Compare 2 applicants: High MCAT+low GPA+great ECs vs. average MCAT+GPA+EC

[Lawpy]

Let's reframe the question: how many ways can a high stat applicant kill his/her chances? We'll see how long the differential gets.

-Bad/irrelevant/no ECs
-poor school list (hubris?)
-IAs or legal trouble (probably more rare among these applicants
-bad or irrelevant PS
-awkward AF

Bad interview
Bad personal statement
Bad letters
Bad secondaries
Bad ECs or missing vital components
Red flag
Poor school list
Late application
Any combination of the above

So tl;dr admissions is a logical process that somehow leads to unpredictable outcomes due to information asymmetry

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

Stop, just stop right there.

This is a fool's errand, and it's not just about the stats. You have to have to who package to look at. Maybe the 3.2 contained a massive rising trend after a disastrous FR year in college? Maybe #2 has weak LORs? or multiple Ws implying GPA protection??

Med schools do NOT interview two people for one seat. If might be very likely that both of your hypothetical applicants would get IIs.

I just wanted to know what everyone's opinions may be between two applicants with the following characteristics:

1) High MCAT (98th+ percentile); low GPA (~3.2-3.3 science and cumulative); and very strong ECs (10+ publications)

versus

2) Average MCAT + GPA (for accepted students) and cookie-cutter ECs

Which one would be admitted to medical school? Does either candidate have a better shot at low/mid/top tier schools?

Tough; it's a seller's market. Med schools can afford to turn away applicants like this. People like this are extremely rare as applicants, BTW. In my school, engineers also tend to have trouble with our curriculum.

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.


Gawd, Farva, you're on a roll today. Please restrain your ignorance of the interview and admissions process. You can learn tons about a person from a one hour interview.

BH, interviews mean nothing. You cannot figure out anything from talking to some guy for an hour. Even more worthless than an interview is the MMI interview, "quantifying personality traits" LOL. I love it when some pseudoscientist at an MMI interview shows us experimental data on how it is a more reliable format.

 

[efle]

I will try to be blunt. The job of the admissions committee is to build a class of students who will become future physicians. Despite the opinions of most pre-meds, this is NOT about them individually. This process is not about rewarding people for being the best. This is about finding the 'best' future physicians. I think that an argument can be made that at 'top' schools they are not only looking for students that are 'guaranteed' to be good physicians and have the potential to be great/leaders of the field. So, what makes someone less desirable?

#1 Poor academics (GPA/MCAT/modulating factors), if you have a lower chance of surviving the training, there is less reason to accept you.
#2 Drive (ECs/PS/LOR/Interview), people who are not motivated do not get as much done. They realize that they can coast/do minimal and still get through and so they don't end up benefiting their community/others as much as they could.
#3 Poor understanding of medicine (ECs/PS/LOR/Interview), there are many applicants (I was one of them) who had no clue what medicine was when they applied. They are at much higher risk for burning out, dropping out or simply being less productive.

I have interacted with hundreds of medical students and residents. I can readily identify dozens who I think their medical school spot could have been better used. My biggest headaches right now are the residents who were those medical students that got in with great scores and were admitted despite having obvious other deficiencies.

If you got to reweight things for your school's admissions, what would you put at the top in place of grades/scores? Interview? Is it apparent in an hour talking to someone fresh out of college whether they'd be a great resident or leader in their field?

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile app

 

[Officer Farva]

If you got to reweight things for your school's admissions, what would you put at the top in place of grades/scores? Interview? Is it apparent in an hour talking to someone fresh out of college whether they'd be a great resident or leader in their field?

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile app

TBH, interviews mean nothing. You cannot figure out anything from talking to some guy for an hour. Even more worthless than an interview is the MMI interview, "quantifying personality traits" LOL. I love it when some pseudoscientist at an MMI interview shows us experimental data on how it is a more reliable format.

 

[Lawpy]

TBH, interviews mean nothing. You cannot figure out anything from talking to some guy for an hour. Even more worthless than an interview is the MMI interview, "quantifying personality traits" LOL. I love it when some pseudoscientist at an MMI interview shows us experimental data on how it is a more reliable format.

I also dont understand the purpose of a stress interview. It allows the interviewer to throw professionalism out the window and act like a *****ic jerk just to test how the interviewee acts under pressure. Even bizarre is the schools' dependence on applicants to report unprofessional interviewers to help improve the system.

 

[ZedsDed]

Tough; it's a seller's market. Med schools can afford to turn away applicants like this. People like this are extremely rare as applicants, BTW. In my school, engineers also tend to have trouble with our curriculum.

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the bold isn't true. Many people would argue that the lower GPA with the harder major at the more challenging school has more intrinsic value as un undergraduate student, all else being equal (which of course it never is.) Simply put, placing value on a bright shiny 4.0 in under-water basket weaving simply for looking sexy seems silly and frivolous on the surface. There is value to challenging yourself.

All that being said, what I mentioned probably has little to do with one's success or lack thereof as a physician. So I get when AdCom members put "difficulty of school and major" low on the priority list.

 

[efle]

TBH, interviews mean nothing. You cannot figure out anything from talking to some guy for an hour. Even more worthless than an interview is the MMI interview, "quantifying personality traits" LOL. I love it when some pseudoscientist at an MMI interview shows us experimental data on how it is a more reliable format.

Doesn't MMI score have like a .65 correlation to clinical year grading? Though I suppose rather than providing a defense for MMIs, than can mean they're both terrible metrics

 

[Lawpy]

Doesn't MMI score have like a .65 correlation to clinical year grading? Though I suppose rather than providing a defense for MMIs, than can mean they're both terrible metrics

How does a single day interviewing correlate anything with clinical years that happen few years after the interview?

 

[Officer Farva]

Doesn't MMI score have like a .65 correlation to clinical year grading? Though I suppose rather than providing a defense for MMIs, than can mean they're both terrible metrics

I believe so yes. At an MMI I attended, some admissions person was showing a series of data on various correlations of different interview formats and performance in school. I laughed when I saw the same correlation between a 9 person MMI and 2 or 3 traditional 45 minute interviews.

 

[mimelim]

If you got to reweight things for your school's admissions, what would you put at the top in place of grades/scores? Interview? Is it apparent in an hour talking to someone fresh out of college whether they'd be a great resident or leader in their field?

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile app

Eh, I think that academics need to be number one, but I think that the emphasis needs to be on getting rid of the people that you don't think are going to survive, not comparing people with a 3.7 vs. 3.8 because frankly that is just stupid.

TBH, interviews mean nothing. You cannot figure out anything from talking to some guy for an hour. Even more worthless than an interview is the MMI interview, "quantifying personality traits" LOL. I love it when some pseudoscientist at an MMI interview shows us experimental data on how it is a more reliable format.

After you do a couple dozen/hundred interviews and you understand what your average applicant looks like, you can very quickly figure out who you don't really want in your school/program. Is it fool proof? Absolutely not. But, to say "interviews mean nothing" is woefully ignorant. They may have no meaning to YOU. There is a reason we use interviews for school and employment. What is more worrying is that you can't imagine people with more experience than you gleaning something that you wouldn't.

The fundamental problem that I have is that a lot of students think that great GPA/scores = great person = great physician = I DESERVE a spot in medical school. It drives them nuts that they are judged and sometimes graded, on things outside of scores and they start talking about things being "unfair".

 

[Officer Farva]

Eh, I think that academics need to be number one, but I think that the emphasis needs to be on getting rid of the people that you don't think are going to survive, not comparing people with a 3.7 vs. 3.8 because frankly that is just stupid.



After you do a couple dozen/hundred interviews and you understand what your average applicant looks like, you can very quickly figure out who you don't really want in your school/program. Is it fool proof? Absolutely not. But, to say "interviews mean nothing" is woefully ignorant. They may have no meaning to YOU. There is a reason we use interviews for school and employment. What is more worrying is that you can't imagine people with more experience than you gleaning something that you wouldn't.

The fundamental problem that I have is that a lot of students think that great GPA/scores = great person = great physician = I DESERVE a spot in medical school. It drives them nuts that they are judged and sometimes graded, on things outside of scores and they start talking about things being "unfair".

The reason I feel that interviews are random in my eyes is because I feel like if you speak to any doctor across different academic institutions, they are going to value one thing over the other in a candidate. By chance, I might be interviewed by an MD who wants to train basic science researchers. Another might stress interprofessionalism. Another might want students to become overworked primary care docs. Another one might value education and look for students who will get ten degrees at their school and not finish in 4 years (stanford and Penn come to mind). I feel that how you perform at an interview relates very much to if the interviewer approves of your background.

I personally get along great with basic scientist MDs and clinical researchers. Primary care docs and EM people think "i dont know real medicine". I been to enough interviews to know what to say and how to interview well, but a lot of it is out of your hands.

 

[efle]

I brought up the 36+ MCAT because that's what the initial post was about. And whenever we have this discussion, the high MCAT/low GPA from a top school is already a point of interest.

As for what you are saying you can compare the same AAMC table to a top 20 school like Emory(I didnt use Cornell because their MCAT range for there stats is too big at 30-35)
http://career.emory.edu/images/parents_images_pdf/2013_med_mcat_gpa.pdf

% of applicants with a 30-32 MCAT score with a 3.0-3.6 GPA

National Statistics: roughly 13,600/35,000
Emory: 29/66 24/68 for the ranges 30-31 and 32-33 respectively

As you can see not really a big difference. More people arent really being screwed at top schools for the low GPA/30-32 MCAT range than the national average.

WashU has nice bins. For 30-32, 22% cleared 3.6 while nationally it was 57%. Maybe Emory is an exception, or maybe WashU is, but if we're closer to the norm for top 20 then a lot of GPAs take a beating. If I see someone with a 40/3.1 I'm going to think they were lazy or disorganized no matter where they went. But if I see someone with a 31/3.4 from Hopkins I'll be thinking "ouch, should've gone LAC/state honors program"

 

[GrapesofRath]

Eh, I think that academics need to be number one, but I think that the emphasis needs to be on getting rid of the people that you don't think are going to survive, not comparing people with a 3.7 vs. 3.8 because frankly that is just stupid.

The application process already weights lots of non academic factors such as ECs, LORs etc significantly, do you think there is a need to change how these non academic factors are evaluted? Ultimately what I'm getting at is from your experience, do you hear others focusing on things when talking about someone's LORs or interviews that you consistently think to yourself "that's not really how we should be using these things in evaluating an applicant"?. Is there a clear way ADCOMs can improve how we use non academic metrics in evaluation.

Also by survival, I'm guessing you are talking more about training medical students without significant flaws and making more average medical students above average, given how high graduation rates are and how low attrition rate is. I dont think the issue is as much "let's get our graduation rate up from 96% to 97.5%" as much as lets try to reduce the number of medical students we have that graduate but have flaws or lets make sure a greater proportion of our medical students will be able to thrive in residency and all the various challenges it brings. Correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that's what you mean.

 

[efle]

After you do a couple dozen/hundred interviews and you understand what your average applicant looks like, you can very quickly figure out who you don't really want in your school/program.

Can I request examples? Do you just wish schools more harshly filtered out arrogant or apathetic sounding interviewees?

 

[GrapesofRath]

WashU has nice bins. For 30-32, 22% cleared 3.6 while nationally it was 57%. Maybe Emory is an exception, or maybe WashU is, but if we're closer to the norm for top 20 then a lot of GPAs take a beating. If I see someone with a 40/3.1 I'm going to think they were lazy or disorganized no matter where they went. But if I see someone with a 31/3.4 from Hopkins I'll be thinking "ouch, should've gone LAC/state honors program"

The thing with this is its BCPM GPA's not cGPAs. That makes a difference particularly at top 20 schools where it's common to see a real disparity between cGPA and sGPA. That's why I tried focusing on schools that give cGPA becuase AAMC is only giving cGPA in those charts.

 

[efle]

The thing with this is its BCPM GPA's not cGPAs. That makes a difference particularly at top 20 schools where it's common to see a real disparity between cGPA and sGPA. That's why I tried focusing on schools that give cGPA becuase AAMC is only giving cGPA in those charts.

Wow, I never caught that before, good spot. But isn't the BCPM vs cGPA difference like .06? The effect here is an order of magnitude greater.

Re the bold, I think humanities being kinder is found everywhere, hence the sGPA vs aoGPA gap of .13, I'd be interested to see evidence it's more pronounced of a gap at one school type over another

 

[mimelim]

The application process already weights lots of non academic factors such as ECs, LORs etc significantly, do you think there is a need to change how these non academic factors are evaluted? Ultimately what I'm getting at is from your experience, do you hear others focusing on things when talking about someone's LORs or interviews that you consistently think to yourself "that's not really how we should be using these things in evaluating an applicant"?. Is there a clear way ADCOMs can improve how we use non academic metrics in evaluation.

Also by survival, I'm guessing you are talking more about training medical students without significant flaws and making more average medical students above average, given how high graduation rates are and how low attrition rate is. I dont think the issue is as much "let's get our graduation rate up from 96% to 97.5%" as much as lets try to reduce the number of medical students we have that graduate but have flaws or lets make sure a greater proportion of our medical students will be able to thrive in residency and all the various challenges it brings. Correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that's what you mean.

I'm not trying to say that medical admissions are perfect and can't be improved. It definitely can on many fronts and you absolutely touch on an important point about HOW we evaluate those fuzzier aspects of the application. There are plenty of adcoms that I have met that should not have been there (and many were rotated off) because they just don't understand the process that they are a part of. But, at the end of the day, this is why there is a committee and this is why there are a lot of schools. The way that applicants protect themselves is by applying to a fair number of schools. The statistical reality is, if 20 schools reject you, it isn't them, it is you.

Regarding survival, graduating is the bare minimum. It is a problem for people to repeat years/get held back as well. But, also they need to come out in one piece and ready to start residency. There is always a small fraction of students that don't make it to residency not because nobody would take them, but because they can't stomach continuing and have stuck it out so that they graduate. Then there is the unfortunate bunch that make it into residency and then flame out or burn out. They may even graduate from residency, but be miserable at the end of the day. We will never be able to do this perfectly, but we want to avoid as many of those students as possible.

 

[Nietzschelover]

In that very top category among those who don't get in, in addition to the items already listed, how prevalent is "too weird" and/or "too socially awkward"?

 

[mimelim]

Can I request examples? Do you just wish schools more harshly filtered out arrogant or apathetic sounding interviewees?

Sure, I'll keep them broad so nobody gets offended.

Arrogance - I am not one much for authority and I have a fairly good sized ego. But, I also recognize that humility is a valuable asset. Being able to say, "I don't know" is valuable. Being able ask for help is a requirement.

Entitlement - Serious impediment to learning/teamwork.

Lone wolf - You have to be able to work as a team. If you can't play nice in the sandbox, you are going to have a hard time dealing with the dozens/hundreds of people you interact with in clinical medicine each week.

Poor communication - You need to be able to communicate with patients. You need to be able to communicate with your colleagues. People are woefully ignorant about their communication skills. They are not developed overnight. They are honed over time and they are invaluable.


On the flip side, I would never hold it against someone who didn't show "kindness" in an interview, it is hard for it to come out. But, sometimes you get an applicant who exudes commitment to others over themselves. They are rare, but they are the "can't miss" in the application pool because like a good point guard, they make everyone around them better and that is worth a heck of a lot more than a 3.9/40.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Wow, I never caught that before, good spot. But isn't the BCPM vs cGPA difference like .06? The effect here is an order of magnitude greater.

Re the bold, I think humanities being kinder is found everywhere, hence the sGPA vs aoGPA gap of .13, I'd be interested to see evidence it's more pronounced of a gap at one school type over another

The BCPM vs cGPA difference for the country is on average .06 different. I would expect that difference to be bigger for top 20 schools.

Here is one high end school that publishes a comparison of sGPA to MCAT and cGPA to MCAT in their acceptance rates.

https://careercenter.umich.edu/article/2014-medical-school-application-statistics
cGPA vs MCAT:
28-30: 50/182 had <3.4. 105/182 had <3.6.
31-33: 49/224 had <3.4. 112/224 had a <3.6.

sGPA vs MCAT:
28-30: 95/182 had <3.4. 141/182 had <3.6.
31-33: 76/224 had <3.4. 128/224 had <3.6.

So yes there does seem to be some difference in the statistics when you account for sGPA vs MCAT as opposed to cGPA vs MCAT.

 

[efle]

The BCPM vs cGPA difference for the country is on average .06 different. I would expect that difference to be bigger for top 20 schools.

Here is one high end school that publishes a comparison of sGPA to MCAT and cGPA to MCAT in their acceptance rates.

https://careercenter.umich.edu/article/2014-medical-school-application-statistics
cGPA vs MCAT:
28-30: 50/182 had <3.4. 105/182 had <3.6.
31-33: 49/224 had <3.4. 112/224 had a <3.6.

sGPA vs MCAT:
28-30: 95/182 had <3.4. 141/182 had <3.6.
31-33: 76/224 had <3.4. 128/224 had <3.6.

So yes there does seem to be some difference in the statistics when you account for sGPA vs MCAT as opposed to cGPA vs MCAT.

There's no need for narrow comparisons like that when they state "UM students and alumni/ae who were accepted to one or more medical schools had on average a 3.64 undergraduate cumulative GPA and 3.55 undergraduate science GPA"

Gap for them was 0.09.

 

[Officer Farva]

I never really understood the value of some of the softer skills, which I believe everyone possesses in an adequate amount.
Teamwork: Yea, most of the people I worked with were "collaborative team players".

Communication skills: Talking to people to get a job done, easy done this 1000s of times. Plus I speak two languages (with a little knowledge of a third).

Lifelong learning: Yea, pretty sure I have to learn new things as time goes on. Physics now is not the same as 18th century physics. Same with medicine.

 

[Med Ed]

The reason I feel that interviews are random in my eyes is because I feel like if you speak to any doctor across different academic institutions, they are going to value one thing over the other in a candidate. By chance, I might be interviewed by an MD who wants to train basic science researchers. Another might stress interprofessionalism. Another might want students to become overworked primary care docs. Another one might value education and look for students who will get ten degrees at their school and not finish in 4 years (stanford and Penn come to mind). I feel that how you perform at an interview relates very much to if the interviewer approves of your background.

This is why it is incumbent upon the admissions office to adequately train interviewers so as to minimize this variability. Admissions committees get to know their interviewers, as well, and can mitigate patterns of bias that become apparent.

 

[Nietzschelover]

I never really understood the value of some of the softer skills, which I believe everyone possesses in an adequate amount.
Teamwork: Yea, most of the people I worked with were "collaborative team players".

Communication skills: Talking to people to get a job done, easy done this 1000s of times. Plus I speak two languages (with a little knowledge of a third).

Lifelong learning: Yea, pretty sure I have to learn new things as time goes on. Physics now is not the same as 18th century physics. Same with medicine.

Almost everybody thinks they are a team player, but many are not. Think about an athletic team or any group of people, and within those groups the couple or few that can be most trusted, the most fair, the better listeners, the most "go to" for the others, etc, etc usually is pretty evident at least from the outside even if some on the inside don't see it.

 

[Lucca]

TBH, interviews mean nothing. You cannot figure out anything from talking to some guy for an hour. Even more worthless than an interview is the MMI interview, "quantifying personality traits" LOL. I love it when some pseudoscientist at an MMI interview shows us experimental data on how it is a more reliable format.

You can't possibly believe this.

 

[rilte4]

Sure, I'll keep them broad so nobody gets offended.

Arrogance - I am not one much for authority and I have a fairly good sized ego. But, I also recognize that humility is a valuable asset. Being able to say, "I don't know" is valuable. Being able ask for help is a requirement.

Entitlement - Serious impediment to learning/teamwork.

Lone wolf - You have to be able to work as a team. If you can't play nice in the sandbox, you are going to have a hard time dealing with the dozens/hundreds of people you interact with in clinical medicine each week.

Poor communication - You need to be able to communicate with patients. You need to be able to communicate with your colleagues. People are woefully ignorant about their communication skills. They are not developed overnight. They are honed over time and they are invaluable.


On the flip side, I would never hold it against someone who didn't show "kindness" in an interview, it is hard for it to come out. But, sometimes you get an applicant who exudes commitment to others over themselves. They are rare, but they are the "can't miss" in the application pool because like a good point guard, they make everyone around them better and that is worth a heck of a lot more than a 3.9/40.

How frequently do you see students who convincingly conceal these qualities during an interview only to display them in abundance after being admitted? (same question to @Med Ed )

 

[efle]

Almost everybody thinks they are a team player, but many are not. Think about an athletic team or any group of people, and within those groups the couple or few that can be most trusted, the most fair, the better listeners, the most "go to" for the others, etc, etc usually is pretty evident at least from the outside even if some on the inside don't see it.

Thing is, to continue the analogy, I couldn't identify who those people were on my team from a single hour practicing together! The dingus ballhogs are at least easy to spot

How frequently do you see students who convincingly conceal these qualities during an interview only to display them in abundance after being admitted? (same question to @Med Ed )

Always wondered this. We all know those people that can really turn on the charm but aren't such angels when you know them better.

 

[Officer Farva]

I like to think interviews are similar to dates. Can you figure out who is marriage material on date one? Impossible to know unless you really get to know the person. An interview provides a small snapshot of that person that says nothing of who they are. Especially true of the MMI.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Thing is, to continue the analogy, I couldn't identify who those people were on my team from a single hour practicing together! The dingus ballhogs are at least easy to spot


Always wondered this. We all know those people that can really turn on the charm but aren't such angels when you know them better.

I'm sure there are misses but I would guess they usually can figure team player and related qualities from LORs, PS, activities, the overall voice/character of the person that comes through in the whole app, and then the interview may confirm or disconfirm.

 

[Officer Farva]

I'm sure there are misses but I would guess they usually can figure team player and related qualities from LORs, PS, activities, the overall voice/character of the person that comes through in the whole app, and then the interview may confirm or disconfirm.

To be honest, the fact that a lot of med students describe themselves as team players and collaborative scares me so much. In undergrad, these were the ones who wouldnt help anyone with a problem set or would sabotage an experiment in orgo lab. The fact that everyone says this seems so fake.

 

[efle]

In undergrad, these were the ones who wouldnt help anyone with a problem set or would sabotage an experiment in orgo lab.

Am I the only one who didn't feel surrounded by cut-throat gunners in prereqs?

 

[rilte4]

I'm sure there are misses but I would guess they usually can figure team player and related qualities from LORs, PS, activities, the overall voice/character of the person that comes through in the whole app, and then the interview may confirm or disconfirm.

I know exactly two people with social deficiencies that are significant enough to be picked up on within a few minutes of conversation. I know a far higher number that are arrogant/entitled/couldn't care less about their "team", but disguise this beautifully in academic/work settings. They're fully aware of how these qualities are perceived by society, and are fully in control of turning them "on" and "off" when they're being evaluated in any form.

 

[Officer Farva]

Am I the only one who didn't feel surrounded by cut-throat gunners in prereqs?

It's kind of nerve wracking to think that the people you go to medical school with are not going to sabotage you is only due to the P/F curriculum and/or the decreased importance of preclinical grades (P=MD as they say at the traditional school).

 

[mimelim]

How frequently do you see students who convincingly conceal these qualities during an interview only to display them in abundance after being admitted? (same question to @Med Ed )

If I had to guess, several per year. At the same time, I'd say the number that are picked up in interviews is pretty darn high. People aren't as good at hiding things as they think they are.

 

[Officer Farva]

If I had to guess, several per year. At the same time, I'd say the number that are picked up in interviews is pretty darn high. People aren't as good at hiding things as they think they are.

I must be naive, but it seems pretty easy to hide. Interviewer asks "What do you do if you and your classmate/nurse have a disagreement on a patient case?". I respond "Talk with them to understand their point, see if I am missing information, explain my point. Make it a discussion, not a disagreement. ETC".

Do people ever answer "THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG, I KNOW EVERYTHING".?

 

[Med Ed]

How frequently do you see students who convincingly conceal these qualities during an interview only to display them in abundance after being admitted? (same question to @Med Ed )

You know, year after year after year about 5% of the students create 95% of the problems, be they academic or non-academic. Sometimes you see it coming and sometimes you don't.

 

[Med Ed]

I must be naive, but it seems pretty easy to hide. Interviewer asks "What do you do if you and your classmate/nurse have a disagreement on a patient case?". I respond "Talk with them to understand their point, see if I am missing information, explain my point. Make it a discussion, not a disagreement. ETC".

Do people ever answer "THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG, I KNOW EVERYTHING".?

This is where other aspects of the application, particularly the LORs, can be of great help in selecting students with positive traits. EC's can also provide insight; someone with a long, sustained history of volunteerism, for example is unlikely to be a jerk.

 

[mimelim]

I must be naive, but it seems pretty easy to hide. Interviewer asks "What do you do if you and your classmate/nurse have a disagreement on a patient case?". I respond "Talk with them to understand their point, see if I am missing information, explain my point. Make it a discussion, not a disagreement. ETC".

Do people ever answer "THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG, I KNOW EVERYTHING".?

It is not easy to hide. I won't go so far as to say it is only the real psychopaths that effectively hide it, but you get the idea. There are nuances to word choices, points of emphasis, examples, etc. This is why people like to ask complicated questions or ones that people can't predict. They are more interested in how someone answers and how they think rather than the content of the answer. This is something that you can't really appreciate unless you do a fair amount of this and more than that actually think about it and analyze. A lot of it isn't really subtle and sometimes you need to read between the lines.

Many 'ethical' questions are used in this manner.

 

[Officer Farva]

This is where other aspects of the application, particularly the LORs, can be of great help in selecting students with positive traits. EC's can also provide insight; someone with a long, sustained history of volunteerism, for example is unlikely to be a jerk.

Definitely the LORs make sense.

But how does volunteerism = team player? Most hospital volunteers get clinical experience through it, but it is largely time wasted. I always see volunteers facebooking and texting on their phones since hospital volunteers can't legally do much. Or my soup kitchen volunteering, I was given an assignment by the admin and I do it to the best of my abilities so to help feed everyone, but I don't spend a lot of time necessarily working as part of a team.

If anything, my research really emphasized teamwork. I learned so much from a big team of grad students, postdocs, and techs.

 

[Govols22]

Am I the only one who didn't feel surrounded by cut-throat gunners in prereqs?

Nope. All my classmates were friendly and helpful if anything.

 

[Med Ed]

But how does volunteerism = team player?

I did not say team player, I just said the person is unlikely to be a jerk. And I'm not talking about someone who picks up a few soup kitchen hours here and there to pad his/her app, I'm talking about someone who has a much stronger and more consistent pattern of behavior.

 

[rilte4]

You know, year after year after year about 5% of the students create 95% of the problems, be they academic or non-academic. Sometimes you see it coming and sometimes you don't.

This is encouraging, actually. Maybe I just know too many people in finance.

 

[Med Ed]

This is encouraging, actually. Maybe I just know too many people in finance.

There is probably another 5% that should pack up and go home. These are the folks who can make it to graduation but will have serious problems in residency. I think we should be more proactive about flushing them, but the "give 'em a chance" contingent is pretty vocal, especially considering how much debt people take on nowadays.

 

[rilte4]

There is probably another 5% that should pack up and go home. These are the folks who can make it to graduation but will have serious problems in residency.

Do you mind elaborating? I'm assuming you're still referring to personality/interpersonal issues, but not sure.

 

[Pantaloooons]

I just wanted to know what everyone's opinions may be between two applicants with the following characteristics:

1) High MCAT (98th+ percentile); low GPA (~3.2-3.3 science and cumulative); and very strong ECs (10+ publications)

versus

2) Average MCAT + GPA (for accepted students) and cookie-cutter ECs

Which one would be admitted to medical school? Does either candidate have a better shot at low/mid/top tier schools?

My question is, why would an average (MCAT/GPA/EC) applicant be viewed more desirable than someone with 10 peer-reviewed publications. The latter obviously has a lot of talent and barring anything that might be completely incongruous with a career in medicine, would probably make an excellent physician. In this case, there must be a valid reason why the GPA is low and it should be taken into account in context. Ten publications is a rather big deal, IMO, and is much more rare than even a 4.0 GPA. Anyone else think it's strange that adcoms may choose someone with a high GPA over someone with a demonstrated talent?

 

[rilte4]

Edit: reread

 

[efle]

There is probably another 5% that should pack up and go home. These are the folks who can make it to graduation but will have serious problems in residency. I think we should be more proactive about flushing them, but the "give 'em a chance" contingent is pretty vocal, especially considering how much debt people take on nowadays.

I'm surprised they let the bar for graduation be low enough that people who pass have trouble in residency. If they're going to err on a side, caution/too hard makes the most sense.

 

[gyngyn]

I'm sure there are misses but I would guess they usually can figure team player and related qualities from LORs, PS, activities, the overall voice/character of the person that comes through in the whole app, and then the interview may confirm or disconfirm.

I'm pretty some of those "voices" in the primary application were purchased outright.
LOR's have a long way to go before they become real LOE's.

 

[doc05]

My question is, why would an average (MCAT/GPA/EC) applicant be viewed more desirable than someone with 10 peer-reviewed publications. The latter obviously has a lot of talent and barring anything that might be completely incongruous with a career in medicine, would probably make an excellent physician. In this case, there must be a valid reason why the GPA is low and it should be taken into account in context. Ten publications is a rather big deal, IMO, and is much more rare than even a 4.0 GPA. Anyone else think it's strange that adcoms may choose someone with a high GPA over someone with a demonstrated talent?

Have you had any exposure to the practice of medicine? What sort of talent do you think it takes to have 10 publications? How is that person.."would probably make an excellent physician"?

Past the minimum academic requirements (which I would use as a surrogate for intelligence), it's more about personality traits.

 

[Pantaloooons]

Have you had any exposure to the practice of medicine? What sort of talent do you think it takes to have 10 publications? How is that person.."would probably make an excellent physician"?

Past the minimum academic requirements (which I would use as a surrogate for intelligence), it's more about personality traits.

I would imagine 10+ publication to probably suggest that this person can work well with others (after all, most research these days is collaborative), intelligent, hardworking, creative, and passionate. One or two publications may be a fluke, but ten or more even as a grad student or postdoc says something about this person's ability to excel in a rigorous, professional, and scholarly environment. A GPA, especially one that varies widely from institution to institution, etc. is probably a lot less telling.