One of the reasons I got involved with application reviews and interviews is so mysterious (confused when I applied and even more so when my daughter applied). It is still a puzzle since I am not in the final decisions making, but I do decide on who to interview and conduct interviews, so here is my take:
The whole application matters. It's not just what type of volunteering or research you have done but what you learned and your reflections on that experience that really matters. It's easy to tell whether the activity was just box checking or a true passion to help. If you have a lot of paid employment but limited volunteer work, I look for the reason and find that these applicants are working to support their families. The letters of recommendations also provide a lot of background information on the applicant, if the applicant had built a relationship with the LOR writer and the letter is not a generic letter (there are lots of these generic letters that people think are strong LORs but are not).
Finally, the journey the applicant took as reflected in the personal statement, secondary essays, most meaningful experiences statements and LORs is what makes the applicant a good candidate or just average candidate. It literally takes me an hour to review an application.
Yes, the medical school rat race is an onerous, soul consuming ordeal, an arms race, and seemingly unfair. But to those of you who view us as out of touch and hypocritical (
@L-Tex-Oma,
@hotsaucemuffin,
@pdidd3), it's also unfair for you to lump all of us who are admissions faculty to the Dark Side. There are lots of us fighting for you.
My school has a large number of first generation college grads who come from very disadvantaged backgrounds (can't give you numbers, trying to stay anonymous).