Best stats that are rejected?

[Chemstudent]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This past cycle, I know a number of people who were rejected from all the schools they applied to with above average stats. Like a 3.8 gpa/33 MCAT. For those of you who applied and got rejected with stats just as good as this, what do you feel like the weaknesses were in your application process? I really want to get into medical school when I apply next cycle, so I want to make sure I have no glaring holes in my application.

 

[ace12345]

There are so many variables in your hypothetical that I'm not sure you're going to get a straight answer. You know what you need to do, go out and do it.

But...if I was to venture to guess why people with really high stats don't get in, I would point to 1) IAs or other major issues 2) Bad interviewing (Which is fixable) and 3) No clinical experience.

P.S., 3.8GPA 33 MCAT ain't that impressive anymore. Good enough to get your foot in the door SOME places, but definitely not a free pass.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

There are so many variables in your hypothetical that I'm not sure you're going to get a straight answer. You know what you need to do, go out and do it.

But...if I was to venture to guess why people with really high stats don't get in, I would point to 1) IAs or other major issues 2) Bad interviewing (Which is fixable) and 3) No clinical experience.

P.S., 3.8GPA 33 MCAT ain't that impressive anymore. Good enough to get your foot in the door SOME places, but definitely not a free pass.

Adding on to this: Making sure the application is on time, making sure you apply to the right number of schools, making sure you apply to the right kinds of schools (you aren't getting into university of Hawaii if you aren't from there!), having good letters of recommendation, etc.

Stats open the door, I believe everything else is what pushes you through it!

 

[Keladry]

I had a 3.9/37; 4 waitlists, 0 acceptances. I applied very very late, which was my major issue. ECs, LORs, and interview skills all fine. Already submitted my primary for this cycle, working on secondaries, and hoping it works out this time!

 

[Chemstudent]

I had a 3.9/37; 4 waitlists, 0 acceptances. I applied very very late, which was my major issue. ECs, LORs, and interview skills all fine. Already submitted my primary for this cycle, working on secondaries, and hoping it works out this time!

Wow I'm sorry to hear that, those are amazing stats. It seems like timing is a huge thing

 

[Keladry]

Wow I'm sorry to hear that, those are amazing stats. It seems like timing is a huge thing

Thanks, and yep. I was completely unaware of that, since there was no premed advising at my school and I clearly didn't investigate enough on my own. I know now, though, and I've strengthened my application in the past year, so here's hoping!

 

[el_duderino]

Medical school admission is not a prize for the best stats. Stats are one part of the picture. It's applicants that get accepted or rejected.

 

[Sean Lee]

There are so many variables in your hypothetical that I'm not sure you're going to get a straight answer. You know what you need to do, go out and do it.

But...if I was to venture to guess why people with really high stats don't get in, I would point to 1) IAs or other major issues 2) Bad interviewing (Which is fixable) and 3) No clinical experience.

P.S., 3.8GPA 33 MCAT ain't that impressive anymore. Good enough to get your foot in the door SOME places, but definitely not a free pass.

I mostly agree with this, but it really depends on what the IA is about. Minor alcohol offenses and cheating are night and day in terms of their impact.

 

[Sed8&Intub8]

Not me, but I know someone who was rejected from everywhere, including his safety schools. 3.9 GPA from Ivy league school, 38 MCAT. ECs, letters, all were great. He contacted the schools and they told him he didn't sell himself. All of his EC's he listed, he just described them as "ER volunteer" and such. Also said his PS was cliché. So he essentially got rejected because he filled his application out stupidly.

 

[BrCo]

I had about five friends this last year, all with 3.8-4.0 GPA and MCAT 30-35, be rejected from all schools. All of them said it was because they applied too late (October-December). I'm glad I was able to watch them go through it because I never realized how much being an early applicant can help.

 

[masaraksh]

4.0 in organic chem & biotech/ 37

- took MCAT sept 10th of the app cycle after senior year
- verified ~Oct 25th
- applied too top heavy
- was living abroad during app cycle
- not enough clinical experience
- ECs not 'stellar'
- interview skills OK but could be better

Ended up interviewing at WUSTL and BU (!!)in Late Jan/Late Feb. But got WL'd.
- didn't communicate/update schools enough like I should have post interview.

I didn't consider myself pre-med freshman/soph year and my Uni was not in US so I did have too much pre-med advising.

I shouldn't blame anyone other than myself. I should have had my s* together much more and earlier.

I encourage everyone to plan ahead. If poor planning and a late app can sink good stats, then it can damn sure sink average/below average stats.


Anyway, I took 2 more years to work and improve and will be starting at a program this summer (reapp cycle was no walk in the park either and I made a mistake like I) submitting after June and II) not retaking MCAT)

 

[M.MD]

This past cycle, I know a number of people who were rejected from all the schools they applied to with above average stats. Like a 3.8 gpa/33 MCAT. For those of you who applied and got rejected with stats just as good as this, what do you feel like the weaknesses were in your application process? I really want to get into medical school when I apply next cycle, so I want to make sure I have no glaring holes in my application.

My stats are almost identical to this, and I'm currently on 2 waitlists (out of 2 interviews). Problems with my application:

1. Applied late due to late MCAT. Most applications were complete mid-late September, a good 1.5-2 months behind the head of the pack.
2. Poor choice of schools (OOS public, too many reach, etc.)
3. PS sucked
4. Primary app was rushed (only had 1 most meaningful experience, I'm sure that came across as lazy.)
5. Too heavy on research, too light on volunteering and leadership.

All of that and I still snagged 2 interviews, so after having fixed all of those issues, I feel a little better about my chances this cycle.

P.S., 3.8GPA 33 MCAT ain't that impressive anymore. Good enough to get your foot in the door SOME places, but definitely not a free pass.

 

[Endure]

P.S., 3.8GPA 33 MCAT ain't that impressive anymore. Good enough to get your foot in the door SOME places, but definitely not a free pass.

This is patently false and only contributes to the neuroticism of SDN. I am aware that the MSAR recently reported a median MCAT of 33 for accepted students, but I refuse to believe that an MCAT in the 91st percentile is only good enough to get your "foot in the door" at some places. I would argue that unaccepted students with those numbers probably (a) lack other qualities that schools find desirable, (b) screwed up the application cycle in some way or (c) have a red flag somewhere. While some schools are certainly number-oriented, many others place considerable importance on what you've accomplished outside of the classroom. As @jonnythan mentioned above, numbers are only one piece of the puzzle.

That said, I do agree that admissions is becoming more competitive.

 

[el_duderino]

This is patently false and only contributes to the neuroticism of SDN. I am aware that the MSAR recently reported a median MCAT of 33 for accepted students, but I refuse to believe that an MCAT in the 91st percentile is only good enough to get your "foot in the door" at some places. I would argue that unaccepted students with those numbers probably (a) lack other qualities that schools find desirable, (b) screwed up the application cycle in some way or (c) have a red flag somewhere. While some schools are certainly number-oriented, many others place considerable importance on what you've accomplished outside of the classroom. As @jonnythan mentioned above, numbers are only one piece of the puzzle.

That said, I do agree that admissions is becoming more competitive.

At some places, not all places.

Quick question: what are the average and 10th percentile MCAT scores for matriculants at Harvard and Johns Hopkins?

 

[ace12345]

This is patently false and only contributes to the neuroticism of SDN. I am aware that the MSAR recently reported a median MCAT of 33 for accepted students, but I refuse to believe that an MCAT in the 91st percentile is only good enough to get your "foot in the door" at some places. I would argue that unaccepted students with those numbers probably (a) lack other qualities that schools find desirable, (b) screwed up the application cycle in some way or (c) have a red flag somewhere. While some schools are certainly number-oriented, many others place considerable importance on what you've accomplished outside of the classroom. As @jonnythan mentioned above, numbers are only one piece of the puzzle.

That said, I do agree that admissions is becoming more competitive.

I apologize if my message was misconstrued, as I am pretty sure the majority of my post highlighted the importance non-numbers qualities. Indeed the goal of my message was to show that good numbers, in-and-of themselves, will in no way guarantee an acceptance.

The added P.S. was simply to highlight to the OP that if he/she thinks a 3.8GPA 33MCAT is an example of a rock star, super-high, getting IIs like crazy number set, they're wrong. Yes these are good numbers and comparable ECs will probably go a long way toward garnering an acceptance. But are these phenomenal numbers? No. They're not the average for most Top 20 schools (Note I said SOME schools in my original post).

A dose of realism is all I was attempting to supply -- alongside the importance of a complete application (Which you seem to agree with).

 

[gettheleadout]

At some places, not all places.

Quick question: what are the average and 10th percentile MCAT scores for matriculants at Harvard and Johns Hopkins?

I can't get you 10th percentile for matriculants, but here's what I can get:

Harvard: Median accepted/matriculated: 37/36, 10th percentile accepted: 32
Johns Hopkins: Median accepted/matriculated: 36/35, 10th percentile accepted: 32

 

[Goro]

Based upon multiple posts here, and with experience at my own school, high GPA+ MCAT candidates can handily get rejected by not having enough ECs (esp. clinical volunteering), by not having enough research experience when applying to the reseacrh powerhouses, by applying late, and most commonly, bombing an interview. For the latter, I've written about this before, so do a search for my comments on the subject.

This past cycle, I know a number of people who were rejected from all the schools they applied to with above average stats. Like a 3.8 gpa/33 MCAT. For those of you who applied and got rejected with stats just as good as this, what do you feel like the weaknesses were in your application process? I really want to get into medical school when I apply next cycle, so I want to make sure I have no glaring holes in my application.

 

[Heday]

I'd like to add the some applicants do not apply broadly enough. If you're hovering around the 10% percentile at top programs (which is close to a 3.8/33), you're setting yourself up for failure if you only apply to top programs.

 

[AndyQC]

I'd like to add the some applicants do not apply broadly enough. If you're hovering around the 10% percentile at top programs (which is close to a 3.8/33), you're setting yourself up for failure if you only apply to top programs.

Agreed. School selection is paramount. And even if you have high stats, you need to target schools carefully. Don't apply to a research powerhouse if you haven't spent at least a year or two doing meaningful research. Likewise, don't bother with service-oriented schools if you haven't demonstrated long-term commitment to clinical volunteering.

 

[Shams al Deen]

How can you tell which schools heavily value research, do you just look at the USNews ranking for research med schools? MSAR lists percentage of students with research experience, but most schools are somewhere between 80-90% so that likely is not very useful. I have stats that match up with some of those highly ranked schools, but not the meaningful research experience to go along with it. How are you supposed to find schools that match high stats, but do not look so negatively at a small amount of research experience?

 

[AndyQC]

How can you tell which schools heavily value research, do you just look at the USNews ranking for research med schools? MSAR lists percentage of students with research experience, but most schools are somewhere between 80-90% so that likely is not very useful. I have stats that match up with some of those highly ranked schools, but not the meaningful research experience to go along with it. How are you supposed to find schools that match high stats, but do not look so negatively at a small amount of research experience?

You can usually learn quite a bit about a school just by perusing their website. Many schools also have long-standing reputations for being research powerhouses: Duke, UTSW, Stanford. A few even require research to apply (University of UT, for example). If you're unsure, you can always go to the school-specific threads to learn more from other applicants or current med students.

 

[phunky]

How can you tell which schools heavily value research, do you just look at the USNews ranking for research med schools? MSAR lists percentage of students with research experience, but most schools are somewhere between 80-90% so that likely is not very useful. I have stats that match up with some of those highly ranked schools, but not the meaningful research experience to go along with it. How are you supposed to find schools that match high stats, but do not look so negatively at a small amount of research experience?

Anything in the top 20 heavily values research.

 

[Heday]

You can usually learn quite a bit about a school just by perusing their website. Many schools also have long-standing reputations for being research powerhouses: Duke, UTSW, Stanford. A few even require research to apply (University of UT, for example). If you're unsure, you can always go to the school-specific threads to learn more from other applicants or current med students.

Agreed. Many students at some schools take a year off to do research (eg Yale). Another thing to look at is the curriculum (are there research components? are they required? do you need a thesis to graduate?). The assumption is the top schools value research.