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

[Med Ed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

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

Residents flame out for all sorts of reasons, covering the full spectrum of academic and non-academic possibilities.

 

[GrapesofRath]

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.

One last question that's more just for my own curiosity than anything; was there any correlation between ADCOMs who were less likely to understand the process and those who werent actually residents/physicians who served on the committee? I know a number of people on admissions committees arent actually MDs, I'm just curious if you've seen any trend in perhaps the non MDs being more likely to have less understanding of the process.

If the goal is to create a class that will become the best physicians, I am interested to see if someone who isnt an MD/ didnt go through medical training might have some limitations in their understanding of the characteristics of an applicant who is most likely to become a strong physician.

 

[Med Ed]

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.

Medical school is well known for having low attrition. While most of this is due to the general quality of matriculants, pretty much every domestic school will bend over backwards to remediate struggling students. There is definitely a human element at play here. In the same way it is difficult to euthanize a sick pet, it is difficult to kick out a medical student with a pile of loans and no alternative job prospects.

 

[Nietzschelover]

One last question that's more just for my own curiosity than anything; was there any correlation between ADCOMs who were less likely to understand the process and those who werent actually residents/physicians who served on the committee? I know a number of people on admissions committees arent actually MDs, I'm just curious if you've seen any trend in perhaps the non MDs being more likely to have less understanding of the process.

If the goal is to create a class that will become the best physicians, I am interested to see if someone who isnt an MD/ didnt go through medical training might have some limitations in their understanding of the characteristics of an applicant who is most likely to become a strong physician.

Not following the logic here. Interview and assessment skills, judging character, etc of the type needed for assessing applicants (as opposed to illness in patients) don't seem to be skills that are part and parcel or exclusive to MDs. Don't think a monolithic generalization could be made, but if one could, one might think psychologists would be more adept at this. In any case, I certainly wouldn't assume that MDs make the best adcoms. How about SDN's own LizzyM and Goro?

 

[mimelim]

One last question that's more just for my own curiosity than anything; was there any correlation between ADCOMs who were less likely to understand the process and those who werent actually residents/physicians who served on the committee? I know a number of people on admissions committees arent actually MDs, I'm just curious if you've seen any trend in perhaps the non MDs being more likely to have less understanding of the process.

If the goal is to create a class that will become the best physicians, I am interested to see if someone who isnt an MD/ didnt go through medical training might have some limitations in their understanding of the characteristics of an applicant who is most likely to become a strong physician.

No, I don't think there is any correlation. For every non-MD that doesn't understand the nuances of clinical life, there is an MD who is clueless about how to educate people. It is very dangerous to think that the only people who can make decisions about MD education are MDs. We have a lot to learn from educators/administrators who are not MDs. No matter who you are, you need to understand your limitations. MDs are not trained by default in medical education. Just going through it is not enough. This doesn't mean that you need a degree or specific training. It means that you need to constantly be evaluating and re-evaluating your role and what is happening in the education environment around you. That isn't something most people (including MDs) do.

 

[Goro]

I think many Millennials throw out the term "stress interview" as an excuse for "interviews where I was asked hard questions and had to actually justify my thinking, and got no softballs for my canned answers".

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.

Interviews allow us to determine if the interviewees are people we want touching our moms, and being our teammates. When you do enough of these, as the wise Mimelim has pointed out, you get an idea of who you want and who you don.t What hasn't been mentioned, and something most of you who have never taken part in this process appreciate, is that we Faculty see the fruit of our labors as students.

So, we know the types of people we don't want, and those we do.

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

I believe my learned colleague is referring to people who either really didn't understand what they got into (yes, despite all the ECs etc) OR are those who got pushed into Medicine by their Tiger parents, who come in all sizes, shapes, colors and cultures.

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

 

[whatever5]

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 really piqued my interest, what sort of problems do students create for schools?

 

[Officer Farva]

I think many Millennials throw out the term "stress interview" as an excuse for "interviews where I was asked hard questions and had to actually justify my thinking, and got no softballs for my canned answers".




Interviews allow us to determine if the interviewees are people we want touching our moms, and being our teammates. When you do enough of these, as the wise Mimelim has pointed out, you get an idea of who you want and who you don.t What hasn't been mentioned, and something most of you who have never taken part in this process appreciate, is that we Faculty see the fruit of our labors as students.

So, we know the types of people we don't want, and those we do.

Nothing wrong with asking difficult questions during an interview, I have my share of red flags on my application that interviewers should feel free to ask about. But I believe a lot of people use the term "stress interview" for hostile or inappropriate behavior by the interviewer. In my experience attending over 15 interviews over two cycles for one acceptance, I have been asked inappropriate questions about my family's home country, my religion (or rather lack of religion), my job income, why I am an extremely unqualified candidate, and if I have a learning disability (I have a horrible verbal score from my first MCAT that I improved the second time).

 

[Nietzschelover]

One last question that's more just for my own curiosity than anything; was there any correlation between ADCOMs who were less likely to understand the process and those who werent actually residents/physicians who served on the committee? I know a number of people on admissions committees arent actually MDs, I'm just curious if you've seen any trend in perhaps the non MDs being more likely to have less understanding of the process.

If the goal is to create a class that will become the best physicians, I am interested to see if someone who isnt an MD/ didnt go through medical training might have some limitations in their understanding of the characteristics of an applicant who is most likely to become a strong physician.

I'll take a risk of another example. I have no doubt that you, not a MD (yet), can do (and does) better WAMCs than 90% of physicians out in the field (maybe more than 95%). You seem to love it, dedicate time to being as good as you can be, ask probing questions (like in this instance) to gain an even more nuanced understanding, refer to other "experts" when you don't know something or aren't sure, etc, etc. You take it seriously, put your integrity on the line, and genuinely appear to want to provide the very best advice in your power. I'm betting the same kind of deal applies for those known to be stellar adcom members.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Not following the logic here. Interview and assessment skills, judging character, etc of the type needed for assessing applicants (as opposed to illness in patients) don't seem to be skills that are part and parcel or exclusive to MDs. Don't think a monolithic generalization could be made, but if one could, one might think psychologists would be more adept at this. In any case, I certainly wouldn't assume that MDs make the best adcoms. How about SDN's own LizzyM and Goro?

Yeah I see what you are getting at and I kind of rushed the question without thinking about it as much as I should have.

At the most basic level, the type of thing I was thinking about is a non MD perhaps doing something like placing an unordinary emphasis on stats or more likely to overlook a flaw such as a weak interview perhaps under the idea of "Well there's no way this guy wont ace pre-clinical years and Step 1, look at that MCAT score. He's just too smart not to do well here". The MD could then respond "if this is how he's responding to our questions in an MMI now, he's going to have all kinds of problems getting pimped by attendings or answering and talking to patients". There are simply things that happen in MS3-4 and residency during your clinical training where if you havent been through it, you just wont know. There's a difference in experience in somebody who has talked to 1000's of patients and gone through the training than there will be from someone who isnt an MD. You have a different understanding of whether you thinks somebody will excel in things like patient evaluations, working in a team setting, working with patients, listening to residents who will likely be harsh on them at times etc when you have gone through the experience yourself. How much(if at all) that changes your perspective on how to see in someone if they have the characteristics of a good physician is what I was interested in.

What mimelim said was the key point though really. Everybody has limitations. You need to be evaluating and re-evaluating your role and a doctors role in general and what is happeing in the education environment around you. Not all MDs are going to be equipped to do this well, and plenty of educators and admins can provide perspective which is valuable.

Really you can kind of compare it to sports which I follow alot. Often times the best analysts are the ones with no experience playing a sport while the ones who are cliche machines and offer useless insights are the former all-pros and Hall of Famers. Perspective and actually thinking about the issues at hand are everything; nobody's perspective is better than someone else's without it. The former All-Pros are often the ones who dont actually think about the game at hand or follow it closely and just think "playing the game" entitles them to a superior perspective.

 

[Med Ed]

This really piqued my interest, what sort of problems do students create for schools?

Failing exams. Failing boards. Failing OSCE's. Failing rotations. Harassment, sexual and otherwise, of faculty, staff, and/or each other. Extra-marital affairs with faculty, staff, and/or each other. Legal problems (DUI's, assault, drug use/possession, etc.).

This is just off the top of my head, mind you.

Edit: Oh, silly me, how could I forget the wondrous menagerie of mental/emotional problems that crop up? Undiagnosed bipolar disorder, eating disorders, anxiety disorders, blossoming schizophrenia, the list goes on.

 

[whatever5]

Failing exams. Failing boards. Failing OSCE's. Failing rotations. Harassment, sexual and otherwise, of faculty, staff, and/or each other. Extra-marital affairs with faculty, staff, and/or each other. Legal problems (DUI's, assault, drug use/possession, etc.).

This is just off the top of my head, mind you.

Edit: Oh, silly me, how could I forget the wondrous menagerie of mental/emotional problems that crop up? Undiagnosed bipolar disorder, eating disorders, anxiety disorders, blossoming schizophrenia, the list goes on.

I expected the academic issues, but the rest is both eye-opening and really sad.

 

[gyngyn]

I expected the academic issues, but the rest is both eye-opening and really sad.

Many of these diagnoses are made in this age group, though. Many students who are perfectly fine when admitted are later found have developed these conditions.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Signs of schizophrenia usually would be evident by age 22/23 and most often in the 18-21 range. And I would think the chances of being able to continue med school with schizophrenia are close to zero.

 

[mimelim]

Signs of schizophrenia usually would be evident by age 22/23 and most often in the 18-21 range. And I would think the chances of being able to continue med school with schizophrenia are close to zero.

This isn't entirely accurate.

The average age of onset of symptoms for women is 25. Many go years before diagnosis secondary to stigma, lack of care or lack of awareness. Further, there are many highly functional schizophrenics on anti-psychotics. Effectiveness of treatment depends largely on how early symptoms are recognized. On the other hand, I'd have to double check, but medical boards generally need to be notified if someone is on anti-psychotics.

 

[Goro]

Any attendee at medical education conferences will tell you exact what my learned colleague has stated. And this true for DO and MD schools, from Albany to Yale, from ACOM to Western. The pathologies tend to be very similar as well.

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.

 

[Nietzschelover]

This isn't entirely accurate.

The average age of onset of symptoms for women is 25. Many go years before diagnosis secondary to stigma, lack of care or lack of awareness. Further, there are many highly functional schizophrenics on anti-psychotics. Effectiveness of treatment depends largely on how early symptoms are recognized. On the other hand, I'd have to double check, but medical boards generally need to be notified if someone is on anti-psychotics.

Not that functional as to handle med school and residency. And effectiveness of treatment does not depend LARGELY on early detection. Not saying early treatment doesn't reduce the frequency and length of periods of florid psychosis, but real schizophrenia isn't something that goes away or has minimal impact in terms of high level functioning (of the med school/residency type). And even for women diagnosed at 25 usually there were prodromal signs much earlier. Evaluating and working with schizophrenia is part of what I do for a living. If there are functioning MDs with schizophrenia they are very, very rare indeed. Much more likely with Bipolar (way overdx'ed and the new ADHD) and the other psychiatric disorders mentioned.

 

[Goro]

QTF here. Med Ed also forgot to mention depression.

This is why I always advise SDNers with mental health issues that med school is a furnace.

Many of these diagnoses are made in this age group, though. Many students who are perfectly fine when admitted are later found have developed these conditions.

 

[Lawpy]

Really? Top 20 schools have like 10th percentile GPAs at ~3.6. How could your friends have GPAs of 3.2/3.3 get into these schools even with high MCATs? Or are you saying their GPAs were higher like 3.5

No i mean like sub-3.4 overall. And its due to bad grades in past with a near-4.0 trend over few years.

 

[Goro]

Vanderbilt accepted someone with a 2.9 GPA not too long ago.

There are a good number of top schools ( Case, Duke, Columbia, Vandy, UCSF, among others) that reward reinvention.

No i mean like sub-3.4 overall. And its due to bad grades in past with a near-4.0 trend over few years.

 

[Lawpy]

Vanderbilt accepted someone with a 2.9 GPA not too long ago.

There are a good number of top schools ( Case, Duke, Columbia, Vandy, UCSF, among others) that reward reinvention.

Thats why an accurate metric is to impose a GPA window. Say the last 2-3 years or so.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Duke took someone with a 2.8 2 years ago. Hell WashU, with the reputation for being numbers worshippers, gave someone a II on this site with a sub 3.0 GPA last cycle.

That said there are many high end schools where that type of GPA, regardless of upward trend/reinvention is still going to be rather problematic. I know LizzyM has said she knows of top schools that screen out as high as 3.5 unless it's a special circumstance. It takes alot to get into a top school; it's that much harder(and in some instances/schools not possible) when you have a low GPA regardless of trend/circumstance.

 

[PB&Jam]

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

I didn't either, efle. Maybe I just didn't pay attention/didn't recognize the gunners in my classes, but I feel like most of us were pretty collaborative and helpful. I felt no qualms openly sharing the notes I took for pre-reqs with the entire class come exam time; the idea of people using this to gain an advantage relative to me didn't really occur to me. As long as I do well, I might as well also help others improve.

 

[efle]

I didn't either, efle. Maybe I just didn't pay attention/didn't recognize the gunners in my classes, but I feel like most of us were pretty collaborative and helpful. I felt no qualms openly sharing the notes I took for pre-reqs with the entire class come exam time; the idea of people using this to gain an advantage relative to me didn't really occur to me. As long as I do well, I might as well also help others improve.

This is great to hear, I also had a very collaborative dorm floors freshman and sophomore year so we'd all study and go over practice exams together. When a class has 600+ people in it, can't really justify screwing over a handful of friends in the hopes it would bump your grade at all. People were stressed a lot, but never because of their peers' behavior

 

[PB&Jam]

I think many Millennials throw out the term "stress interview" as an excuse for "interviews where I was asked hard questions and had to actually justify my thinking, and got no softballs for my canned answers".

I may be a naive pre-med, but I highly doubt anyone goes into medical school interviews expecting to get softball questions. What we get may be harder than we're expecting, but we are by no means expecting any of this to be easy. The insinuation that "millennials" who have chosen this extremely rigorous career path expect things to be handed to them any more than previous generations of aspiring docs, I think, is ridiculous. Do some go in with unrealistic expectations? I'm sure they do. But then again, I'm sure there were some physician hopefuls in years/generations past that did this, too. There is a tendency for older generations to validate their superiority and experiences by vilifying younger generations as more lazy or incompetent than they were. I think we "millennials" will shock those who think this way.

 

[PB&Jam]

This is great to hear, I also had a very collaborative dorm floors freshman and sophomore year so we'd all study and go over practice exams together. When a class has 600+ people in it, can't really justify screwing over a handful of friends in the hopes it would bump your grade at all. People were stressed a lot, but never because of their peers' behavior

I think, also, that helping my classmates helped me in the long run. First of all, by helping them I forced myself to make good notes and study guides, which helped me focus on studying. Second, removing my own classmates as a source of stress went a long way towards keeping myself in a good headspace to deal with challenging classes and other stressful scenarios healthfully.

 

[Goro]

Based upon the posts that show up in these forums, the people I see in interviews, and the behaviors of some of my own students, I stand by my assertions.

Are there dingus interviewers? Are there interviewers who cross a line? Sure!

But they're outnumbered by thin-skinned entitled interviewees.

I may be a naive pre-med, but I highly doubt anyone goes into medical school interviews expecting to get softball questions. What we get may be harder than we're expecting, but we are by no means expecting any of this to be easy. The insinuation that "millennials" who have chosen this extremely rigorous career path expect things to be handed to them any more than previous generations of aspiring docs, I think, is ridiculous. Do some go in with unrealistic expectations? I'm sure they do. But then again, I'm sure there were some physician hopefuls in years/generations past that did this, too. There is a tendency for older generations to validate their superiority and experiences by vilifying younger generations as more lazy or incompetent than they were. I think we "millennials" will shock those who think this way.

 

[Lawpy]

Based upon the posts that show up in these forums, the people I see in interviews, and the behaviors of some of my own students, I stand by my assertions.

Are there dingus interviewers? Are there interviewers who cross a line? Sure!

But they're outnumbered by thin-skinned entitled interviewees.

Why are there even sadistic interviewers in the first place? It's a systemic issue that happens consistently in every cycle. They viciously tear into applicants purely out of thrill. I understand constructive criticism, and I'm all for it because it's absolutely essential to be forced to think deeply about many issues. But being a jerk? Why? That contradicts professionalism that the schools/admissions demand applicants to maintain. And honestly, it would give interviewees a false and negative impression on the school.

Normally, I would brush these instances of bad interviewers as flukes, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned because the bad interviewers still persist every cycle.

 

[Lawpy]

I may be a naive pre-med, but I highly doubt anyone goes into medical school interviews expecting to get softball questions. What we get may be harder than we're expecting, but we are by no means expecting any of this to be easy. The insinuation that "millennials" who have chosen this extremely rigorous career path expect things to be handed to them any more than previous generations of aspiring docs, I think, is ridiculous. Do some go in with unrealistic expectations? I'm sure they do. But then again, I'm sure there were some physician hopefuls in years/generations past that did this, too. There is a tendency for older generations to validate their superiority and experiences by vilifying younger generations as more lazy or incompetent than they were. I think we "millennials" will shock those who think this way.

Honestly, the old timers who bash millennials for being naive and entitled should remember that they were also bashed for being naive/entitled when they were young by the older generation of that time. It's a cycle that never ends.

 

[PB&Jam]

Based upon the posts that show up in these forums, the people I see in interviews, and the behaviors of some of my own students, I stand by my assertions.

Are there dingus interviewers? Are there interviewers who cross a line? Sure!

But they're outnumbered by thin-skinned entitled interviewees.

The posts here are probably not very representative of applicants as a whole. As for your personal experience, it's saddening that many people's experiences with young adults gives them this negative impression. I just dislike the use of the term "millennials" as a catch-all for criticizing our entire generation.

 

[Goro]

Because there are sadistic Faculty members? Because even some MDs, DOs and PhDs can be dinguses?

The ONLY way the system gets cleaned up is to report offensive behavior to the Admissions deans.

Keep in mind that you interviewees are also interviewing the school, and a bad interviewer reflects poorly on the schools! If you're talented enough to garner an II, it means that we want you to come to our schools!

Why are there even sadistic interviewers in the first place? It's a systemic issue that happens consistently in every cycle. They viciously tear into applicants purely out of thrill. I understand constructive criticism, and I'm all for it because it's absolutely essential to be forced to think deeply about many issues. But being a jerk? Why? That contradicts professionalism that the schools/admissions demand applicants to maintain. And honestly, it would give interviewees a false and negative impression on the school.

Normally, I would brush these instances of bad interviewers as flukes, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned because the bad interviewers still persist every cycle.

 

[Officer Farva]

Because there are sadistic Faculty members? Because even some MDs, DOs and PhDs can be dinguses?

The ONLY way the system gets cleaned up is to report offensive behavior to the Admissions deans.

Keep in mind that you interviewees are also interviewing the school, and a bad interviewer reflects poorly on the schools! If you're talented enough to garner an II, it means that we want you to come to our schools!

Have you ever heard of faculty members who may retaliate professionally against interviewees who report them? I think that's why a lot of idiot faculty and students seem to persist in the interview process, since people are scared to report them.

 

[Goro]

The Admissions Deans aren't so stupid as to go say "Farva, you have to stop asking those sexually harassing questions"; rather, you'll just be pulled off the interview schedule, or given a gentle reminder or request of what not to ask, after the decision to accept or reject has been made. And not all interviewers show up at Adcom meetings.

Have you ever heard of faculty members who may retaliate professionally against interviewees who report them? I think that's why a lot of idiot faculty and students seem to persist in the interview process, since people are scared to report them.