[aspiring20]

Sad but true, some schools will disqualify you, or send you to the back of the queue because your total GPA is "too low". If you are lucky enough to get a pair of eyeballs on your application, a school may see your age, breakdown of gpa by academic year, sGPA and other information that suggests that you will be a strong student despite a poor showing 10 years ago. If you can manage to get a LOR sent directly to the school or a telephone call directly to the admissions office from someone who knows you well and who has a connection to the school (faculty member, alumnus, etc) it can help you get noticed and then the rest is up to you.

since most schools screen based on overall GPA and you use your LizzyM formula based on overall GPA, does it mean that it is more important than science GPA? afterall, cGPA includes all courses, include BCPM courses. also, high mcat can overcome a low sGPA remarkably well given the sGPA isn't abysmally low, aka under a 3.0

is that a fair assumption?

 

[aurora90]

Sad but true, some schools will disqualify you, or send you to the back of the queue because your total GPA is "too low". If you are lucky enough to get a pair of eyeballs on your application, a school may see your age, breakdown of gpa by academic year, sGPA and other information that suggests that you will be a strong student despite a poor showing 10 years ago. If you can manage to get a LOR sent directly to the school or a telephone call directly to the admissions office from someone who knows you well and who has a connection to the school (faculty member, alumnus, etc) it can help you get noticed and then the rest is up to you.

ah I see. when you say some schools may disqualify you/send your app to the back of the queue if your total GPA is "too low", what is considered too low? would a total GPA of ~3.46 be too low and result in my app not getting looked at closely even if my science GPA is higher?

 

[aspiring20]

ah I see. when you say some schools may disqualify you/send your app to the back of the queue if your total GPA is "too low", what is considered too low? would a total GPA of ~3.46 be too low and result in my app not getting looked at closely even if my science GPA is higher?

maybe it's different at top 10 places, but 3.46 cGPA is not too low by any stretch of your imagination. the fact that your sGPA is even higher is even better

with a competitive MCAT score, your numbers shouldn't present any problems, even at some of the "Better" schools.

if the lowest component of your GPA is over a 3.4...you are in fairly great shape IF you have a good MCAT and robust ECs

this might be different at top 10 places, but you get my drift

 

[LizzyM]

ah I see. when you say some schools may disqualify you/send your app to the back of the queue if your total GPA is "too low", what is considered too low? would a total GPA of ~3.46 be too low and result in my app not getting looked at closely even if my science GPA is higher?

Each of 150+ medical schools has its own definition of "too low". Take a look at the MSAR and the 10th percentile... that's going to tell you where the bottom 9-20 people in the class fell (and they may be exceptional cases in terms of life experiences, etc).

At my school every application gets at least one pair of eyes but only strong get three pairs. Still, there are those who are pulled from the "too low" bin for an interview because of extraordinary circumstances.

since most schools screen based on overall GPA and you use your LizzyM formula based on overall GPA, does it mean that it is more important than science GPA? afterall, cGPA includes all courses, include BCPM courses. also, high mcat can overcome a low sGPA remarkably well given the sGPA isn't abysmally low, aka under a 3.0

is that a fair assumption?

I used overall GPA because it is published by every school. Ideally, one uses both. It might be reasonable to use (sGPA(10)+GPA(10) + 2(MCAT)) /2 for a reasonable approximation of factoring in both science gpa and total gpa and giving a little more weight to science gpa (because it is included in both total and sGPA ).

You'd think that an excellent MCAT could overcome a relatively low sGPA but I have not seen adcom members think that way. Some adcom members believe that good test takers with good prep can do well whereas the grading for science courses requires good time management and good work ethic day after day for years.

What is a really bad sGPA depends by the school. The adcom members at my school seem horrified by sGPA < 3.5 but that isn't surprising considering that it is a top tier school.

 

[aspiring20]

Each of 150+ medical schools has its own definition of "too low". Take a look at the MSAR and the 10th percentile... that's going to tell you where the bottom 9-20 people in the class fell (and they may be exceptional cases in terms of life experiences, etc).

At my school every application gets at least one pair of eyes but only strong get three pairs. Still, there are those who are pulled from the "too low" bin for an interview because of extraordinary circumstances.



I used overall GPA because it is published by every school. Ideally, one uses both. It might be reasonable to use (sGPA(10)+GPA(10) + 2(MCAT)) /2 for a reasonable approximation of factoring in both science gpa and total gpa and giving a little more weight to science gpa (because it is included in both total and sGPA ).

You'd think that an excellent MCAT could overcome a relatively low sGPA but I have not seen adcom members think that way. Some adcom members believe that good test takers with good prep can do well whereas the grading for science courses requires good time management and good work ethic day after day for years.

What is a really bad sGPA depends by the school. The adcom members at my school seem horrified by sGPA < 3.5 but that isn't surprising considering that it is a top tier school.

does this mean that as long as the final sum reaches an acceptable level at a school, that it doesnt matter as much which component is higher?

for instance, a 3.6 and 30 has a lower "formula score" than a 3.0 and 38. which will be looked at more favorably?

i understand that numbers is the most important aspect at just about all schools. but even under the "numbers category" there are MCAT, cGPA, and sGPA, and it is possible to look pretty impressive in an overall numbers manner while having one component that's low.

 

[Nuel]

This is funny because some members of admissions committees have told me there's some randomness to the process. Further, this thread doesn't say anything we haven't heard before.

 

[Geebeejay]

This is funny because some members of admissions committees have told me there's some randomness to the process. Further, this thread doesn't say anything we haven't heard before.

"some randomness" is far different than "entirely random" and "poorly defined".

 

[LizzyM]

Show me someone with a 3.0/38 and I'll show you someone who, most likely, has an interesting story. That is a very rare combination. In a three year period 2009-2011 there were only 225 applicants with that combination. (36-38 and 3.0 to 3.19). Of those, 44% were admitted.


A more common 3.6/30 has a slightly better chance of admission, I'd estimate it at about 54% out of >7,000 applicants

So an unusual 68 is weaker than a more common 66. For 99% of applicants, the LizzyM score is a good predictor of the likelihood of being selected for interview somewhere if you apply to at least 15 schools in your range.

 

[Josh7]

Show me someone with a 3.0/38 and I'll show you someone who, most likely, has an interesting story. That is a very rare combination. In a three year period 2009-2011 there were only 225 applicants with that combination. (36-38 and 3.0 to 3.19). Of those, 44% were admitted.


A more common 3.6/30 has a slightly better chance of admission, I'd estimate it at about 54% out of >7,000 applicants

So an unusual 68 is weaker than a more common 66. For 99% of applicants, the LizzyM score is a good predictor of the likelihood of being selected for interview somewhere if you apply to at least 15 schools in your range.

Just a guess but I'd say that a lot of the people who scored a 38 on their MCAT with a 3.0-3.19 GPA were non-tradition students who had a different mindset than during their college years

 

[squat]

I actually think this is where being a older/working world applicant gives one a good perspective. This is how I read Lizzy's post:

"...that you almost certainly will get into 1 of the 125+ allopathic medical schools in the country (applying broadly)."

That doesn't seem least bit random to me. And by no means is it trivial to achieve all of the above. But the further you are from that ideal the less your certain is that certainty. Simple.

Ah, I get it. So the randomness will disappear if I apply to 125+ schools. Of course, there's just a few problems with that plan, but if you feel good with it, more power to you.

 

[Tatastrophy]

From my experience as an applicant, med student interviewer and admissions committee member, I'd have to say that the decision who to invite for interviews and whom to reject without one is the most arbitrary one. Mostly stems from the fact that, whether we like it or not-none of us are special snowflakes, there are 100s of applications with identical stats to each of our applications. There are 100s of applicants whose stories sound exactly like yours and mine and your neighbor's. At some point, they just have to make a call and not look back. Sucks to be the applicant that gets rejected preinterview with no good reason but its not personal, it isn't a statement about your abilities, it is just a product of a highly competitive process. And yes, I've been there, Vandy, I am looking at you!

From then on, while it might still appear arbitrary from outside, the process is very goal oriented. Schools have an image hypothetical student in mind: interests, accomplishments, experiences, etc. Their goal is to fill their class with as many people who represent their valued attributes as possible. You can try to fake it but gotta say that there are many layers on which your scheme may be caught and even if you are accepted, you are judged for your dishonesty by those aware. Nobody is going to go on a vendetta against you but I think it ends up playing against you in the long run anyway because nobody expects better of you, nobody pushes you to be better than that. We all need someone to believe that we can do better to reach our potentials. Anyways, the interview is all about getting more info on whether the applicant has the goods were after, and just we are clear: there are many very different goods that each school is after, you don't necessarily have to be a 10x published 1st author with 3 PhDs, supervisor of 3 free clinics, doing 3 college sports, fight jet pilot who volunteers at ER 20 hours a week.....just be truly passionate about one or two things that you do and don't be an a__ hole to ANYBODY at your interview.

From there, the admissions committee members typically get your full file (including notes regarding how you interact with admissions staff on the phone, again, don't be a jerk). We read through it and decide whether we think you belong in the incoming class. For me that constitutes several things (others may have different thought process): Do I like the way this person appears on paper, is the impression on interviewers consistent (if I am not 100% sold one way or the other, I pay super close attention to your PS+ secondaries to get a better understanding of how you may think/interact with others)? How are their academics( I check non prereqs too to see if you pursued some consistent interests or just filled your schedule with fluff)? Does this applicant seem mature enough to be ready to make life/death decisions in 5 or so years (and helping to do the same in 3!)? Do they seem like the people who seem to thrive at my school (will not necessarily change my score but I may feel I should make a comment on the fit)?

I don't know if every committee member works in the similar way at getting their final score, but I do know that my score has been consistently in line with members of the committee who have been doing this for decades. Trust me, this is not arbitrary. While I did not believe so at the time, I've come to see tangible evidence that the schools I was rejected from after interviews were not places where I would ever thrive as a student. I firmly believe I am where I belong and that is the entirety of intent behind the admissions process: getting great students to places where they are most likely to grow into great doctors. I know I wrote a wall of text but I felt that this really needed to be said in a way that a 21 year old can't simply dismiss as speculation. Chin up guys, believe it or not, you don't even want to be at the schools that rejected you for anything other than academics (in cases where academics are concerned, the committee's hands may be simply tied, I recommend talking to someone regarding your options of improving your chances next time around).

Anyways, I hope this helps someone. Good Luck with the rest of your application season!

 

[Barcu]

"some randomness" is far different than "entirely random" and "poorly defined".

Exactly. The most common phrase thrown around is that the process is a "crapshoot." That is definitely not true. Sure, there is some luck and some randomness involved, but there are many things (that are completely within your control) that you can do to put yourself into position for an acceptance.

 

[aspiring20]

From my experience as an applicant, med student interviewer and admissions committee member, I'd have to say that the decision who to invite for interviews and whom to reject without one is the most arbitrary one. Mostly stems from the fact that, whether we like it or not-none of us are special snowflakes, there are 100s of applications with identical stats to each of our applications. There are 100s of applicants whose stories sound exactly like yours and mine and your neighbor's. At some point, they just have to make a call and not look back. Sucks to be the applicant that gets rejected preinterview with no good reason but its not personal, it isn't a statement about your abilities, it is just a product of a highly competitive process. And yes, I've been there, Vandy, I am looking at you!

From then on, while it might still appear arbitrary from outside, the process is very goal oriented. Schools have an image hypothetical student in mind: interests, accomplishments, experiences, etc. Their goal is to fill their class with as many people who represent their valued attributes as possible. You can try to fake it but gotta say that there are many layers on which your scheme may be caught and even if you are accepted, you are judged for your dishonesty by those aware. Nobody is going to go on a vendetta against you but I think it ends up playing against you in the long run anyway because nobody expects better of you, nobody pushes you to be better than that. We all need someone to believe that we can do better to reach our potentials. Anyways, the interview is all about getting more info on whether the applicant has the goods were after, and just we are clear: there are many very different goods that each school is after, you don't necessarily have to be a 10x published 1st author with 3 PhDs, supervisor of 3 free clinics, doing 3 college sports, fight jet pilot who volunteers at ER 20 hours a week.....just be truly passionate about one or two things that you do and don't be an a__ hole to ANYBODY at your interview.

From there, the admissions committee members typically get your full file (including notes regarding how you interact with admissions staff on the phone, again, don't be a jerk). We read through it and decide whether we think you belong in the incoming class. For me that constitutes several things (others may have different thought process): Do I like the way this person appears on paper, is the impression on interviewers consistent (if I am not 100% sold one way or the other, I pay super close attention to your PS+ secondaries to get a better understanding of how you may think/interact with others)? How are their academics( I check non prereqs too to see if you pursued some consistent interests or just filled your schedule with fluff)? Does this applicant seem mature enough to be ready to make life/death decisions in 5 or so years (and helping to do the same in 3!)? Do they seem like the people who seem to thrive at my school (will not necessarily change my score but I may feel I should make a comment on the fit)?

I don't know if every committee member works in the similar way at getting their final score, but I do know that my score has been consistently in line with members of the committee who have been doing this for decades. Trust me, this is not arbitrary. While I did not believe so at the time, I've come to see tangible evidence that the schools I was rejected from after interviews were not places where I would ever thrive as a student. I firmly believe I am where I belong and that is the entirety of intent behind the admissions process: getting great students to places where they are most likely to grow into great doctors. I know I wrote a wall of text but I felt that this really needed to be said in a way that a 21 year old can't simply dismiss as speculation. Chin up guys, believe it or not, you don't even want to be at the schools that rejected you for anything other than academics (in cases where academics are concerned, the committee's hands may be simply tied, I recommend talking to someone regarding your options of improving your chances next time around).

Anyways, I hope this helps someone. Good Luck with the rest of your application season!

i am curious as to how much decision power a medical student interviewer has. does he/she simply conducts interviews, or actually gets to have a vote in whether or not to admit someone?

what if a medical student interviewed a super close friend he/she had from undergrad, wouldn't that compromise the integrity and fairness of the process?

what are some of the mechanisms in place to ensure that personal bias from medical student interviewers is minimized to the greatest extent possible?

 

[Jas1360]

i am curious as to how much decision power a medical student interviewer has. does he/she simply conducts interviews, or actually gets to have a vote in whether or not to admit someone?

what if a medical student interviewed a super close friend he/she had from undergrad, wouldn't that compromise the integrity and fairness of the process?

what are some of the mechanisms in place to ensure that personal bias from medical student interviewers is minimized to the greatest extent possible?

At some schools, medical student interviewers are also on the committee. In that case, they have a vote just like everyone else. In some places, not every interviewer is also on the committee. In that case, the interviewers fill out a review form and they are done. Either way, I do not know of a school who allows someone to interview a person they know. I have heard of someone realizing they know the person when they go to interview, in that case they just change up the interviewer, to avoid an unfair bias.

 

[lobo.solo]

From my experience as an applicant, med student interviewer and admissions committee member, I'd have to say that the decision who to invite for interviews and whom to reject without one is the most arbitrary one. Mostly stems from the fact that, whether we like it or not-none of us are special snowflakes, there are 100s of applications with identical stats to each of our applications. There are 100s of applicants whose stories sound exactly like yours and mine and your neighbor's. At some point, they just have to make a call and not look back. Sucks to be the applicant that gets rejected preinterview with no good reason but its not personal, it isn't a statement about your abilities, it is just a product of a highly competitive process. And yes, I've been there, Vandy, I am looking at you!

From then on, while it might still appear arbitrary from outside, the process is very goal oriented. Schools have an image hypothetical student in mind: interests, accomplishments, experiences, etc. Their goal is to fill their class with as many people who represent their valued attributes as possible. You can try to fake it but gotta say that there are many layers on which your scheme may be caught and even if you are accepted, you are judged for your dishonesty by those aware. Nobody is going to go on a vendetta against you but I think it ends up playing against you in the long run anyway because nobody expects better of you, nobody pushes you to be better than that. We all need someone to believe that we can do better to reach our potentials. Anyways, the interview is all about getting more info on whether the applicant has the goods were after, and just we are clear: there are many very different goods that each school is after, you don't necessarily have to be a 10x published 1st author with 3 PhDs, supervisor of 3 free clinics, doing 3 college sports, fight jet pilot who volunteers at ER 20 hours a week.....just be truly passionate about one or two things that you do and don't be an a__ hole to ANYBODY at your interview.

From there, the admissions committee members typically get your full file (including notes regarding how you interact with admissions staff on the phone, again, don't be a jerk). We read through it and decide whether we think you belong in the incoming class. For me that constitutes several things (others may have different thought process): Do I like the way this person appears on paper, is the impression on interviewers consistent (if I am not 100% sold one way or the other, I pay super close attention to your PS+ secondaries to get a better understanding of how you may think/interact with others)? How are their academics( I check non prereqs too to see if you pursued some consistent interests or just filled your schedule with fluff)? Does this applicant seem mature enough to be ready to make life/death decisions in 5 or so years (and helping to do the same in 3!)? Do they seem like the people who seem to thrive at my school (will not necessarily change my score but I may feel I should make a comment on the fit)?

I don't know if every committee member works in the similar way at getting their final score, but I do know that my score has been consistently in line with members of the committee who have been doing this for decades. Trust me, this is not arbitrary. While I did not believe so at the time, I've come to see tangible evidence that the schools I was rejected from after interviews were not places where I would ever thrive as a student. I firmly believe I am where I belong and that is the entirety of intent behind the admissions process: getting great students to places where they are most likely to grow into great doctors. I know I wrote a wall of text but I felt that this really needed to be said in a way that a 21 year old can't simply dismiss as speculation. Chin up guys, believe it or not, you don't even want to be at the schools that rejected you for anything other than academics (in cases where academics are concerned, the committee's hands may be simply tied, I recommend talking to someone regarding your options of improving your chances next time around).

Anyways, I hope this helps someone. Good Luck with the rest of your application season!

Thanks, this is helpful!!!

 

[Tatastrophy]

i am curious as to how much decision power a medical student interviewer has. does he/she simply conducts interviews, or actually gets to have a vote in whether or not to admit someone?

what if a medical student interviewed a super close friend he/she had from undergrad, wouldn't that compromise the integrity and fairness of the process?

what are some of the mechanisms in place to ensure that personal bias from medical student interviewers is minimized to the greatest extent possible?

Student interviewer at my school talks to the applicant with the goal of finding out whether the applicant is a person who would thrive in the setting, a few specific questions to flesh out and put personality to go with the activities on the application as well as a double check to make sure the applicant is truthful. They write a report that will be part of the final file for the applicant, they are asked whether they think this person would be a good addition. This does not count as a vote, only as an indicator of the impression that the applicant left. That is it.

we frequently have students interview their friends with the belief that in most situations "birds of feather, flock together" and if the student is a good fit, the fact that the applicant is a friend may be a good indication that they are too. There's less awkwardness in initiating conversation but it is still goal directed since there are specific concerns on the report that must be addressed. It is not always a perfect process but I don't think personal bias ends up causing any tension in the decision making process. It's our job to take the whole file into consideration.


EDIT: faculty/committee member interviewer may not interview someone they know, period. Personally, I would also make sure not to review the file myself nor to let the rest of the committee know that it is someone I know personally, so as not to put undue pressure on them.

 

[aspiring20]

At some schools, medical student interviewers are also on the committee. In that case, they have a vote just like everyone else. In some places, not every interviewer is also on the committee. In that case, the interviewers fill out a review form and they are done. Either way, I do not know of a school who allows someone to interview a person they know. I have heard of someone realizing they know the person when they go to interview, in that case they just change up the interviewer, to avoid an unfair bias.

so it is solely dependent on the medical student interviewer to walk away if she/he knows the applicant and isn't in a position to be completely neutral

 

[aspiring20]

Student interviewer at my school talks to the applicant with the goal of finding out whether the applicant is a person who would thrive in the setting, a few specific questions to flesh out and put personality to go with the activities on the application as well as a double check to make sure the applicant is truthful. They write a report that will be part of the final file for the applicant, they are asked whether they think this person would be a good addition. This does not count as a vote, only as an indicator of the impression that the applicant left. That is it.

we frequently have students interview their friends with the belief that in most situations "birds of feather, flock together" and if the student is a good fit, the fact that the applicant is a friend may be a good indication that they are too. There's less awkwardness in initiating conversation but it is still goal directed since there are specific concerns on the report that must be addressed. It is not always a perfect process but I don't think personal bias ends up causing any tension in the decision making process. It's our job to take the whole file into consideration.

wow, never heard of this policy.

 

[Tatastrophy]

wow, never heard of this policy.

It isn't official. But honestly, with how informal the student interview is (at my school, other places are different) it is a little naive to pretend that there isn't millions of random sources of bias coming from every direction. Besides, interviewers for the day are selected at random, so it isn't something that can be planned ahead of time. I have never seen a student interviewer report that was anything less than professional and demonstrative of school's best interest.

 

[WorksInProgress]

Ah, I get it. So the randomness will disappear if I apply to 125+ schools. Of course, there's just a few problems with that plan, but if you feel good with it, more power to you.

::Checks inbox::
::Sees 18 interview invites, including 6 of the top 10::

Yeah, I feel pretty good with it.

And no, I didn't interpret applying broadly as applying to every school.

 

[jcaptian]

From my experience as an applicant, med student interviewer and admissions committee member, I'd have to say that the decision who to invite for interviews and whom to reject without one is the most arbitrary one. Mostly stems from the fact that, whether we like it or not-none of us are special snowflakes, there are 100s of applications with identical stats to each of our applications. There are 100s of applicants whose stories sound exactly like yours and mine and your neighbor's. At some point, they just have to make a call and not look back. Sucks to be the applicant that gets rejected preinterview with no good reason but its not personal, it isn't a statement about your abilities, it is just a product of a highly competitive process. And yes, I've been there, Vandy, I am looking at you!

From then on, while it might still appear arbitrary from outside, the process is very goal oriented. Schools have an image hypothetical student in mind: interests, accomplishments, experiences, etc. Their goal is to fill their class with as many people who represent their valued attributes as possible. You can try to fake it but gotta say that there are many layers on which your scheme may be caught and even if you are accepted, you are judged for your dishonesty by those aware. Nobody is going to go on a vendetta against you but I think it ends up playing against you in the long run anyway because nobody expects better of you, nobody pushes you to be better than that. We all need someone to believe that we can do better to reach our potentials. Anyways, the interview is all about getting more info on whether the applicant has the goods were after, and just we are clear: there are many very different goods that each school is after, you don't necessarily have to be a 10x published 1st author with 3 PhDs, supervisor of 3 free clinics, doing 3 college sports, fight jet pilot who volunteers at ER 20 hours a week.....just be truly passionate about one or two things that you do and don't be an a__ hole to ANYBODY at your interview.

From there, the admissions committee members typically get your full file (including notes regarding how you interact with admissions staff on the phone, again, don't be a jerk). We read through it and decide whether we think you belong in the incoming class. For me that constitutes several things (others may have different thought process): Do I like the way this person appears on paper, is the impression on interviewers consistent (if I am not 100% sold one way or the other, I pay super close attention to your PS+ secondaries to get a better understanding of how you may think/interact with others)? How are their academics( I check non prereqs too to see if you pursued some consistent interests or just filled your schedule with fluff)? Does this applicant seem mature enough to be ready to make life/death decisions in 5 or so years (and helping to do the same in 3!)? Do they seem like the people who seem to thrive at my school (will not necessarily change my score but I may feel I should make a comment on the fit)?

I don't know if every committee member works in the similar way at getting their final score, but I do know that my score has been consistently in line with members of the committee who have been doing this for decades. Trust me, this is not arbitrary. While I did not believe so at the time, I've come to see tangible evidence that the schools I was rejected from after interviews were not places where I would ever thrive as a student. I firmly believe I am where I belong and that is the entirety of intent behind the admissions process: getting great students to places where they are most likely to grow into great doctors. I know I wrote a wall of text but I felt that this really needed to be said in a way that a 21 year old can't simply dismiss as speculation. Chin up guys, believe it or not, you don't even want to be at the schools that rejected you for anything other than academics (in cases where academics are concerned, the committee's hands may be simply tied, I recommend talking to someone regarding your options of improving your chances next time around).

Anyways, I hope this helps someone. Good Luck with the rest of your application season!

Wow great insight Tatastrophy! Thank you so much!