Are there people with decent stats who *NEVER* eventually got into med school

[NFkappaB]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi everyone,

I realize that getting into medical school is never a guarantee, and there there are thousands of applicants each year with decent stats who don't get an offer of acceptance.

However, I'm interested in knowing are there people with decent stats and ECs like 3.6 GPA, 30 MCAT, who NEVER got into medicine despite several cycles of reapplying broadly? In which, they gave up hope for medicine and pursued something else?

Thanks everyone, I'm looking to give a student of mine hope that "persistance pays off" after she got rejected past cycle and is afriad of applying again.


*** Assuming that this applicant applies in a timely manner, has good LORs, and does not have any Institutional Action or Criminal record...

 

[Electronegative]

The only way I can think of someone with those stats being rejected is if they applied late, did not apply 10-15+ schools, or is a bad interviewer. If some one with those stats applies like 20 schools I think he/she should get at least few waitlists or even an acceptance.

EN

 

[Catalystik]

A Letter of Recommendation that raises a troubling issue could also be enough of a red flag to sink an application. Applying mainly to schools out of her stats range (ie, too safe or too reachy) is another potential problem.

You might suggest to your mentee that she call for a phone appointment with deans of a few schools that rejected her to get input on what she might improve in her application to be a better candidate.

 

[drizzt3117]

A DUI would do the trick nicely too.

 

[Mbeas]

A DUI would do the trick nicely too.

Really? seems like a harsh punishment. its understandable though, i suppose.

 

[drizzt3117]

Really? seems like a harsh punishment. its understandable though, i suppose.

Why would a med school take a chance on someone with borderline stats and a lack of judgment? I'm not being judgmental, most of us have been there at one pt or another, but getting caught means you're either profoundly unlucky or do it all the time. There was a study somewhere that was self-reported that said that ppl getting a DUI had driven drunk an average of 50 times before bring caught.

 

[softmed]

Are there people with decent stats who never get accepted? Yes. But probably only if they don't improve their applications significantly in between cycles.

-apply early
-write the personal statement in the first half of the year, the earlier the better (do it before June)
-grad school can help (contrary to popular belief)
-more volunteer work can help
-improvement in GPA or MCAT can help

Applying late can kill a decent application.

 

[venacontracta]

Applying mainly to schools out of her stats range (ie, too safe or too reachy) is another potential problem.

Is there any way to successfully mitigate the harm that having too high stats for a school can have (as you put it, appying to a "too safe" school)? e.g. by writing letters of interest?

 

[drizzt3117]

Is there any way to successfully mitigate the harm that having too high stats for a school can have (as you put it, appying to a "too safe" school)? e.g. by writing letters of interest?

having ties to the area or school or state. Letters of interest are such bs.

 

[NFkappaB]

Hi all,

Please lets assume that this applicant applies in a timely manner, has decent LORs, does not have any institutional actions or any criminal record.......

In other words, has any "average joes" with a 3.6 GPA, 30 MCAT, regular volunteering, shadowing, research....ever NEVER got into medicine taking into account the points above.

 

[chman]

having ties to the area or school or state. Letters of interest are such bs.

I really believe that the only thing that can repair this is time and dedication to redeeming yourself.

I was a stupid teenager, and got arrested twice for misdemeanor offenses when I was 14. I'm 24 now and hopping that the ten years of being a better citizen and my community service will show that my judgment is no longer an issue. But you're right, it don't help at all, especially if it was recent. People can be very book smart and lack certain common sense which is obviously essential to success as a physician.

 

[drizzt3117]

Hi all,

Please lets assume that this applicant applies in a timely manner, has decent LORs, does not have any institutional actions or any criminal record.......

In other words, has any "average joes" with a 3.6 GPA, 30 MCAT, regular volunteering, shadowing, research....ever NEVER got into medicine taking into account the points above.

Yes obviously you can not get in even after infinite cycles. If you're an average applicant you have a 45% chance to get in. After two years you have somewhat less than 70 and after three somewhat less than 80 not taking the shelf-life argument into consideration. It's fairly obvious that number will never reach 100%.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

Why would a med school take a chance on someone with borderline stats and a lack of judgment? I'm not being judgmental, most of us have been there at one pt or another, but getting caught means you're either profoundly unlucky or do it all the time. There was a study somewhere that was self-reported that said that ppl getting a DUI had driven drunk an average of 50 times before bring caught.

Because the medical school is taking chances on a whole bunch of people that have driven drunk many times and not been caught, that's why. Because of the significant prevalence of people driving drunk without being caught, it makes someone's arrest record useless for evaluating someone's "irresponsibility."

Eliminating someone from contention simply because of a DUI conviction is just plain stupid. I don't doubt that medical schools do it, but I fail to see what they're accomplishing by doing so. Seeing how a significant proportion of my fellow med students drive after consuming alcohol, they've done a poor job, expectedly, of screening out such irresponsible individuals.

 

[muhali3]

Hi all,

Please lets assume that this applicant applies in a timely manner, has decent LORs, does not have any institutional actions or any criminal record.......

In other words, has any "average joes" with a 3.6 GPA, 30 MCAT, regular volunteering, shadowing, research....ever NEVER got into medicine taking into account the points above.

yes, even above-average joes like my bro-in-law from Duke, with a 3.7 GPA and 34 MCAT did not get into US MD after three application cycles and so is now going to the Caribbean.

But there really are no average joes, I would say the average applicant has some type of deficiency in their application but compensates for it in some other area. Having a 3.65 GPA, 30 MCAT, long-term volunteering, shadowing, research, and good LORs is actually above average.

Really small things can make or break an acceptance, such as having a PS describing bad reasons for going into medicine or having an ego during the interview.

 

[chman]

yes, even above-average joes like my bro-in-law from Duke, with a 3.7 GPA and 34 MCAT did not get into US MD after three application cycles and so is now going to the Caribbean.

But there really are no average joes, I would say the average applicant has some type of deficiency in their application but compensates for it in some other area. Having a 3.65 GPA, 30 MCAT, long-term volunteering, shadowing, research, and good LORs is actually above average.

Really small things can make or break an acceptance, such as having a PS describing bad reasons for going into medicine or having an ego during the interview.

Why would he not apply DO? I will never understand this.

 

[NFkappaB]

yes, even above-average joes like my bro-in-law from Duke, with a 3.7 GPA and 34 MCAT did not get into US MD after three application cycles and so is now going to the Caribbean.

But there really are no average joes, I would say the average applicant has some type of deficiency in their application but compensates for it in some other area. Having a 3.65 GPA, 30 MCAT, long-term volunteering, shadowing, research, and good LORs is actually above average.

Really small things can make or break an acceptance, such as having a PS describing bad reasons for going into medicine or having an ego during the interview.

a 3.7 GPA and 34 MCAT without ANY acceptances after 3 cycles? That's quite remarkable - thats a LizzyM score of 71, competitive for almost any schools in U.S.

Is there a major deficiency he had that prevented him from getting in?

Also, going to Carribean without going after D.O. shows a major lack of judgement....

 

[drizzt3117]

Because the medical school is taking chances on a whole bunch of people that have driven drunk many times and not been caught, that's why. Because of the significant prevalence of people driving drunk without being caught, it makes someone's arrest record useless for evaluating someone's "irresponsibility."

This is simply statistics. If we believe the study, people who get caught, on average have driven drunk a lot. The people who haven't been convicted may have as well, and the study didn't address this, but since this group includes people who don't drink at all, or don't get drunk, it seems likely the number would be lower. It's not a system to screen out anyone who has ever driven drunk, clearly.

Eliminating someone from contention simply because of a DUI conviction is just plain stupid. I don't doubt that medical schools do it, but I fail to see what they're accomplishing by doing so. Seeing how a significant proportion of my fellow med students drive after consuming alcohol, they've done a poor job, expectedly, of screening out such irresponsible individuals.

again, it's just a numbers game. The other issue is licenture and this is state dependent. Med schools don't want to invest money in someone who can't be licensed.

 

[muhali3]

a 3.7 GPA and 34 MCAT without ANY acceptances after 3 cycles? That's quite remarkable - thats a LizzyM score of 71, competitive for almost any schools in U.S.

Is there a major deficiency he had that prevented him from getting in?

Also, going to Carribean without going after D.O. shows a major lack of judgement....

Well, he did retake his MCAT and get a 31 the second time. Otherwise all his ECs were near perfect, and he did play some sports so he did have some unique interests in his application too. Maybe it was his LORs, PS, or interviewing skills that got him rejected but I know him personally and don't see anything glaringly wrong with him.

 

[NFkappaB]

Well, he did retake his MCAT and get a 31 the second time. Otherwise all his ECs were near perfect, and he did play some sports so he did have some unique interests in his application too. Maybe it was his LORs, PS, or interviewing skills that got him rejected but I know him personally and don't see anything glaringly wrong with him.

1). Retook a 34 MCAT with a 3.7 GPA + excellent ECs?

2). Went to the Caribbean without even applying to D.O. schools?


Something is wrong with your brother-in-law that you are not sharing with us....

 

[chman]

again, it's just a numbers game. The other issue is licenture and this is state dependent. Med schools don't want to invest money in someone who can't be licensed

.[/QUOTE]

This is rarely a DUI, or any misdemeanor though. Crimes of a violent nature, fraud, sexual, or against the elderly are the ones they are worried about for licensing.

I truly get both sides of the debate. On one hand it is wrong to punish someone for the rest of their lives for a mistake. People do change, and for some people this could be the situation that encourages them to change their life. On the other, there are obviously plenty of qualified applicants that have made the right decisions and are not any kind of a gamble.

 

[drizzt3117]

A kid that was shadowing my dad is on his 4th cycle waiting on a few waitlists. He has a 3.65/35 from wash u. His sin was turning down an acceptance his first cycle from morehouse. He got interviews at harvard, Columbia, Hopkins, and wash u the first time around...

 

[venacontracta]

2). Went to the Caribbean without even applying to D.O. schools?

I think this is common behavior outside of the SDN-using population.

 

[muhali3]

1). Retook a 34 MCAT with a 3.7 GPA + excellent ECs?

2). Went to the Caribbean without even applying to D.O. schools?


Something is wrong with your brother-in-law that you are not sharing with us....

I'm not trolling. Most people I know think Caribbean MD is better than DO, simply because they haven't researched what DO is and think it is psuedoscience. He retook the MCAT because he thought it was too low for high-ranking research schools. I was looking at some of the schools he applied to and I think one problem was that he applied to schools that were either really high-tier or low-tier and not a lot in between. So for the high-tier schools he wasn't qualified enough and the low-tier schools didn't think he would matriculate (imo). That's why I think he didn't do so well. I think just knowing all the intricacies of the application process is of tremendous importance, because even really good applicants can fail to get an acceptance if they apply too late or aren't prepared for the interview.

and yeah his ECs were pretty good...everything that is recommended he had...a high amount of clinical xp, 2 yrs research, 80+ hours shadowing, and many other "pre-med ECs". The only non "pre-med ECs" he had was 2 yrs of basketball and a few months on a dance team, but I believe that is above average compared to most applicants.

 

[drizzt3117]

that's a bunch of crap about lower tier schools not thinking he'd matriculate. 3.7/34 isn't blowing anyone's doors off.

I'm not trolling. Most people I know think Caribbean MD is better than DO, simply because they haven't researched what DO is and think it is psuedoscience. He retook the MCAT because he thought it was too low for high-ranking research schools. I was looking at some of the schools he applied to and I think one problem was that he applied to schools that were either really high-tier or low-tier and not a lot in between. So for the high-tier schools he wasn't qualified enough and the low-tier schools didn't think he would matriculate (imo). That's why I think he didn't do so well. I think just knowing all the intricacies of the application process is of tremendous importance, because even really good applicants can fail to get an acceptance if they apply too late or aren't prepared for the interview.

and yeah his ECs were pretty good...everything that is recommended he had...a high amount of clinical xp, 2 yrs research, 80+ hours shadowing, and many other "pre-med ECs". The only non "pre-med ECs" he had was 2 yrs of basketball and a few months on a dance team, but I believe that is above average compared to most applicants.

 

[JJMrK]

Hi all,

Please lets assume that this applicant applies in a timely manner, has decent LORs, does not have any institutional actions or any criminal record.......

In other words, has any "average joes" with a 3.6 GPA, 30 MCAT, regular volunteering, shadowing, research....ever NEVER got into medicine taking into account the points above.

Sure. Poor personal statement, poor essays, poor interviewing skills, too few schools applied to, too many reach schools, etc.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

This is simply statistics. If we believe the study, people who get caught, on average have driven drunk a lot. The people who haven't been convicted may have as well, and the study didn't address this, but since this group includes people who don't drink at all, or don't get drunk, it seems likely the number would be lower. It's not a system to screen out anyone who has ever driven drunk, clearly.

Precisely, and that is why it's an arbitrary distinction and it makes no sense to use it in the admissions process. You have one person who has been caught and has a DUI on his record, and you have another who has driven drunk yet has not been caught. The school gives preference to the latter, while rejecting the former, yet both individuals are essentially equivalent. It makes no sense.

again, it's just a numbers game. The other issue is licenture and this is state dependent. Med schools don't want to invest money in someone who can't be licensed.

If a DUI presented a challenge to licensure, you'd see an awful lot of physicians losing their licenses. Fact is, it puts you on the board's radar, and they may require you take some action such as entering an alcohol awareness class, but it's going to take something like repeated offenses or being intoxicated while practicing medicine before one would risk losing his license.

The vast majority of cases where medical schools are using alcohol convictions to deny acceptance have nothing to do with licensure.

 

[muhali3]

that's a bunch of crap about lower tier schools not thinking he'd matriculate. 3.7/34 isn't blowing anyone's doors off.

it's just a guess. i can't see many other reasons why. schools don't like being a backup and can reject overly qualified applicants that aren't seriously interested in the school. other possibilities could have been a bad LOR that he never changed, which would have been a red flag each cycle he applied.

edit: yeah I guess I know what you're saying, a 3.7/34 isn't overly competitive, I think the main point to take home is that you can have a great application but be a horrible applicant. A person with mediocre stats and ECs can get an acceptance if he knows how to take advantage of the application process, whereas a person with high stats/great ECs can fail to get an acceptance if they are ignorant of the process and don't know how everything works (what schools to apply to, what to expect at the interview, how to write a good PS, how quickly to send in secondaries, etc.)

 

[softmed]

A kid that was shadowing my dad is on his 4th cycle waiting on a few waitlists. He has a 3.65/35 from wash u. His sin was turning down an acceptance his first cycle from morehouse. He got interviews at harvard, Columbia, Hopkins, and wash u the first time around...

I need to save this post for next time when someone asks, "Should I take this acceptance or apply again next year?"

 

[drizzt3117]

Precisely, and that is why it's an arbitrary distinction and it makes no sense to use it in the admissions process. You have one person who has been caught and has a DUI on his record, and you have another who has driven drunk yet has not been caught. The school gives preference to the latter, while rejecting the former, yet both individuals are essentially equivalent. It makes no sense.

who is more likely to have repeated duis? Someone who already has one, or someone with none?

so you have someone convicted of murder and someone not convicted of murder, who has a higher chance of being a murderer?

If a DUI presented a challenge to licensure, you'd see an awful lot of physicians losing their licenses. Fact is, it puts you on the board's radar, and they may require you take some action such as entering an alcohol awareness class, but it's going to take something like repeated offenses or being intoxicated while practicing medicine before one would risk losing his license.

The vast majority of cases where medical schools are using alcohol convictions to deny acceptance have nothing to do with licensure.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

who is more likely to have repeated duis? Someone who already has one, or someone with none?

so you have someone convicted of murder and someone not convicted of murder, who has a higher chance of being a murderer?

The individual with one is more likely. But so what? The point is that there are a bunch of people in medical school that have driven/do drive drunk. And yet they are graduating and becoming practicing physicians. So why make the distinction at all during the application process?

 

[JJMrK]

Precisely, and that is why it's an arbitrary distinction and it makes no sense to use it in the admissions process. You have one person who has been caught and has a DUI on his record, and you have another who has driven drunk yet has not been caught. The school gives preference to the latter, while rejecting the former, yet both individuals are essentially equivalent. It makes no sense.

You could use this logic for any type of offense (and it still wouldn't make sense). Say one applicant has a manslaughter conviction. Would you give him equal consideration as every other applicant, assuming that one of them probably has committed a similar crime but hasn't been convicted?

There are plenty of applicants with good numbers who have managed to avoid a DUI and have not been accepted. It's not impossible to get in with one, but you need to have something that will make an adcom give you a chance over those other couple thousand kids.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

You could use this logic for any type of offense (and it still wouldn't make sense). Say one applicant has a manslaughter conviction. Would you give him equal consideration as every other applicant, assuming that one of them probably has committed a similar crime but hasn't been convicted?

There are plenty of applicants with good numbers who have managed to avoid a DUI and have not been accepted. It's not impossible to get in with one, but you need to have something that will make an adcom give you a chance over those other couple thousand kids.

You're comparing apples to oranges. A significant portion of medical school classes are not committing manslaughter and getting away with it. Those that commit manslaughter and avoid arrest are few and far between, and of those, very few are applying to med school.

My point is simply that I don't understand the rationale for using it at all for consideration for acceptance. It doesn't seem relevant, given its prevalence. As I said before, though, I don't deny that adcoms consider it. I just think it's unfortunate and makes little sense from their perspective that they do.

 

[knightstale4]

Will update

 

[thesauce]

I really believe that the only thing that can repair this is time and dedication to redeeming yourself.

I was a stupid teenager, and got arrested twice for misdemeanor offenses when I was 14. I'm 24 now and hopping that the ten years of being a better citizen and my community service will show that my judgment is no longer an issue. But you're right, it don't help at all, especially if it was recent. People can be very book smart and lack certain common sense which is obviously essential to success as a physician.

Haha. 14? Dude, they aren't going to give a f***

 

[chman]

Haha. 14? Dude, they aren't going to give a f***

That's my hope. There is something seriously wrong with our system if they do.

 

[chrisoc13]

You're comparing apples to oranges. A significant portion of medical school classes are not committing manslaughter and getting away with it. Those that commit manslaughter and avoid arrest are few and far between, and of those, very few are applying to med school.

My point is simply that I don't understand the rationale for using it at all for consideration for acceptance. It doesn't seem relevant, given its prevalence. As I said before, though, I don't deny that adcoms consider it. I just think it's unfortunate and makes little sense from their perspective that they do.

Well when there are people who don't drink and drive, or people like me who simply don't drink at all it starts to matter. From my perspective (a non-drinker) I think adcoms should look at it very seriously. Just because more people are doing it doesn't make it acceptable. That is a ridiculous argument.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

Well when there are people who don't drink and drive, or people like me who simply don't drink at all it starts to matter. From my perspective (a non-drinker) I think adcoms should look at it very seriously. Just because more people are doing it doesn't make it acceptable. That is a ridiculous argument.

What, ridiculous like screening people out not for doing something but rather for merely getting caught doing something? Something that many others in med school do, individuals who go on to become practicing physicians without problem? Ridiculous like turning away qualified applicants because they made a mistake, a mistake which won't affect their ability to perform up to a high standard? Pretty ridiculous indeed.

 

[chrisoc13]

What, ridiculous like screening people out not for doing something but rather for merely getting caught doing something? Something that many others in med school do, individuals who go on to become practicing physicians without problem? Ridiculous like turning away qualified applicants because they made a mistake, a mistake which won't affect their ability to perform up to a high standard? Pretty ridiculous indeed.

Not everyone does it, so I would hope they would take it into account. And if it is a pattern it may not affect their ability to perform up to a high standard but certainly would bring into question their desire to serve others since thye would be routinely putting others at a heightened risk. Lots of people do lots of stupid things, doesn't make it ok. Your argument is "everyone does it, so it's ok." Yes that is ridiculous.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

Not everyone does it, so I would hope they would take it into account. And if it is a pattern it may not affect their ability to perform up to a high standard but certainly would bring into question their desire to serve others since thye would be routinely putting others at a heightened risk. Lots of people do lots of stupid things, doesn't make it ok. Your argument is "everyone does it, so it's ok." Yes that is ridiculous.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it was ok.

What I am saying is that it is absurd that it can be an error fatal to one's admission chances. *That* is ridiculous.

Essentially, one could have received a DUI when young, and then years later, after making the conscious decision to not put others at risk by driving after consuming alcohol, he will be rejected. Meanwhile, all the others who have been lucky enough to avoid getting caught are able to gain admission. In essence, the person who is reformed and no longer drives after drinking cannot gain entrance, but others who are continuing to jeopardize other road users are able to gain entrance. *That* is ridiculous!

 

[The Poet Sings]

What, ridiculous like screening people out not for doing something but rather for merely getting caught doing something? Something that many others in med school do, individuals who go on to become practicing physicians without problem? Ridiculous like turning away qualified applicants because they made a mistake, a mistake which won't affect their ability to perform up to a high standard? Pretty ridiculous indeed.

if we are still talking about DUIs, that is a mistake that can potentially affect someone's ability to do their job well. if they think it is sound judgment to drink/take altering drugs (prescription or otherwise) and then drive, how is one to know if they won't take the next step and come in to work like that? i think people would have to prove some way or another that they've learned from their mistake before i'd feel comfortable trusting them to not do it again.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

if we are still talking about DUIs, that is a mistake that can potentially affect someone's ability to do their job well. if they think it is sound judgment to drink/take altering drugs (prescription or otherwise) and then drive, how is one to know if they won't take the next step and come in to work like that? i think people would have to prove some way or another that they've learned from their mistake before i'd feel comfortable trusting them to not do it again.

You should probably take the blinders off, because med schools are filled with people who are drinking and driving, and I can assure you that they've not had to prove some way or another that they've learned from their mistake. Since, as they haven't been caught yet, and are continuing to do it, they have thusfar learned nothing.

 

[wanderer]

The individual with one is more likely. But so what? The point is that there are a bunch of people in medical school that have driven/do drive drunk. And yet they are graduating and becoming practicing physicians. So why make the distinction at all during the application process?

Getting a DUI is sort of analogous to being disciplined for cheating. The person had likely committed the misdeed several times before luck finally caught up to him. People caught for either of the two are MUCH more likely to have done the misdeed in the past than the typical person or they are much more blatant/flippant in how they do their misdeeds.
Even in your case, med schools are at least rewarding the cautious cheaters.

 

[The Poet Sings]

You should probably take the blinders off, because med schools are filled with people who are drinking and driving, and I can assure you that they've not had to prove some way or another that they've learned from their mistake. Since, as they haven't been caught yet, and are continuing to do it, they have thusfar learned nothing.

well, as i haven't started yet (and i didn't hang out with heavy drinkers in undergrad, and all my friends knew they could call me if they were ever too drunk to drive), i'll just have to take your word for it i guess. but you make it seem like just because people do it, it's ok. it isn't, and they'll learn from it eventually. hopefully before they end up showing up for surgery totally wasted and get sued and lose their license.

 

[brooklynblunder]

if you don't improve your application after getting rejected each year, that **** falls on you. a rejected applicant with a 3.6/30 and average has room for improvement. cant see why that person would stick it out for years and years without making any progress

 

[Bernoull]

I've read many SDN posts by med students who have been accepted, DUI offenses notwithstanding.

The gospel around here seems to be 'Oh why would ADCOMS take a chance with someone with (fill in ur misdemenor) when there's many more "unblemished" applicants out there'

Well, the admissions process doesn't work like this. Admission decisions to accept/reject applicants are made independent of criminal records to avoid prejudice; anyone who's seen an acceptance letter should know this. Once an applicant is accepted, the acceptance is conditioned on several things ie. not flunking out, on-time graduation AND satisfactory background check.

If an accepted student has a misdemeanor, schools generally have "Ethics/Violations type committees" who would review all relevant documents pertaining to the CBC finding and render a decision (addmissible/inadmissible). This review takes into account any/all mitigating/aggravating circumstances i.e. recency/severity of offense; applicant was truthful/deceitful; rehabilitation vs multiple offenses; ability to gain medical licensure; determination about potential risk to pts, colleagues etc etc...

If anything, this process is more muddled than many posts would lead one to believe which is hardly surprising bcos many posters peddle opinion as fact....

Therefore for those with such admission concerns, talk to lawyers and admissions people directly.

 

[chman]

I've read many SDN posts by med students who have been accepted, DUI offenses notwithstanding.

The gospel around here seems to be 'Oh why would ADCOMS take a chance with someone with (fill in ur misdemenor) when there's many more "unblemished" applicants out there'

Well, the admissions process doesn't work like this. Admission decisions to accept/reject applicants are made independent of criminal records to avoid prejudice; anyone who's seen an acceptance letter should know this. Once an applicant is accepted, the acceptance is conditioned on several things ie. not flunking out, on-time graduation AND satisfactory background check.

If an accepted student has a misdemeanor, schools generally have "Ethics/Violations type committees" who would review all relevant documents pertaining to the CBC finding and render a decision (addmissible/inadmissible). This review takes into account any/all mitigating/aggravating circumstances i.e. recency/severity of offense; applicant was truthful/deceitful; rehabilitation vs multiple offenses; ability to gain medical licensure; determination about potential risk to pts, colleagues etc etc...

If anything, this process is more muddled than many posts would lead one to believe which is hardly surprising bcos many posters peddle opinion as fact....

Therefore for those with such admission concerns, talk to lawyers and admissions people directly.

👍 Right on.

 

[drizzt3117]

Sometimes there are secondary questions directly pertaining to this though.

I do agree that sometimes this is BS, especially when it's someone under 21 that blows way below 0.08. That said, it is what it is.

 

[JJMrK]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it was ok.

What I am saying is that it is absurd that it can be an error fatal to one's admission chances. *That* is ridiculous.

Essentially, one could have received a DUI when young, and then years later, after making the conscious decision to not put others at risk by driving after consuming alcohol, he will be rejected. Meanwhile, all the others who have been lucky enough to avoid getting caught are able to gain admission. In essence, the person who is reformed and no longer drives after drinking cannot gain entrance, but others who are continuing to jeopardize other road users are able to gain entrance. *That* is ridiculous!

Unfortunately, that's how these things work. One mistake at any point in your life can seriously affect your future. I also think your presumption that many people are drinking and driving but not getting caught misses the mark. There may be some, sure, but I don't know that there are any more of these individuals around than those that have broken other laws. Indeed, as I mentioned before, the possibility exists that any person has committed any crime but not been caught. Should admissions committees therefore not take judicial problems into consideration at all? That seems to be where this logic leads, and I would argue that such an admissions policy probably would not fly at most schools.

Instead, applicants are judged on the severity of their crime. I would agree that a DUI is not the same as being convicted of manslaughter. Consider, though, that someone with a DUI does have a chance (although reduced) of gaining admission. An individual that has been convicted of manslaughter probably does not. Thus, the fact that DUIs are somewhat common and not as serious as some other offenses (all things you mentioned) is already taken into account.

 

[Emikosma]

A DUI would do the trick nicely too.

Oh god, not this thread again...

 

[Emikosma]

I've read many SDN posts by med students who have been accepted, DUI offenses notwithstanding.

The gospel around here seems to be 'Oh why would ADCOMS take a chance with someone with (fill in ur misdemenor) when there's many more "unblemished" applicants out there'

Well, the admissions process doesn't work like this. Admission decisions to accept/reject applicants are made independent of criminal records to avoid prejudice; anyone who's seen an acceptance letter should know this. Once an applicant is accepted, the acceptance is conditioned on several things ie. not flunking out, on-time graduation AND satisfactory background check.

If an accepted student has a misdemeanor, schools generally have "Ethics/Violations type committees" who would review all relevant documents pertaining to the CBC finding and render a decision (addmissible/inadmissible). This review takes into account any/all mitigating/aggravating circumstances i.e. recency/severity of offense; applicant was truthful/deceitful; rehabilitation vs multiple offenses; ability to gain medical licensure; determination about potential risk to pts, colleagues etc etc...

If anything, this process is more muddled than many posts would lead one to believe which is hardly surprising bcos many posters peddle opinion as fact....

Therefore for those with such admission concerns, talk to lawyers and admissions people directly.