Chances? Unusual app

[wisconsin1011]

Hi everyone,

Long time lurker and first time poster. I will be applying next cycle and am paranoid about my chances. I have looked at the criteria in the sticky thread about chances, but am wondering if anyone has more individual advice. I have heard a wide range of advice, from "competitive everywhere" to "aim for low-tier." I understand that it's hard to judge without seeing a whole application (letters, essays, etc), but please let me know what you think...

Stats
3.4 GPA
520 MCAT

Research
1. undergrad lab from freshman fall until graduation, summers included. 4000+ hrs, resulting in 1 first author publication (IF > 8), 1 fourth author publication, and 2 poster presentations at international conferences (1 as first author and one as third).
2. full-time tech/post-bac at Harvard-affiliated institution, another first author publication in the works (hard to tell if it will be published by June 1). Already presented as first author at international Gordon conference, was selected to give an oral presentation during seminar (pre-conference meeting for students).

Other
200+ hours clinical experience (shadowing, volunteering in a few different settings)
President of an organization on campus during undergrad

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

MSTPs are now required to report cGPA in their NIH MSTP renewals, not MCAT. The cGPA of 3.4 will hurt you, but some institutions will feel quite comfortable taking a "risk" given your strong research accomplishments and MCAT. You will need to apply broadly to 20-30 programs, including 5-10 dream schools who are likely not to interview you [You also need to apply to at least 10 midwest MSTPs who will see you quite positively]. Nevertheless, years from now, it will only be about papers, papers, papers..., not about where you went to school or what step score or GPA. You are competitive, PM me if you want to discuss more specifics.

 

[wisconsin1011]

@Fencer thank you for your input. Just curious, since my cGPA is the only thing you mentioned, how far off am I from reducing the "risk?" 3.5? 3.6? 3.7? I know there is nothing I can do about it now but since it is the only weakness everyone cites in my application, I was wondering how close I was to having it looked over, given my MCAT and research experience.

 

[Fencer]

Every committee and school works differently. I know institutions who routinely do not interview below 3.8 or 3.7. I personally take a broader view with "one number doesn't define you but multiple numbers do". You seem to have the experiences and complete package. It will their loss, but you will get into a selection of programs...

 

[wisconsin1011]

Any other opinions?

 

[s_med]

Fencer is the most qualified to answer this question and I agree with the above. I'm at a top 10 MSTP and a 3.4 cGPA simply wouldn't make the cut here. YMMV at other top institutions.

What's your post-bac GPA?

 

[wisconsin1011]

@s_med thank you for the response. You mention "wouldn't make the cut," but according to multiple top 10 program websites that I've seen (WashU, Tri-I, UPenn, etc), they explicitly say something to the effect of "while the average GPA and MCAT are XYZ, we do not employ specific cutoffs." WashU even shows admissions data to support this. However, one exception that I've seen is Hopkins, which on its website lists its lowest GPA as 3.61. I also have friends at other top 10 MSTPs that I haven't mentioned who have told me that while uncommon, it's not unheard of for people to interview at their programs with 3.4-3.6 GPA. Perhaps your institution is one of the exceptions?
To answer your question, I am not an academic post-bac; simply working in the lab full-time as a tech.

 

[Datypicalpremed]

Always take those things they say about cutoffs with a grain of salt. I had the exact reverse situation as you so I learned that the hard way. The reality is usually quite different than what they say and the averages are more what you should be aiming for. They are usually there to make programs seem more "wholesome" or for specific cases, like URMs.


Or just to make more money off secondary fees...

 

[Microbug]

@s_med thank you for the response. You mention "wouldn't make the cut," but according to multiple top 10 program websites that I've seen (WashU, Tri-I, UPenn, etc), they explicitly say something to the effect of "while the average GPA and MCAT are XYZ, we do not employ specific cutoffs." WashU even shows admissions data to support this. However, one exception that I've seen is Hopkins, which on its website lists its lowest GPA as 3.61. I also have friends at other top 10 MSTPs that I haven't mentioned who have told me that while uncommon, it's not unheard of for people to interview at their programs with 3.4-3.6 GPA. Perhaps your institution is one of the exceptions?
To answer your question, I am not an academic post-bac; simply working in the lab full-time as a tech.

Just because you can get an interview doesn't necessarily mean you will get in. If you look at WashU's data carefully, they interview like 1 or 2 people with GPA at 3.4 (these people probably have nature papers or something else extraordinary to compensate). By the time they meet for admission post-interview, unless you are extraordinary in some way, 3.4 is not going to cut it when compared with other 3.8+. MSTP are also required to report GPAs and not MCATs nowadays, which can factor into their decision making process as well. I'm not saying you shouldn't apply to these top tier schools, but also apply with a wide range so you will end up with something.

 

[wisconsin1011]

@Datypicalpremed well that's a bummer. I can't change my stats at this point so I'll hope for the best.

@Microbug of course interviews don't guarantee acceptance, but I think they all but disprove the notion that cGPA alone (within reason) can get your file dismissed. You reference the WashU GPA data, but you don't know the MCAT scores of those 3.4 GPA applicants. Perhaps a 3.4/512 MCAT/Nature paper is evaluated differently than a 3.4/520+ MCAT/1-2 non-Nature first author papers. I know we're getting into semantics here, but the point I'm trying to make is that it seems misleading to put so much weight on GPA, at least based on the information I have.

 

[Microbug]

@Datypicalpremed well that's a bummer. I can't change my stats at this point so I'll hope for the best.

@Microbug of course interviews don't guarantee acceptance, but I think they all but disprove the notion that cGPA alone (within reason) can get your file dismissed. You reference the WashU GPA data, but you don't know the MCAT scores of those 3.4 GPA applicants. Perhaps a 3.4/512 MCAT/Nature paper is evaluated differently than a 3.4/520+ MCAT/1-2 non-Nature first author papers. I know we're getting into semantics here, but the point I'm trying to make is that it seems misleading to put so much weight on GPA, at least based on the information I have.

Maybe my view is skewed bc of my circle but most of my friends that are applying/in MSTP programs are pretty much all the typical 3.8+/518+, years of research/prestigious summer research programs. I can't speak for all programs, but I'm saying at TOP20 schools, these stats/background are fairly common among applicants. Like I said before, apply to these top schools if you want but don't expect anything (they're all crapshoot even for applicants with amazing stats), apply to a range of other schools so you can make sure you'll at least have somewhere to go. Then do well in med school, theres always residency for you to aim for the prestige.

 

[s_med]

If you look at WashU's data carefully, they interview like 1 or 2 people with GPA at 3.4 (these people probably have nature papers or something else extraordinary to compensate). By the time they meet for admission post-interview, unless you are extraordinary in some way, 3.4 is not going to cut it when compared with other 3.8+.

Precisely. There may not be "cutoffs" in the sense that an application is tossed by a computer before ever being viewed by human eyes, but all things considered a 3.4 GPA applicant will need some unique and remarkable draw to score an interview seat away from 3.8-4.0 applicants (of which there are many).

You reference the WashU GPA data, but you don't know the MCAT scores of those 3.4 GPA applicants.

Almost certainly, a 3.4 student who is offered an interview to WashU MSTP has a 520+ MCAT and some other remarkable quality to their application. Keep in mind WashU only interviews 99 people per year. Their pre-interview cuts are unforgiving.

Perhaps a 3.4/512 MCAT/Nature paper is evaluated differently than a 3.4/520+ MCAT/1-2 non-Nature first author papers. I know we're getting into semantics here, but the point I'm trying to make is that it seems misleading to put so much weight on GPA, at least based on the information I have.

I applied with 3.97/524/2 non-CNS first author papers and was rejected from most of the top MSTPs to which I applied. Even with a very high GPA/MCAT the outcome for any given top program is unpredictable. I'd have eaten my hat if I ended up where I am today having applied with a 3.4.

Fencer's advice is still the best. Apply broadly -- there is a slim chance you will be considered at top programs, and better odds for lower ranked ones. Nail the research essays and interviews when you do them because they will let your research/publication experience shine.

 

[wisconsin1011]

@s_med @Microbug I 100% accept that my chances are very slim at the top 10 programs. I was already planning to apply broadly, but was just trying to get more detail on the so-called "cutoffs" for these top programs as they're hard to gauge with different sources saying different things.
That said, what do you think my chances are with the high-mid-tier/low-top-tier programs such as Emory, Pitt, Case Western, Mount Sinai, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc? These are the programs I am aiming for, but will also apply to programs such as Einstein, Maryland, Miami, Umass, MUSC with GPA cutoffs closer to my 3.4.

 

[Microbug]

@s_med @Microbug I 100% accept that my chances are very slim at the top 10 programs. I was already planning to apply broadly, but was just trying to get more detail on the so-called "cutoffs" for these top programs as they're hard to gauge with different sources saying different things.
That said, what do you think my chances are with the high-mid-tier/low-top-tier programs such as Emory, Pitt, Case Western, Mount Sinai, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc? These are the programs I am aiming for, but will also apply to programs such as Einstein, Maryland, Miami, Umass, MUSC with GPA cutoffs closer to my 3.4.

I don’t think anyone here or anywhere can tell you about the “cutoff” for these institutions, they all individually have their own particular set of “rules” that unless you’re an ADCOM there, you wouldn’t know. So like everyone else here said, there is no way you can figure out these information, you just have to do what we all did which is applied broadly and hope for the best.

 

[Fencer]

While some programs factor in the GPA in a Master's program, AMCAS doesn't add it to your cumulative cGPA or Science GPA. On the other side, taking pre-med requirements or additional undergraduate/postbac courses at a community college will add to your Ivy league low cGPA by AMCAS rules. Gaming the system when a computer reviews your application...

 

[s_med]

what do you think my chances are with the high-mid-tier/low-top-tier programs such as Emory, Pitt, Case Western, Mount Sinai, Vanderbilt, UNC, etc? These are the programs I am aiming for, but will also apply to programs such as Einstein, Maryland, Miami, Umass, MUSC with GPA cutoffs closer to my 3.4.

I’d guess you would get a handful of IIs from the low-top tier programs and several more from the mid tier programs.

You still seem to be hung up on the concept of cutoffs — no one will be able to give you a comprehensive and wholly accurate answer about that. Adcoms operate differently. Some will see your GPA and dump your application immediately, i.e. a true cutoff. Others will put it in a pile “to be considered later” and then reject once interview slots are filled. Yet others will give it a closer read and then decide which pile it belongs in. There’s really no telling what a particular program will do with your app. We can only go by the statistics of applicants who are regularly interviewed there. Yes, there will be outliers but it is an unrealistic expectation that you will be one of them. When I say that a 3.4 “wouldn’t make the cut” at my institution I am giving you the most realistic expectation I have for your application based on the folks I see interviewed here. Any other answer would be doing you a disservice.

 

[sarcasm]

3.4 GPA, 515 MCAT, 6 publications, 3000+ hours research, applied to 14 schools, currently have 3 MSTP interviews (mid-tier) and 1 smaller MD-PhD program interview coming up--hope that helps!

 

[Lucca]

Like fencer said, one number doesn’t define you but several numbers do. Think of it this way: the more deficient you are in one category, the more impressive the other categories need to be. So, while there might not be a “cutoff” per se, there might as well be because the expectations for the other categories given a 3.4 are so difficult to meet. Now, if you had a 3.4/520+ and publications, we would be having a different conversation.

Regardless of the strength of your app, you should apply broadly. The people who are successful every year do exactly that. MD/PHD programs are small and extremely competitive. Even with the best possible app, there are no guarantees

 

[wisconsin1011]

Hi @Lucca I do have 3.4/520 and a few publications (one first author, a 4th author, a few posters at big conferences, and possibly another first author by next June). That said, do you agree with the other posters in that I will be have a hard time getting past adcoms at top schools with my 3.4?

 

[Lucca]

Hi @Lucca I do have 3.4/520 and a few publications (one first author, a 4th author, a few posters at big conferences, and possibly another first author by next June). That said, do you agree with the other posters in that I will be have a hard time getting past adcoms at top schools with my 3.4?

I have no way of saying for sure, what I will say is that you have a good reason to both apply to those top programs but also have a broad list keeping in mind that you have an unbalanced app.

Fencer is the expert here, but I’m interested to see whether or not the McAT being excluded from the PD report to the NIH actually changes admissions practices. Will GpA be more important? Will nothing change? Will MCAT medians go down for once? Will the effects be different across programs? Won’t know until next year probably.

 

[Maebea]

Lower GPAs can be the result of a number of different things: very challenging curriculum; having to work one's way through college; personal/family/health problems; greater focus on lab work than on course work; etc. We try to figure that out by reading the application. I have seen individuals with 3.0 GPAs get into MSTPs at top 5 schools; there are not many, but it does happen. As far as the NIH grant goes, Bert Shapiro, the former MSTP program officer at the NIH, told me that taking a student with a lower GPA or MCAT is not a problem. If fact, it shows that a program is willing to take a a risk for an individual whose predictors of success did not show up on a transcript or the MCAT. If your program is filled with 4.0/524 students from elite undergrad programs, you really are not taking any risks. Moreover, your program may not be making much of a difference if all your students came in as sure things. Those students are going to succeed even if your program is disorganized and low impact. Over the years, a number of top 10 schools have been placed on probation and had their funding cut because their program was judged to not be adding much value, even though their students were publishing and graduating. Wisconsin1011, I encourage you to follow Fencer's advice and to include those high tier schools on your list. You will not get into all of them, but I would be surprised if you did not get into at least one.

 

[Easily_forgotten]

@Maebea If your program were to interview a low GPA candidate, could the low GPA still be sufficient for an otherwise admit-worthy candidate to instead receive a post-interview rejection or waitlist spot? How much weight is placed on the written application versus the quality of an applicant’s interview when deciding a final admissions decision? While I recognize that the answer likely varies between programs, any insight you had on this point would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Maebea]

@Maebea If your program were to interview a low GPA candidate, could the low GPA still be sufficient for an otherwise admit-worthy candidate to instead receive a post-interview rejection or waitlist spot? How much weight is placed on the written application versus the quality of an applicant’s interview when deciding a final admissions decision? While I recognize that the answer likely varies between programs, any insight you had on this point would be greatly appreciated.

Any concerns about the GPA are resolved before an interview is offered. If we have concerns about an applicants ability to succeed in the MD or PhD, we do not interview them. We have interviewed and accepted applicants with 3.1 GPA's. The only time a low GPA (3.4) came into play in the post-interview decision was indirectly: when asked about the GPA, the applicant responded flippantly and said that had a life outside school and the profession would be better off if more MD's loosened up and enjoyed life. While there is merit to this statement, it was not the wisest thing to tell a medical school faculty member.

 

[wisconsin1011]

UPDATE

Now that this cycle is almost wrapped up, I wanted to give an update for future low GPA applicants viewing this thread. It turns out that some of the advice in this thread was good, namely from Maebea, but some of it was slightly alarmist. I don't mean to knock anyone on this forum, but future applicants should recognize that the vast majority of posters here are either your peers, i.e. future/current applicants or current MSTP students, who don't know much more about admissions beyond their own experiences. Here I hope to pitch in my two cents to balance out some of the common themes I've seen in this forum.
Anyway, I applied to 25 schools; 18 programs were USNWR Top 30, and the rest were lower ranked schools. I had fairly random interview decisions, i.e. pre-interview rejections from half the lower ranked schools and half the higher ranked schools. Without going into too much detail, I have so far been accepted at every school I interviewed at except for one waitlist, but am still waiting on a few. My acceptances include a few of the "top MSTPs" discussed in this thread. There were no geographic trends in these interview/admissions decisions. Also, for those curious, I am not considered URM.

REFLECTIONS

I will try to keep this as brief as possible. At no point in any interview was my GPA brought up. That said, at one school where I got a pre-interview rejection, an inquiry to the program director revealed that my GPA was what held me back. Following my experience on the interview trail, which has pretty much wrapped up at this point, I want to give my two cents on how to succeed in this opaque admissions process.

1. Research > stats. Especially at the top ranked schools, literally every applicant that talked about his/her stats had higher stats than me, including URMs. Often in both categories. Maybe people with lower stats like me are less inclined to brag?... It was harder to gauge research, but it seemed like very, very few people had comparable experience (quality & quantity combined) to mine (6000+ hours at multiple institutions, all independent projects, publications in high impact journals). Therefore, research can really make up for stats. Of course it's best if you can have both. Because this isn't possible for most people, I'd suggest a balance: if the typical interviewee is 3.8+/520+ with 2500 hrs of research experience, an ideal situation would be, say, 3.7/516 with 4000 hours of independent research. What I'm saying is, it's better to have "average" stats and outstanding research than be an "average top 10 applicant" stats/ECs-wise and have relatively mediocre research experience.
2. The subjective metrics often unmentioned on SDN, such as letters of recommendation and essays, make or break your application. I cannot overstate how important good letters are. Aside from your essays, the letters are given the most weight when determining the "quality" of your research potential. For what it's worth, as far as "good letters" go, my writers' names were praised more often than the letters themselves. I am pretty sure I had strong letters, but I would recommend having a letter from someone who is well-known in your field. If you don't come from a top-tier undergrad, go to a top-tier institution or NIH for postbac and obtain a letter from your advisor there. Also, I spent a lot of time on my primary and secondary essays and received positive feedback on these during interviews.
3. USNWR rankings have a pretty low correlation with MSTP quality. For all the obsession over getting into a "top X-ranked" program, the truth is that every MSTP has pros and cons, and reputation is just one of them. My perspective changed after visiting a few schools that I had low expectations for going in but was very impressed by. The same occurred for a top-ranked school that I am going to stay away from with a 10-foot pole. I believe that if a program has 3+ advisors you could see yourself working with, a modern curriculum, and happy students, it's just as good as any other program out there (for you). Best of luck!

 

[Lucca]

UPDATE

Now that this cycle is almost wrapped up, I wanted to give an update for future low GPA applicants viewing this thread. It turns out that some of the advice in this thread was good, namely from Maebea, but some of it was slightly alarmist. I don't mean to knock anyone on this forum, but future applicants should recognize that the vast majority of posters here are either your peers, i.e. future/current applicants or current MSTP students, who don't know much more about admissions beyond their own experiences. Here I hope to pitch in my two cents to balance out some of the common themes I've seen in this forum.
Anyway, I applied to 25 schools; 18 programs were USNWR Top 30, and the rest were lower ranked schools. I had fairly random interview decisions, i.e. pre-interview rejections from half the lower ranked schools and half the higher ranked schools. Without going into too much detail, I have so far been accepted at every school I interviewed at except for one waitlist, but am still waiting on a few. My acceptances include a few of the "top MSTPs" discussed in this thread. There were no geographic trends in these interview/admissions decisions. Also, for those curious, I am not considered URM.

REFLECTIONS

I will try to keep this as brief as possible. At no point in any interview was my GPA brought up. That said, at one school where I got a pre-interview rejection, an inquiry to the program director revealed that my GPA was what held me back. Following my experience on the interview trail, which has pretty much wrapped up at this point, I want to give my two cents on how to succeed in this opaque admissions process.

1. Research > stats. Especially at the top ranked schools, literally every applicant that talked about his/her stats had higher stats than me, including URMs. Often in both categories. Maybe people with lower stats like me are less inclined to brag?... It was harder to gauge research, but it seemed like very, very few people had comparable experience (quality & quantity combined) to mine (6000+ hours at multiple institutions, all independent projects, publications in high impact journals). Therefore, research can really make up for stats. Of course it's best if you can have both. Because this isn't possible for most people, I'd suggest a balance: if the typical interviewee is 3.8+/520+ with 2500 hrs of research experience, an ideal situation would be, say, 3.7/516 with 4000 hours of independent research. What I'm saying is, it's better to have "average" stats and outstanding research than be an "average top 10 applicant" stats/ECs-wise and have relatively mediocre research experience.
2. The subjective metrics often unmentioned on SDN, such as letters of recommendation and essays, make or break your application. I cannot overstate how important good letters are. Aside from your essays, the letters are given the most weight when determining the "quality" of your research potential. For what it's worth, as far as "good letters" go, my writers' names were praised more often than the letters themselves. I am pretty sure I had strong letters, but I would recommend having a letter from someone who is well-known in your field. If you don't come from a top-tier undergrad, go to a top-tier institution or NIH for postbac and obtain a letter from your advisor there. Also, I spent a lot of time on my primary and secondary essays and received positive feedback on these during interviews.
3. USNWR rankings have a pretty low correlation with MSTP quality. For all the obsession over getting into a "top X-ranked" program, the truth is that every MSTP has pros and cons, and reputation is just one of them. My perspective changed after visiting a few schools that I had low expectations for going in but was very impressed by. The same occurred for a top-ranked school that I am going to stay away from with a 10-foot pole. I believe that if a program has 3+ advisors you could see yourself working with, a modern curriculum, and happy students, it's just as good as any other program out there (for you). Best of luck!

Congratulations and thanks for the update! It's rly helpful to know for the future how these cycles go to see how off-base or accurate the hivemind is doing and we can improve for the future. After going through the cycle as well (we may have even met IRL for all I know!) I definitely agree with your major points. In particular, I think my LORs and research experiences clinched the interview at places where my stats were on the lower end and those were highlighted by my interviewers as strong points in my app; I'm fairly confident my most recent PIs recommendation helped me land a few specific interviews as well where we have strong research ties with people on the med school faculty. I also agree with leaving yourself room to be surprised by a program; I certainly was several times in both good and not so good ways.

Congrats again and best of luck narrowing down your options.

 

[PursuingHappy]

UPDATE

Now that this cycle is almost wrapped up, I wanted to give an update for future low GPA applicants viewing this thread. It turns out that some of the advice in this thread was good, namely from Maebea, but some of it was slightly alarmist. I don't mean to knock anyone on this forum, but future applicants should recognize that the vast majority of posters here are either your peers, i.e. future/current applicants or current MSTP students, who don't know much more about admissions beyond their own experiences. Here I hope to pitch in my two cents to balance out some of the common themes I've seen in this forum.
Anyway, I applied to 25 schools; 18 programs were USNWR Top 30, and the rest were lower ranked schools. I had fairly random interview decisions, i.e. pre-interview rejections from half the lower ranked schools and half the higher ranked schools. Without going into too much detail, I have so far been accepted at every school I interviewed at except for one waitlist, but am still waiting on a few. My acceptances include a few of the "top MSTPs" discussed in this thread. There were no geographic trends in these interview/admissions decisions. Also, for those curious, I am not considered URM.

REFLECTIONS

I will try to keep this as brief as possible. At no point in any interview was my GPA brought up. That said, at one school where I got a pre-interview rejection, an inquiry to the program director revealed that my GPA was what held me back. Following my experience on the interview trail, which has pretty much wrapped up at this point, I want to give my two cents on how to succeed in this opaque admissions process.

1. Research > stats. Especially at the top ranked schools, literally every applicant that talked about his/her stats had higher stats than me, including URMs. Often in both categories. Maybe people with lower stats like me are less inclined to brag?... It was harder to gauge research, but it seemed like very, very few people had comparable experience (quality & quantity combined) to mine (6000+ hours at multiple institutions, all independent projects, publications in high impact journals). Therefore, research can really make up for stats. Of course it's best if you can have both. Because this isn't possible for most people, I'd suggest a balance: if the typical interviewee is 3.8+/520+ with 2500 hrs of research experience, an ideal situation would be, say, 3.7/516 with 4000 hours of independent research. What I'm saying is, it's better to have "average" stats and outstanding research than be an "average top 10 applicant" stats/ECs-wise and have relatively mediocre research experience.
2. The subjective metrics often unmentioned on SDN, such as letters of recommendation and essays, make or break your application. I cannot overstate how important good letters are. Aside from your essays, the letters are given the most weight when determining the "quality" of your research potential. For what it's worth, as far as "good letters" go, my writers' names were praised more often than the letters themselves. I am pretty sure I had strong letters, but I would recommend having a letter from someone who is well-known in your field. If you don't come from a top-tier undergrad, go to a top-tier institution or NIH for postbac and obtain a letter from your advisor there. Also, I spent a lot of time on my primary and secondary essays and received positive feedback on these during interviews.
3. USNWR rankings have a pretty low correlation with MSTP quality. For all the obsession over getting into a "top X-ranked" program, the truth is that every MSTP has pros and cons, and reputation is just one of them. My perspective changed after visiting a few schools that I had low expectations for going in but was very impressed by. The same occurred for a top-ranked school that I am going to stay away from with a 10-foot pole. I believe that if a program has 3+ advisors you could see yourself working with, a modern curriculum, and happy students, it's just as good as any other program out there (for you). Best of luck!

Totally agree. I think I doubted the quality of my application a lot because of this forum. I applied to way too many schools, thinking I would only get around ~5 interviews. I will say I am a URM, so maybe that helped. But even if I wasn't, I think I may have gotten a similar, if not the same, outcome based on my experiences, essays, research, publications, presentations, and LORs. One of my advisors, who also holds both degrees, told me I had strong application, but I didn't believe her because of all the high stats people on here.

Now, I am very grateful for this forum and people like Fencer. Without it, I would not have known which steps to take to pursue this path. It's a great resource. I would just behoove future applicants to take those chances if you know you have an overall strong application and not doubt themselves so much.