Backing out of a LOI

[bigdbron]

Hey guys, I don't feel good about this decision, but I'm conflicted and highly considering reneging a LOI. I sent a LOI to school A and got in. I later got into school B. Being able to visit both schools which was only available to me after my admissions. I realized school B is better for me; better location and better aid. The cycle being virtual didn't really help either. I would like to thus attend school B.

Should I email school A and inform them about my decision to withdraw?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tahinitajin]

If I'm reading this correctly it seems that you hold A's at both School A and B.
If you're planning on attending school B but not School A you would have to withdraw at some point regardless if you sent an LOI or not.
An LOI does not bind you to a school.

And if you are set on attending school B, and not School A it is helpful to withdraw sooner so that School A can work toward finalizing their class and offer your seat to someone else.
If you are still not 100% , take time to decide (I'm sure you have a deadline for accepting or declining your A).

 

[bigdbron]

If I'm reading this correctly it seems that you hold A's at both School A and B.
If you're planning on attending school B but not School A you would have to withdraw at some point regardless if you sent an LOI or not.
An LOI does not bind you to a school.

And if you are set on attending school B, and not School A it is helpful to withdraw sooner so that School A can work toward finalizing their class and offer your seat to someone else.
If you are still not 100% , take time to decide (I'm sure you have a deadline for accepting or declining your A).

That is correct. I'm planning on withdrawing soon. I recently got into school B lastweek. Thanks!

 

[14_karat]

LOI is not binding. Just e-mail School A and withdraw.

 

[Goro]

Hey guys, I don't feel good about this decision, but I'm conflicted and highly considering reneging a LOI. I sent a LOI to school A and got in. I later got into school B. Being able to visit both schools which was only available to me after my admissions. I realized school B is better for me; better location and better aid. The cycle being virtual didn't really help either. I would like to thus attend school B.

Should I email school A and inform them about my decision to withdraw?

This is data point # 783,038,736,746 as to why Admissions Deans treat LOIs as lies.

Out of courtesy, please withdraw from schools I so someone else can live their dream.

 

[candbgirl]

Hey guys, I don't feel good about this decision, but I'm conflicted and highly considering reneging a LOI. I sent a LOI to school A and got in. I later got into school B. Being able to visit both schools which was only available to me after my admissions. I realized school B is better for me; better location and better aid. The cycle being virtual didn't really help either. I would like to thus attend school B.

Should I email school A and inform them about my decision to withdraw?

This should be stickied for everyone who wants to send a LOI to read.

Congrats on your acceptances . Pick one a let the other go so someone else can have a great chance.

 

[proudofmykids]

Given the grief I was given in one LOI thread about sending two LOIs, why are people not advising this student that they should have withdrawn from all waitlisted and other schools once they got accepted to School A after sending them the LOI? Everyone seemed to imply this would be the only ethical behavior despite changing conditions after sending the LOI. The ethical behavior would include advising that B shouldn’t be considered or compared after sending LOI and getting the Acceptance at A.

I didn’t agree with this logic since ‘conditions’ changed.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Given the grief I was given in one LOI thread about sending two LOIs, why are people not advising this student that they should have withdrawn from all waitlisted and other schools once they got accepted to School A after sending them the LOI? Everyone seemed to imply this would be the only ethical behavior despite changing conditions after sending the LOI. The ethical behavior would include advising that B shouldn’t be considered or compared after sending LOI and getting the Acceptance at A.

I didn’t agree with this logic since ‘conditions’ changed.

Since you are parent You were given more grief.

 

[Current-big-pharma-shill]

Imagine if schools reported students to AAMC for lying on their application by sending an LOI they later withdraw. Someone could become a millionaire selling popcorn to the comments section of that thread.

 

[gyngyn]

Given the grief I was given in one LOI thread about sending two LOIs, why are people not advising this student that they should have withdrawn from all waitlisted and other schools once they got accepted to School A after sending them the LOI? Everyone seemed to imply this would be the only ethical behavior despite changing conditions after sending the LOI. The ethical behavior would include advising that B shouldn’t be considered or compared after sending LOI and getting the Acceptance at A.

I didn’t agree with this logic since ‘conditions’ changed.

I believe that you richly deserve the grief! If the LoI is conditional (or multiple!), the writer should make that clear from the outset.

 

[xffan624]

I believe that you richly deserve the grief! If the LoI is conditional (or multiple!), the writer should make that clear from the outset.

For some reason, "I will definitely go to your school, but only if some better school doesn't accept me before I have to commit," doesn't quite have the same punch.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

This whole LOI business is silly. Don't most schools also already ask you if you are interested when they send out waitlist decisions?

 

[gyngyn]

This whole LOI business is silly. Don't most schools also already ask you if you are interested when they send out waitlist decisions?

No. Some schools have a ranked WL. Others act based on available evidence.

 

[proudofmykids]

I believe that you richly deserve the grief! If the LoI is conditional (or multiple!), the writer should make that clear from the outset.

I understand why I was given the grief.
However, why are people not using the ethical basis of the grief I was given, as the basis to advise this candidate similarly?

 

[mmchick]

I understand why I was given the grief.
However, why are people not using the ethical basis of the grief I was given, as the basis to advise this candidate similarly?

There's nothing to advise, the situation is over with and OP already sent a fallacious LOI and intends to withdraw for another school. They are simply seeking our blessing out of the rightfully guilty conscious. I don't know your post you are griping about, but sending 2 LOIs that do not disclose you've sent 2 LOIs is within itself deceitful and misleading. As a parent, you'd think you'd teach your kid better basic ethics. That's probably why you got grief. For endorsing outright deceitful behavior in your adult child. What OP has done in this thread is irrelevant to that matter.

 

[bigdbron]

There's nothing to advise, the situation is over with and OP already sent a fallacious LOI and intends to withdraw for another school. They are simply seeking our blessing out of the rightfully guilty conscious. I don't know your post you are griping about, but sending 2 LOIs that do not disclose you've sent 2 LOIs is within itself deceitful and misleading. As a parent, you'd think you'd teach your kid better basic ethics. That's probably why you got grief. For endorsing outright deceitful behavior in your adult child. What OP has done in this thread is irrelevant to that matter.

I did not send 2 LOI. I was told this was a big no no

 

[proudofmykids]

I did not send 2 LOI. I was told this was a big no no

But are are reneging on the one LOI you sent. So unless you did disclose that your were still considering the one WL school, everyone here feels that despite the new information entry into your decision (getting off the WL), it is unethical to back out of your LOI school.

 

[mmchick]

I did not send 2 LOI. I was told this was a big no no

That was @ the poster I was quoting who made it seem as though they had their kid submit 2 LOIs and was ridiculed for it, not you. However, I personally feel even a single LOI you don't truly intend on upholding even in the circumstance that another school comes through is deceitful and disingenuous. If there was another school that could sway you away from the school you want to send an LOI to, then the LOI is a waste of everyone's time since it isn't genuine. A letter of intent should have the integrity of upholding... your intent to go there above anything else..

 

[proudofmykids]

That was @ the poster I was quoting who made it seem as though they had their kid submit 2 LOIs and was ridiculed for it, not you. However, I personally feel even a single LOI you don't truly intend on upholding even in the circumstance that another school comes through is deceitful and disingenuous. If there was another school that could sway you away from the school you want to send an LOI to, then the LOI is a waste of everyone's time since it isn't genuine. A letter of intent should have the integrity of upholding... your intent to go there above anything else..

this is exactly what I was implying, if two are deceitful, then it is deceitful as well if sending a single LOI if anything else would change your mind, with no exception.

As such, I assume everyone then agrees that if the LOI school provides he acceptance but with weaker financial aid than another school, the student should still feel obligated to take the LOI school despite costing more, due to the weaker aid. Correct?

 

[mmchick]

this is exactly what I was implying, if two are deceitful, then it is deceitful as well if sending a single LOI if anything else would change your mind, with no exception.

As such, I assume everyone then agrees that if the LOI school provides he acceptance but with weaker financial aid than another school, the student should still feel obligated to take the LOI school despite costing more, due to the weaker aid. Correct?

Ultimately, people are going to look out for themselves. That's why I think LOIs are pointless and should be dismissed by every school because yes, unless you've made a decision you will go to School A no matter if Harvard themselves knocked on your door with a full ride, then it's disingenuous and you do not have actual unconditional intent to go to that school, you're just desperate. But, alas, OP should do what works for him/her - they should be honest about their decision however in that it was disingenuous to send the LOI in the first place and they played the first school. It is what it is.

 

[RJ McReady]

I believe that you richly deserve the grief! If the LoI is conditional (or multiple!), the writer should make that clear from the outset

Why? He was planning to attend until
He got a better offer. The people on the SDN adcoms truly baffle me sometimes with their advice. Med schools jerk applicants around like there’s no tomorrow. And this is coming from someone who is a (non-voting) member of the adcom at my school.
So what, send multiple LOI’s if you desire. It may not help. But, it won’t hurt you.
OP doesn’t owe any school anything.
Just go where you want to , if you have multiple acceptances congratulations,
withdraw your acceptance so someone else can get it as others have said.

 

[gyngyn]

Why? He was planning to attend until
He got a better offer. The people on the SDN adcoms truly baffle me sometimes with their advice. Med schools jerk applicants around like there’s no tomorrow. And this is coming from someone who is a (non-voting) member of the adcom at my school.
So what, send multiple LOI’s if you desire. It may not help. But, it won’t hurt you.
OP doesn’t owe any school anything.
Just go where you want to , if you have multiple acceptances congratulations,
withdraw your acceptance so someone else can get it as others have said.

The question here (as I see it) is that a letter of intent is a promise. Breaking a promise is not professional behavior.
Recommending that applicants break promises is not a good practice. Is that what you are recommending?
If your school knew this, would they be in agreement?

 

[RJ McReady]

At the time he sent the LOI he was committed to the school
Things changed. Life happened. He got accepted to a better school. He was not disingenuous by sending his original LOI, as at the time, it WAS the top choice.
But, in answer to your question, I feel that the system is heavily, heavily stacked against applicants and in favor of medical schools. So no, I don’t see any problem with qualified students stating that they will attend a particular school. It’s the schools choice if they decide to believe the applicant. They will move on without a second thought and have endless numbers of people who would gladly take the spot, whereas applicants will agonize and lose sleep about whether they are “doing the right thing.” Would my school agree with my viewpoint? I don’t know. And honestly, it doesn’t matter whether they do or not.
The system is broken and needs to be changed. Im trying to do my small part from within and I refuse to be part of the establishment just because it might be what is expected of me.

 

[KnightDoc]

At the time he sent the LOI he was committed to the school
Things changed. Life happened. He got accepted to a better school. He was not disingenuous by sending his original LOI, as at the time, it WAS the top choice.
But, in answer to your question, I feel that the system is heavily, heavily stacked against applicants and in favor of medical schools. So no, I don’t see any problem with qualified students stating that they will attend a particular school. It’s the schools choice if they decide to believe the applicant. They will move on without a second thought and have endless numbers of people who would gladly take the spot, whereas applicants will agonize and lose sleep about whether they are “doing the right thing.” Would my school agree with my viewpoint? I don’t know. And honestly, it doesn’t matter whether they do or not.
The system is broken and needs to be changed. Im trying to do my small part from within and I refuse to be part of the establishment just because it might be what is expected of me.

With all due respect, THIS is what makes LOIs worthless. A contingent commitment is no commitment at all. "I promise to love and cherish you, until I get accepted by a better partner" is not really a commitment worth relying on, and is the very definition of disingenuous. Sure, we are all committed to accepting the best deal we receive. No need to send a letter to state that! 🙂

And I say this totally agreeing with you that the deck is totally stacked against us, and that the so-called sellers' market is a bunch of BS. So are LOIs. I'm not sure level of desire and desperation should be a metric used to make admission decisions, but cynical gaming of schools' willingness to even receive such letters only guarantees they will have even less value in the future than they do today, which is already pretty close to zero. So, everyone really should feel free to justify away.

 

[gyngyn]

And this is coming from someone who is a (non-voting) member of the adcom at my school.

Would my school agree with my viewpoint? I don’t know. And honestly, it doesn’t matter whether they do or not.

You are using your standing as a member of your school's admissions committee as basis for your authority on the subject.
You can see why I asked (I hope).
If the LOI was contingent on other factors, those factors could reasonably have been included in the letter.

 

[RJ McReady]

I’m not saying LOI s mean anything at all,
Just that individual schools will choose how they receive or evaluate them. So, when you are facing a stacked deck, you try to do what it takes, within reason to get the odds in your favor. My objection is to those adcoms who try to make applicants feel guilty for trying to increase their odds, because clearly they are trying to protect the interests of their school.

 

[RJ McReady]

You are using your standing as a member of your school's admissions committee as basis for your authority on the subject.
You can see why I asked (I hope).
If the LOI was contingent on other factors, those factors could reasonably have been included in the letter.

@ gyngyn
I’m not claiming to be an authority by any stretch- just stating my opinion. And as I said, at the time the LOI was written there were no contingent factors.

 

[YCAGA]

At the time he sent the LOI he was committed to the school
Things changed. Life happened. He got accepted to a better school. He was not disingenuous by sending his original LOI, as at the time, it WAS the top choice.
But, in answer to your question, I feel that the system is heavily, heavily stacked against applicants and in favor of medical schools. So no, I don’t see any problem with qualified students stating that they will attend a particular school. It’s the schools choice if they decide to believe the applicant. They will move on without a second thought and have endless numbers of people who would gladly take the spot, whereas applicants will agonize and lose sleep about whether they are “doing the right thing.” Would my school agree with my viewpoint? I don’t know. And honestly, it doesn’t matter whether they do or not.
The system is broken and needs to be changed. Im trying to do my small part from within and I refuse to be part of the establishment just because it might be what is expected of me.

Exactly. Same concept is why marriage vows are “till death do us part or I find someone more attractive”

/s (since I never underestimate SDN’s ability to miss sarcasm)

 

[xffan624]

@ gyngyn
I’m not claiming to be an authority by any stretch- just stating my opinion. And as I said, at the time the LOI was written there were no contingent factors.

If that's the way you approach making promises (ie. breakable if circumstances change) then they're not worth much. Everyone can keep a promise if the circumstances when they make it stay the same. It requires integrity to keep a promise when you don't really want to.

 

[gyngyn]

@ gyngyn
I’m not claiming to be an authority by any stretch- just stating my opinion. And as I said, at the time the LOI was written there were no contingent factors.

If I, in my capacity as an officer of my school, make a promise, my school will be obligated to uphold the promise I made.
They will do it because a reasonable person would believe that the weight of my school stood behind that promise.
You used your capacity as an officer of your school as a basis for your opinion. You can see why a follow-up question was reasonable.

If a student makes a promise, they have only the weight of their personal integrity to back that promise.
If there were contingencies in either of these cases, one would expect that they would be clearly articulated.

 

[RJ McReady]

Clearly my opinion doesn’t sit well with everyone, and that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their own views.
OP has every right to look out for himself and if that means breaking a so-called “promise” than so be it.

 

[proudofmykids]

The question here (as I see it) is that a letter of intent is a promise. Breaking a promise is not professional behavior.
Recommending that applicants break promises is not a good practice. Is that what you are recommending?
If your school knew this, would they be in agreement?

Just as another side.... I am not debating your view as an Adcom, but trying to expand your understanding of common alternative views. Feel free to Google, where you also find reference to use for and by schools.....

In the business world, Letters of Intent / Letters of Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding are very common, are not considered binding, and serve as good faith that a deal / agreement / contract / merger / etc will continue down the the current path to achieve full Agreement established by the two parties; while under the assumption that it shouldn't get derailed unless current assumptions or new discovery fail to resolve. Parties involved with LOIs recognize that there are written or even unwritten covenants to negotiate in good faith to come to full Agreement. This has been the basis for my opinions and posts here on SDN, that the LOI can be written but no longer holds should the situation change, and were written as a intention at that snapshot in time with the current level of understanding between the parties.

 

[KnightDoc]

Just as another side.... I am not debating your view as an Adcom, but trying to expand your understanding of common alternative views. Feel free to Google, where you also find reference to use for and by schools.....

In the business world, Letters of Intent / Letters of Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding are very common, are not considered binding, and serve as good faith that a deal / agreement / contract / merger / etc will continue down the the current path to achieve full Agreement established by the two parties; while under the assumption that it shouldn't get derailed unless current assumptions or new discovery fail to resolve. Parties involved with LOIs recognize that there are written or even unwritten covenants to negotiate in good faith to come to full Agreement. This has been the basis for my opinions and posts here on SDN, that the LOI can be written but no longer holds should the situation change, and were written as a intention at that snapshot in time with the current level of understanding between the parties.

So basically, they are meaningless?

What you are referring to in the business world contemplates an ongoing negotiation. Nothing like that exists here.

This is a promise, apparently subject to a contingency that it is good unless and until things change for the applicant, which is really not a promise at all. How loud would the howls be if As were only binding until schools found better candidates, willing to pay more money? (It was an A when it was issued at that snapshot in time with the current level of understanding between the parties, but then someone came along with a better MCAT score and a greater willingness to pay full price. Sorry. Please forgive us. We didn't mean to be disingenuous. )

At this point, it honestly (pun intended! 🙂) does not matter. It's a shame for the candidates who need it to, but it doesn't. Schools know they are BS, and treat them accordingly, at least according to every single adcom who has posted on the subject.

It's actually kind of funny that so many people have not received that memo, and continue to sweat the ethics of sending them and then reneging on them. Adcoms are not as unsophisticated or stupid as we seem to want to think they are. People confuse causation and correlation when they send them and later receive an A. For everyone who has that experience, scores of people send them with no result. And then, of course, there are the folks who renege and then post about it to wind us up. Which we cannot help but oblige. 😎

 

[YCAGA]

Clearly my opinion doesn’t sit well with everyone, and that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their own views.
OP has every right to look out for himself and if that means breaking a so-called “promise” than so be it.

You seem to take a realpolitik view on medical school admissions and a medical career in general which is your choice. You should realize that "looking out for yourself" does not always mean doing whatever the heck you want in the moment. Often the most productive and self-advancing decision is to do what is accepted as the "right" thing to do. So, if OP wants to "look out for himself", they should consider the repercussion of breaking a promise. In this case, breaking a LOI will have little to no repercussions, but 1) it could if someone at the school that get dumped is bitter 2) similarly slimy behavior might not play well later in their career.

Also, you seem bitter towards medical school admissions. The system isn't perfect, but no need to go around telling people to lie their way to the top. That normally catches up to you sooner or later (even when playing realpolitik).

 

[proudofmykids]

So basically, they are meaningless?

What you are referring to in the business world contemplates an ongoing negotiation. Nothing like that exists here.

This is a promise, apparently subject to a contingency that it is good unless and until things change for the applicant, which is really not a promise at all. How loud would the howls be if As were only binding until schools found better candidates, willing to pay more money? (It was an A when it was issued at that snapshot in time with the current level of understanding between the parties, but then someone came along with a better MCAT score and a greater willingness to pay full price. Sorry. Please forgive us. We didn't mean to be disingenuous. )

At this point, it honestly (pun intended! 🙂) does not matter. It's a shame for the candidates who need it to, but it doesn't. Schools know they are BS, and treat them accordingly, at least according to every single adcom who has posted on the subject.

It's actually kind of funny that so many people have not received that memo, and continue to sweat the ethics of sending them and then reneging on them. Adcoms are not as unsophisticated or stupid as we seem to want to think they are. People confuse causation and correlation when they send them and later receive an A. For everyone who has that experience, scores of people send them with no result. And then, of course, there are the folks who renege and then post about it to wind us up. Which we cannot help but oblige. 😎

From a binding perspective, yes, they are meaningless in all use cases!
I can't tell you how many deals I've had fall through after continued due diligence with Fortune 100 exec suite issued LOIs provided to me. There is an ongoing equivalent of negotiation with the WL, it is a negotiation that Is time-based. A candidate didn't receive their A in the normal time period. They sent an LOI indicating their intent at that time based on their current options.

Agreements are binding, Intents are not. Acceptances provided by schools are the equivalent of their signing an Agreement and giving you the condidate until CTE to counter sign the Agreement. They have no room to do as you say and renege on their offer of Acceptance because it isn't an Intent, but is part of a real Agreement tomhold your spot in their class until CTE.

 

[Moko]

Just as another side.... I am not debating your view as an Adcom, but trying to expand your understanding of common alternative views. Feel free to Google, where you also find reference to use for and by schools.....

In the business world, Letters of Intent / Letters of Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding are very common, are not considered binding, and serve as good faith that a deal / agreement / contract / merger / etc will continue down the the current path to achieve full Agreement established by the two parties; while under the assumption that it shouldn't get derailed unless current assumptions or new discovery fail to resolve. Parties involved with LOIs recognize that there are written or even unwritten covenants to negotiate in good faith to come to full Agreement. This has been the basis for my opinions and posts here on SDN, that the LOI can be written but no longer holds should the situation change, and were written as a intention at that snapshot in time with the current level of understanding between the parties.

This is all well and good, except letters of intent to medical schools are written for medical schools and not the business world. It would be disingenuous and foolish for someone to forcibly apply one field's standards and expectations onto another just because these alternative rules suited their circumstances better.

When an applicant's LOI explicitly states "I will commit to matriculating at your school and drop all other acceptances/waitlists if I am accepted off your school's waitlist", there is no ambiguity here on what the applicant should do if they are taken off the waitlist. If an applicant is no longer willing to adhere to their LOI, they should retract it.

Of course, applicants routinely break LOIs, which is why these letters (unfortunately) don't mean much any more. But let's not bend over backwards to try to rationalize this type of behavior as being acceptable. Those who try will inevitably just look like clowns. Just my thoughts.

 

[proudofmykids]

This is all well and good, except letters of intent to medical schools are written for medical schools and not the business world. It would be disingenuous and foolish for someone to forcibly apply one field's standards and expectations onto another just because these alternative rules suited their circumstances better.

When an applicant's LOI explicitly states "I will commit to matriculating at your school and drop all other waitlists if I am accepted off the waitlist", there is no ambiguity here on what the applicant should do if they are taken off the waitlist. If an applicant is no longer willing to adhere to their LOI, they should retract it.

Of course, applicants routinely break LOIs, which is why these letters don't mean much any more. But let's not bend over backwards to try to rationalize this type of behavior as being acceptable. Those who try will inevitably just look like clowns. Just my thoughts.

I bet most LOIs don't include and explicitly include and say
"and drop all other waitlists if I am accepted off the waitlist."

The LOI is not field or business specific. It is more from the legal world. The real issue and difference is that LOIs are supposed to be more comprehensive than what a student includes in their letters, at which point interpretations is not deterministic which is the real problem here.

If they included your full statement, then it everyone would agree it is unethical and even potentially illegal to renege interested too based on that clearly stated covenant. Similarly, candidates don't explicitly say that financial needs must be equivalently met etc etc which technically should also be stipulated. So really, LOIs are incomplete promises as they are written, and interpreting them any other way is foolish, which is why it is the prevailing vIew by adcoms! (but should Not be judged as unethicsl since they were incomplete to begin.)

The real solution to this issue is for each school to actually provide their own LOI form for a student to submit; one that closes the loopholes by defining the expected behaviors should an Acceptance materialize. I am willing to bet that if they were to do this, there were be Much fewer LOIs signed and they would also have much more effect.

 

[RJ McReady]

If people on this forum don’t understand that my opinions and comments are in the best interests of the medical school applicant, then I don’t know what else I could possibly write to convince them.

 

[gyngyn]

If people on this forum don’t understand that my opinions and comments are in the best interests of the medical school applicant, then I don’t know what else I could possibly write to convince them.

Is it your position that not telling the truth, if it benefits the applicant, is justified?

 

[proudofmykids]

Is it your position that not telling the truth, if it benefits the applicant, is justified?

It isn't not telling the truth.
It is the unintentional incomplete description to indicate their meaning of their intention. Thus the reality interpreted by the two sides are not likely to be the same.

 

[KnightDoc]

It isn't not telling the truth.
It is the unintentional incomplete description to indicate their meaning of their intention. Thus the reality interpreted by the two sides are not likely to be the same.

In other words, it's meaningless!

 

[Moko]

The real solution to this issue is for each school to actually provide their own LOI form for a student to submit; one that closes the loopholes by defining the expected behaviors should an Acceptance materialize. I am willing to bet that if they were to do this, there were be Much fewer LOIs signed and they would also have much more effect.

I agree that if LOIs were explicitly treated as contracts (with legal and financial ramifications for breaking them), it would restore much needed meaning to these letters, and return power back to those who are truly sincere about attending a particular school. Applicants can choose to retract their LOI without consequence, and a sliding scale (for repercussions) can be implemented to avoid penalizing those without financial means. As it stands, the current system of LOIs rewards those who are the most dishonest..

If people on this forum don’t understand that my opinions and comments are in the best interests of the medical school applicant, then I don’t know what else I could possibly write to convince them.

I would argue that your opinion and recommendation is short-sighted. If your recommendation is adopted in earnest, it will not be in the best interest of any medical school applicants.

If every applicant were to "send multiple LOI's if you desire", LOIs will become completely meaningless. In this situation, no applicant will ever benefit from these LOIs (which take time to write); those who are honest and do not send multiple LOIs will be penalized; and those with a sincere desire to attend a particular school will have no meaningful way of signaling it. No one wins, and the few remaining honest applicants will only stand to lose. That would be a regrettable situation for everyone involved.

We can all agree that the medical school application process can and should be improved. However, there are ways to advocate for future applicants without resorting to encouraging lying and/or other forms of questionable behavior. Just my thoughts.

 

[Moko]

So basically, they are meaningless?

In other words, it's meaningless!

You've come full circle!

 

[KnightDoc]

I agree that if LOIs were explicitly treated as contracts (with legal and financial ramifications for breaking them), it would restore much needed meaning to these letters, and return power back to those who are truly sincere about attending a particular school. Applicants can choose to retract their LOI without consequence, and a sliding scale (for repercussions) can be implemented to avoid penalizing those without financial means. As it stands, the current system of LOIs rewards those who are the most dishonest..

I would argue that your opinion and recommendation is short-sighted. If your recommendation is adopted in earnest, it will not be in the best interest of any medical school applicants.

If every applicant were to "send multiple LOI's if you desire", LOIs will become completely meaningless. In this situation, no applicant will ever benefit from these LOIs (which take time to write); those who are honest and do not send multiple LOIs will be penalized; and those with a sincere desire to attend a particular school will have no meaningful way of signaling it. No one wins, and the few remaining honest applicants will only stand to lose. That would be a regrettable situation for everyone involved. Just my thoughts.

I dunno -- under your system, instead of all liars lying with impunity, only liars with FAP would?? Would that really be a big improvement?

Does today's system really even reward the dishonest? That presupposes these receive weight, and adcoms consistently report that they don't. Moreover, your system would create two classes, and with the same result. One for people who could afford to lose some money, like those who forfeit large DO deposits to take a late MD A, and those without financial means, who can continue to lie for free!

Why look at LOIs at all? Just take the best qualified candidates. If bringing in the most highly motivated, most grateful candidates is really that important, there is no reason to solicit or encourage LOIs. Just wait until a few weeks before classes begin and pull from whoever remains on the WL. At least then you'll know that people saying they want the A and will attend mean it! 🙂

 

[Moko]

I dunno -- under your system, instead of all liars lying with impunity, only liars with FAP would?? Would that really be a big improvement?

Does today's system really even reward the dishonest? That presupposes these receive weight, and adcoms consistently report that they don't. Moreover, your system would create two classes, and with the same result. One for people who could afford to lose some money, like those who forfeit large DO deposits to take a late MD A, and those without financial means, who can continue to lie for free!

Why look at LOIs at all? Just take the best qualified candidates. If bringing in the most highly motivated, most grateful candidates is really that important, there is no reason to solicit or encourage LOIs. Just wait until a few weeks before classes begin and pull from whoever remains on the WL. 🙂

Fair enough 🙂. I mentioned this in another thread, but suppose the financial penalty was up to one year of tuition (or some fraction thereof). That should give most applicants significant pause about sending and then backing out of a LOI (once an acceptance has been given). In this hypothetical situation, a sliding scale would not reduce the penalties to zero, so those with FAP would not be able to lie "with impunity" either.

I agree with others that LOIs are largely meaningless for most schools, but they may have some effect very late in the cycle. A LOI at that stage would signal an applicant's continued availability, and more importantly, willingness to relocate and attend when a dean may be more interested in simply finding a warm (but still qualified and accomplished) body to join the class as time is running out for the usual waiting game. You will likely know more about this than I do, but it would seem that some schools actively encourage updates, love letters, and the like? Just my thoughts of course, and I certainly don't have all (or even most) of the answers.

 

[KnightDoc]

Fair enough 🙂. I mentioned this in another thread, but suppose the financial penalty was up to one year of tuition (or some fraction thereof). That should give most applicants significant pause about sending and then backing out of a LOI (once an acceptance has been given). In this hypothetical situation, a sliding scale would not reduce the penalties to zero, so those with FAP would not be able to lie "with impunity" either.

I agree with others that LOIs are largely meaningless for most schools, but they may have some effect very late in the cycle. A LOI at that stage would signal an applicant's continued availability and willingness to relocate and attend when a dean may be more interested in simply finding a warm (but still qualified and accomplished) body to join the class when time is running out for the usual waiting game. You will likely know more about this than I do, but it would seem that some schools actively encourage updates, love letters, and the like? Just my thoughts of course, and I certainly don't have all (or even most) of the answers.

You are absolutely correct that something needs to be done, and that there really is no easy answer. Schools encouraging LOIs only makes it worse.

The irony is that the very time they are most useful is also the time they are least necessary. Just being on a WL very late in a cycle should indicate a willingness to drop everything, since most CTE deadlines will have passed by then, so schools can easily see who is desperate and who isn't before even calling the candidate.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

May be simple solution is no LOIs and go thru WL like SOAP for residency?