Data: A Case Study in Bias for Prestigious Undergrads, Yale SOM

[7331poas]

---

Members don't see this ad.

A little fuel for the fire, from comparing the WashU internal data a few years back to the AMCAS national data:

AMCAS overall admit rate, 3.6-3.8/30-32: 61%
WashU overall admit rate, 3.6-3.8/30-32: 92%
Difference: +31%

AMCAS overall admit rate, 3.4-3.6/30-32: 47%
WashU overall admit rate, 3.4-3.6/30-32: 80%
Difference: +33%

AMCAS overall admit rate, 3.2-3.4/30-32: 35%
WashU overall admit rate, 3.2-3.4/30-32: 68%
Difference: +33%

For each WashU bin, n = 50+

Now, it could be that WashU students are better about the admissions meta-game, are better advised, have better access to research/volunteering/other....
or it could be that a 3.x from WashU is treated differently.

I won't make any argument one way or the other myself.

Or response bias. Or selective reporting. Or applicants are discouraged from applying with low stats.

 

[pioneer22]

It's largely historical. These days it's becoming similarly tough to get into other places (like Duke, or U Chicago) but for many years HYP were the uber-Ivies, Stanford was the king in the west, and MIT was the best in engineering/some hard sciences. Thus HYPSM still def is a class of its own for "layperson" prestige (where layperson is anyone that didn't apply to college in the last few years).

It always blows my mind looking at data from the 2000s and seeing that places like Northwestern and Vanderbilt and U Chicago had admit rates of 25-30%+. Back when our parent's generation was applying (1980s), there were Ivy schools with admit rates of 35-40%+ !

Anyways to the OP, great job Lucca, always nice to see the numbers that back up the gestalt impressions many of us have after our cycle. When I get access to my desktop PC I can run a comparison of the WashU and AMCAS GPA/MCAT bins to try and get hard numbers on the boost in overall admit rates.

So do you mean adcoms consider Columbia among HYPSM, since they know more than the layperson? If not, how does Columbia prestige factor in?

 

[salemstein]

I'm fairly sure going to HYPSM has actually hindered my ability to get in round 1. Made a post about it awhile before, but long story short, its a lot harder to get those top grades at these institutions than elsewhere.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm fairly sure going to HYPSM has actually hindered my ability to get in round 1. Made a post about it awhile before, but long story short, its a lot harder to get those top grades at these institutions than elsewhere.

Right but for those getting the top grades at those places, the name recognition helps a lot.

 

[md-2020]

There are DO neurosurgeons. Even low ranking DO fine - go look at LECOM's match list...and remember that half of these kids were grade-replaced 3.2s with a 26.

I never implied exclusivity in the process. Some DO's can match into competitive specialties. Some mid/low-tier MD's match top residencies/locations. Some low-tier UGs get into Top 20 med schools.

But is it COMPARATIVELY HARDER for the above to achieve these things vs. counterparts with greater pedigree? All the data points to yes. Look at national DO match results. Talk to @Goro. Look at individual residency placement pages.

 

[md-2020]

You need to be what - 60th percentile at HMS to get into neurosurgery? And 99th at LECOM? Is it easier to get 99th percentile at LECOM than it is to get 60th at HMS? Probably

I would disagree with that, but percentiles aren't the issue here. The point is that a say, decent Step 1 of 240 at HMS probably gets you into an okay location of a top specialty if you rank a lot of places. A 240 from LECOM would not, not even close. It is a 240 either way, it's not scored based on what med school you go to. BTW, a 60th percentile Step at HMS is probably a lot lower than the 99th%ile Step at LECOM (so basically, the top score in the whole place). Yet one gets the desired result, one does not.

Is it an insurmountable difference? No. But the barrier is very real and to ignore it is simply ill advised. But I conclude my arguments here, carry on SDN as you will.

For more in depth discussions on this issue I'd also invite you to check out some past threads on this in the med student subforum.

 

[768730]

A little fuel for the fire, from comparing the WashU internal data a few years back to the AMCAS national data:

AMCAS overall admit rate, 3.6-3.8/30-32: 61%
WashU overall admit rate, 3.6-3.8/30-32: 92%
Difference: +31%

AMCAS overall admit rate, 3.4-3.6/30-32: 47%
WashU overall admit rate, 3.4-3.6/30-32: 80%
Difference: +33%

AMCAS overall admit rate, 3.2-3.4/30-32: 35%
WashU overall admit rate, 3.2-3.4/30-32: 68%
Difference: +33%

For each WashU bin, n = 50+

Now, it could be that WashU students are better about the admissions meta-game, are better advised, have better access to research/volunteering/other....
or it could be that a 3.x from WashU is treated differently.

I won't make any argument one way or the other myself.

You alluded to this already, but Id like to see this data from a similarly-reputable school that does not have an associated med school, like Rice (although all the IS Texans would skew this data) or even a prestigious LAC. I'd assume the WashU name gives a little bump for those GPAs, but I have to also imagine that a lot of these applicants were able to have really strong clinical/research experiences because of the associated med school.

Also I'm not familiar with WashUs student body, but given its geographical location I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the students in these categories come from southern states with heavily IS-biased med schools (SC, NC, TX, OK)... or maybe they're all Californians. Who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lucca]

You alluded to this already, but Id like to see this data from a similarly-reputable school that does not have an associated med school, like Rice (although all the IS Texans would skew this data) or even a prestigious LAC. I'd assume the WashU name gives a little bump for those GPAs, but I have to also imagine that a lot of these applicants were able to have really strong clinical/research experiences because of the associated med school.

Also I'm not familiar with WashUs student body, but given its geographical location I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the students in these categories come from southern states with heavily IS-biased med schools (SC, NC, TX, OK)... or maybe they're all Californians. Who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

These are really hard statistics to find, but you can usually find stuff on undergrad career pages. Obviously, these are not the most reliable sources of information since the school is not impartial.

In any case, here is some data from Williams, #1 LAC in the country..

"A Williams student with a B+ (3.3) science GPA, an MCAT score of 512 or better, clear motivation and a reasonable set of extracurricular activities stands a very good (80%-90%)) chance of admission in a given year. Nationwide, fewer than 45% of applicants are admitted in a given year."

Admissions Criteria

According to the AAMC table 23, the average 3.3/512 applicant has between a 30-50% chance of being accepted.

 

[768730]

These are really hard statistics to find, but you can usually find stuff on undergrad career pages. Obviously, these are not the most reliable sources of information since the school is not impartial.

In any case, here is some data from Williams, #1 LAC in the country..

"A Williams student with a B+ (3.3) science GPA, an MCAT score of 512 or better, clear motivation and a reasonable set of extracurricular activities stands a very good (80%-90%)) chance of admission in a given year. Nationwide, fewer than 45% of applicants are admitted in a given year."

Admissions Criteria

According to the AAMC table 23, the average 3.3/512 applicant has between a 30-50% chance of being accepted.

There you go. That is very explanatory data if Williams isn't internally screening their students, like refusing committee packets for kids who aren't stellar.

Not to be too cynical, but for instance it's possible the college only signs off on applicants in those stat ranges who are NA or AA, or have some other distinguishing factor. Again, probably impossible to know unfortunately


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lucca]

Here is older data from Amherst.

Amherst College Premedical Outcomes

"With all that in mind, here are outcomes for the 224 Amherst College students and graduates who applied to U.S. allopathic medical schools (i.e. seeking to become physicians with an M.D. degree) for the first time for admission between 2000 and 2004, including those in this group who reapplied to enter in 2005 and/or 2006 if not accepted the first time. The 224 applicants are divided into two groups: (1) 174 so-called "well-qualified" applicants, and (2) 50 so-called "less-qualified" applicants. The "well-qualified" applicants met the criteria for grades and MCAT scores suggested in the Amherst Guide for Premedical Students:

• a science GPA of at least 3.1 on a 4-point scale (i.e. just above "B"), and
• an MCAT total of 28 with no score below 8, achieved no later than the April test in the year before applying

. The "less-qualified" applicants didn't meet one or both of these criteria. (Note that we count applicants as "less-qualified" if they took the August MCAT in the year they applied, no matter how high a score they received, because taking the August MCAT delays the application and puts the applicant at a disadvantage!) "

....


"On their first try, 156 of the 174 "well-qualified" applicants were accepted (90%). Among "less-qualified" applicants, 20 of the 50 were accepted on their first try (40%), for an overall first-try acceptance rate of 79% (176 out of 224). Thus the "well-qualified" applicants were more than twice as likely to be accepted as the "less-qualified," but some "less-qualified" applicants were also successful. (Some reasons why: underrepresented minority status; being from a state with a medical school and a small population; having family connections at a medical school; or plain good luck.)"

"There is no single answer to the question, “What is the success rate for Amherst premeds?” It’s all of these:

• 40% for ‘less-qualified’ applicants on their first try
• 79% for all applicants, ‘less-qualified’ plus ‘well-qualified,’ on their first try
• 90% for ‘well-qualified’ applicants on their first try
• 97% for all applicants who either were accepted on their first try or, if not, who reapplied
• 98.8% for ‘well-qualified’ applicants who either were accepted on their first try or, if not, who reapplied"

...

@efle you might want to see this

emphasis is mine.

That is a very, very high acceptance rate given that "well-qualified" might describe many students that would be laughed out of WAMC (3.2/29???). Even if we grant that for whatever reason all of these "well qualified" applicants are 3.6/33+, you dont get a 90% acceptance rate on Table 23 EVER, the only category that comes close is applicants above 3.8 and above 517, i.e. LizzyM 76+ applicants. What is even more surprising is that "less-qualified" applicants have a 40% (!) acceptance rate even not meeting one of those 2 criteria. Sure, this was in 2004, but that is pretty remarkable nonetheless.

Another one from Bowdoin...

This is from Harvard....

Making the Cut: The Real Pre-med Requirements | Magazine | The Harvard Crimson

"Harvard’s advising staff emphasize that one or two bad grades will not sink a medical school application. According to OCS’s medical school admissions data, Harvard pre-med applicants with a 3.50 GPA or higher had a 93 percent acceptance rate to medical schools in 2012."

http://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/ocs/files/applying-to-medical-school.pdf
"In recent years, Harvard students were admitted to medical school with equal or lower GPAs than national applicants. In a typical year, the admissions rate for Harvard applicants is in the range of 80 to 90 percent, and approximately 94 percent of applicants with GPAs of 3.5 or above are admitted"

This is from Princeton...
use google to find it, "princeton premed statistics" its a pdf
"Currently, our accepted students average in the 3.4-3.6 range (nationally it’s around a 3.7) with an MCAT above the 80th percentile"
...
"In recent MCAT administrations (Jan 2012-Dec 2015), the national mean for examinees was a 25.1 and about 32% of examinees scored in the competitive range (i.e., above the 80th percentile). Princeton’s mean score was a 32.6 (around the 88th percentile), and 83% scored in the competitive range."
...
"Nationally, Princeton’s acceptance rate for students to allopathic medical (MD) schools in recent years has been about double the national average (82-90% vs. 43-45%), and we are similarly successful with applicants to osteopathic medical (DO), dental, and veterinary schools. More importantly, our students feel well-prepared for their professional school, and do well once they’re accepted."

This is from Penn....

Career Services at the University of Pennsylvania

Penn's data is interesting, because a 514/3.7 predicts about 75% acceptance rate from the AAMC tables, a much lower acceptance rate than its peers Harvard and Princeton! That being said, while that number is the same as the national average for that cohort, from the graph of acceptances by GPA bin, you can see that lower GPAs are about 30% more likely to be admitted coming from Penn than the national average.

Also, take a look at the schools where a lot of Penn students are admitted... (to use data from my OP, Penn sends about 2 students to Yale SOM yearly, on average)

 

[Skiiiiiing]

AAMC totals include foreigners, people who took their prereqs online or at a CC, and with few/no ECs.

A 3.3 from a CC is bad, but from a reputable 4-year it's fine.

Many more of these applying since 2008

 

[Lucca]

AAMC totals include foreigners, people who took their prereqs online or at a CC, and with few/no ECs.

A 3.3 from a CC is bad, but from a reputable 4-year it's fine.

Many more of these applying since 2008

International Students represent 2% of the entire applicant population. Also, there are only 100 more international students applying in 2016/17 than there were in 2008. Their numbers decreased drastically and only increased in the past couple of years to near 2008 levels.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321460/data/factstablea3.pdf

Oh c'mon. Plenty of people can take courses at a CC and still get into medical school no problem. I dont know about these people with "few or no ECs" and "online prereqs" but please enlighten me as to how their numbers are so large that they make AAMCs data (n=53,000) unreliable.

 

[Lucca]

To add to the data in the big post of undergrad data above, here is a very interesting chart from Yale undergrad.

I thought it was very interesting because it included a 75% acceptance rate for international students (admittedly, n is small, and an international student applying from Yale is probably well-connected and well-funded, giving them an advantage at all stages of the process in addition to coming from a familiar, uber-prestigious undergrad).

Another chart from MIT

I take back what I said, this data isnt that hard to find. The MIT one is interesting because of the improvement applicants who use their pre-health resources apparently see in their cycles compared to those who dont. Of course, there might be deeper problems as to why an applicant doesnt want to use a committee letter. Also notice how the range of "denials" was 3.2-3.48. Not only were some applicants with sub 3.4 GPAs accepted, there were no applicants with a GPA above 3.5 who were not accepted. That's pretty incredible.

 

[mistafab]

This kind of reminds me of a scene from Orange is the New Black.

This girl, a top student from an inner city school, goes on a field trip for one day to an "ivy like" school where all the kids are given tons of advantages. They have gardens, theater programs, special SAT prep stations and materials... Meanwhile our girl has been working her tail off in the inner city and feel helpless to ever compete with these folk for colleges. The teacher says something like "it doesn't matter what advantages they have, you still can do well if you work hard" while our girl just cries and feels angry. She lets her anger take over, and she stops working hard in school. She starts to fail and that's where we leave her.

Lots of students envy the top schools. And yes, top schools do give certain advantages. That never takes away from the fact, however, that you can succeed if you work hard. We all knew what this data would look like before we saw it. If you are looking for a reason to feel helpless then maybe this is the reason you were looking for.

I'm stepping off my soap box for now.

 

[bananafish94]

This sure has stirred a lot of controversy! But honestly, don't let the past affect your future. Going to a super prestigious college probably helps a bit in medical school admissions. But the only people this information would help are high school students. I was a truly horrible student in high school, averaging a hair below a C for my first two years if my memory serves correct. I realized as a junior that I had to do that whole "college" thing and turned myself around and did well on the ACT, and consider myself extremely lucky to have scraped my way into my state school. So those were the cards I had to play. Was I at a slight disadvantage to people at Harvard? Probably. But if I could go back in time and tell my 14-year-old self to get straight A's so that I could go to the highest-rated college possible and then the highest-rated medical school possible, it wouldn't have mattered because plenty of people did tell me that and I didn't care. And I still don't care because I love my medical school and couldn't imagine going anywhere else. Nor would I want to go anywhere else for college if I had the opportunity. I also know people from my meager state school who go to some of the most "prestigious" medical schools in all the land, for what it's worth. So whether you go to Princeton or Northeast Idaho A&M, just do your work, prove that you will be a good medical student, and you'll be fine.

Also, ranking are nonsense.

 

[768730]

This kind of reminds me of a scene from Orange is the New Black.

This girl, a top student from an inner city school, goes on a field trip for one day to an "ivy like" school where all the kids are given tons of advantages. They have gardens, theater programs, special SAT prep stations and materials... Meanwhile our girl has been working her tail off in the inner city and feel helpless to ever compete with these folk for colleges. The teacher says something like "it doesn't matter what advantages they have, you still can do well if you work hard" while our girl just cries and feels angry. She lets her anger take over, and she stops working hard in school. She starts to fail and that's where we leave her.

Lots of students envy the top schools. And yes, top schools do give certain advantages. That never takes away from the fact, however, that you can succeed if you work hard. We all knew what this data would look like before we saw it. If you are looking for a reason to feel helpless then maybe this is the reason you were looking for.

I'm stepping off my soap box for now.

I like everything you said, but I still find this data interesting and the conversation valuable.

I once had a conversation with my dad (literally once lol) where out of the blue he asked, "Wait do you want to go to college?"

"Honestly, what even is college?"
"It's like a big high school, but you get a degree at the end instead of a diploma."
"Do I have to?"
"Well you have decent grades right? You should probably go"

That was October of my senior year in high school lol. The next weekend I sat for the SAT and opened my Common App. I had zero idea of what I was doing during the app process, nobody to give advice or bounce ideas off of. Once I got to undergrad I was basically all alone and had no direction.

Of course life isn't fair, but I still love going over this data to see how things shake out. It's really interesting to me and others I'm sure. And for kids from those top schools, it is also valuable to know how well you can sell yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[tessellations]

This sure has stirred a lot of controversy! But honestly, don't let the past affect your future. Going to a super prestigious college probably helps a bit in medical school admissions. But the only people this information would help are high school students. I was a truly horrible student in high school, averaging a hair below a C for my first two years if my memory serves correct. I realized as a junior that I had to do that whole "college" thing and turned myself around and did well on the ACT, and consider myself extremely lucky to have scraped my way into my state school. So those were the cards I had to play. Was I at a slight disadvantage to people at Harvard? Probably. But if I could go back in time and tell my 14-year-old self to get straight A's so that I could go to the highest-rated college possible and then the highest-rated medical school possible, it wouldn't have mattered because plenty of people did tell me that and I didn't care. And I still don't care because I love my medical school and couldn't imagine going anywhere else. Nor would I want to go anywhere else for college if I had the opportunity. I also know people from my meager state school who go to some of the most "prestigious" medical schools in all the land, for what it's worth. So whether you go to Princeton or Northeast Idaho A&M, just do your work, prove that you will be a good medical student, and you'll be fine.

Also, ranking are nonsense.

I agree with this 100%. I struggled a lot in high school, mainly because I went to a top ranked public school in my state and I just never felt adequate (tack this on to some anxiety issues that I eventually dealt with). I actually made decent grades but I wasn't one of the 20 or so who ended up at either an ivy, prestigious LAC, or another top college (like WashU). I ended up at my state school, largely for financial reasons. Ending up here has been one of the best things to happen to me. I don't think I would have thrived at a top school like I have here.

What's most important is that you go to a school where you can thrive and succeed.

 

[efle]

Come on, you can't seriously believe this. The match lists at top residency programs are frightening in their top school bias. Far more than the already pretty clear trend in top school MD admissions.

An example from a highly desirable--though not even a tippy top program by stringent standards--Ortho placement: Orthopaedic Residents PGY1
Go through each year--there's 0-2 token non top-15/20 graduates out of each class of 8-10. Do you think kids from these places (i.e. SUNYs, NYMC, Albany etc.) weren't ranking HSS highly? Or that there aren't tons of 260+ applicants?

If you kill Step could you match into a preferred specialty from any US MD school? Probably. Will you be realistically competitive for the more reputable places? Not really.

Had a recent thread where I looked at the MGH IM intern class (n=76). More than 80% come from top couple dozen med schools.

Or response bias. Or selective reporting. Or applicants are discouraged from applying with low stats.

No response bias/selective reporting, this is taken from a full dataset. All the GPA data is already possessed by WashU and all the MCAT data is gathered at the front end, it's one of the things they go over with you in your first premed meetings for the process to get a letter. It's not a survey they send out over email or anything like that. They also def do not discourage people with 3.x/30+ from applying.

So do you mean adcoms consider Columbia among HYPSM, since they know more than the layperson? If not, how does Columbia prestige factor in?

I don't think adcoms think in the same stupid hierarchy system that College Confidential does. I think going to Yale vs Columbia vs Cornell, is not going to change whether you get offered an interview at any place (except maybe the associated MD school).

 

[efle]

You alluded to this already, but Id like to see this data from a similarly-reputable school that does not have an associated med school, like Rice (although all the IS Texans would skew this data) or even a prestigious LAC. I'd assume the WashU name gives a little bump for those GPAs, but I have to also imagine that a lot of these applicants were able to have really strong clinical/research experiences because of the associated med school.

Also I'm not familiar with WashUs student body, but given its geographical location I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the students in these categories come from southern states with heavily IS-biased med schools (SC, NC, TX, OK)... or maybe they're all Californians. Who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It's a huge mix from all over the country, with a little higher representation of the Midwest, same as you see with southerners at Duke/Vandy/Rice. It's true many people make use of the med school for EC building. And I've seen firsthand how much that can matter, my sibling went to a rural unknown LAC for $ reasons and during their brief period of interest in pre-med, they had extremely limited research/volunteering options and zero good clinical opportunities.

 

[efle]

@Lucca appreciate all the legwork finding data at other schools. I think this thread will be useful to link to in the future when this topic resurfaces like it always does. It's remarkable how consistent the values seem, usually in the 70s overall and in the upper 80s or 90s when you just look at the people with halfway decent stats. Looking at just 3.2+/30+ for WashU is also up there at 87% accepted.

 

[efle]

You have these two terrible habits of 1 misunderstanding data and 2 becoming very emotional about your misunderstanding. Always with more certainty than Newton doing physics.

He's been the much more convincing so far

 

[768730]

You have these two terrible habits of 1 misunderstanding data and 2 becoming very emotional about your misunderstanding. Always with more certainty than Newton doing physics.

Let's not be invidious now. This was an interesting and civil thread.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Noctámbulo]

Putting a doubly-flawed argument into pretty charts and graphs may convince people only capable of assessing signaling. Interestingly these are the same people vastly overweighing the importance of Ivy signaling.

 

[7331poas]

Im inclined to agree with Tank here (I think?). You really cannot form a strong opinion either way without data. I am sure that Yale/Harvards of the world select from each other, but the extent to which is pure speculation without better datasets.

anecdote, but got a yale interview. My undergrad is 200+ rank.

 

[efle]

Im inclined to agree with Tank here (I think?). You really cannot form a strong opinion either way without data. I am sure that Yale/Harvards of the world select from each other, but the extent to which is pure speculation without better datasets.

anecdote, but got a yale interview. My undergrad is 200+ rank.

What kind of dataset do you have in mind? Now that we've seen the overall admit rates are much higher at a premed powerhouse after controlling for LizzyM, and the numbers are consistent across several such places including LACs?

Also yeah I think URM+519 makes alma mater totally negligible, I'll be shocked if you don't get several more Yale caliber interview invites

 

[efle]

Putting a doubly-flawed argument into pretty charts and graphs may convince people only capable of assessing signaling. Interestingly these are the same people vastly overweighing the importance of Ivy signaling.

Lucca isn't at an Ivy or similar school, he's at one of the giant public campuses. Regardless, trying to dismiss your opponents as biased is a very weak way to argue, but I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[efle]

I don't know or care if the Lucca is biased. A biased cogent argument is still a cogent argument

An argument that omits the single most important variable ? And then draws excessive conclusion from that data ?

Not lucid thinking. Pretty graphs though

Thoughts on the WashU data that is controlled for MCAT score?

 

[efle]

Thought of one other interesting set of values.

• The top 20 universities last year produced ~6350 total applicants to medical school (see "per capita premeds" thread in my sig).
• Taking Cornell as a representative for the group, out of more than one thousand premeds over a couple years, 21% scored 36+. At a glance this is roughly the same as WashU grid, about 1 in 5 WashU applicants carries a 36+.
• Say this means the top 20 universities had about 1300 people with a 36+
• According to AMCAS tables from before the score switch, there were about 3650 people per year applying with a 36+ (11k across three cycles)
• 1300/3650 = 35%

So unless I have a huge error somewhere in there, out of the full crowd of 36+ scorers, only about a third attend t20 universities

Seems way too low for us to say that Stanford/Yale SOMs are 75% t20 grads due to the MCAT.

 

[efle]

That's a lot of extrapolation based on an awful lot of assumptions

Like what? That Cornell and WashU are good examples of the percent scoring 36+? If anything you'd expect them to be low-side estimates I suppose, since HYPSM is going to have a lot more of the far right tail genius kids? The other values are all pretty straightforward.

Edit: Actually just checked and the ACT IQRs are very similar between HYPSM schools and places ranked more like ~15. I don't think I'd expect Cornell and WashU to be off in either direction.

 

[salemstein]

n=1 here, but you guys have to give more credit to the opportunities and challenges top schools give to their students. It is way harder to earn that coveted "A" at HYPSM than at a state school (and I can attest since I've been to both). "Grade inflation" is a reality when you're taking classes like Russian Lit., not Orgo. Compared to my DIY post-bac at state school, I'd say HYPSM had a very similar curve (1/4-1/3 of the class getting A/A-, Lots of B's, some C's and few D/F). Here's the difference: even though I studied ~20 hours per week at the latter, I struggled to get a B+. Whereas at state school, 2-3 hours the night before a midterm was enough for an A.
A lot of people are pointing at how much prestige carries through, but maybe Adcoms just want to give more credit to the students who stayed on top despite the greater difficulties. After all, GPA/MCAT is the most important factor for admissions, no matter where you go.

 

[Lucca]

n=1 here, but you guys have to give more credit to the opportunities and challenges top schools give to their students. It is way harder to earn that coveted "A" at HYPSM than at a state school (and I can attest since I've been to both). "Grade inflation" is a reality when you're taking classes like Russian Lit., not Orgo. Compared to my DIY post-bac at state school, I'd say HYPSM had a very similar curve (1/4-1/3 of the class getting A/A-, Lots of B's, some C's and few D/F). Here's the difference: even though I studied ~20 hours per week at the latter, I struggled to get a B+. Whereas at state school, 2-3 hours the night before a midterm was enough for an A.
A lot of people are pointing at how much prestige carries through, but maybe Adcoms just want to give more credit to the students who stayed on top despite the greater difficulties. After all, GPA/MCAT is the most important factor for admissions, no matter where you go.

I can appreciate that. I know for a fact grade inflation exists. i don't mind that someone from MIT or Princeton has a little slack cut on their GPA. Adcoms should appreciate that schools are different.

That being said, there are deflationary schools with class compositions that are academically very similar to MIT and Princeton. Take WashU for example whose premed track is famously brutal, or Berkeley where all the sciences also have a reputation for being very challenging, UCLA is known as being very competitive for premeds. Even though these schools produce a great volume of premeds they are not nearly as represented at the top schools as those from the "name-brand" undergrads.

Again, I'm not saying that "undergrad is everything", far from it, your undergrad does not determine your academic potential. My view is that we do not give enough weight to naked selection for prestigious undergrads and inbreeding at the top medical schools, choosing instead to believe that the students at those schools are somehow more elite than all other students and for that reason deserve to be there more than any other student. It's really nice to think that medical admissions is a meritocracy and it is certainly far more meritocratic than, say, business, law, or finance. However, I don't think that's the case.

I should add that I only think this selection happens at a small handful of medical schools, like Yale and Harvard and Their peers. For the vast majority of schools, im sure that where you go to school doesn't matter nearly as much. I also don't think that anyone should despair over these stats. Your self esteem, ambition, and sense of worth shouldn't revolve around getting into HMS, or any medical school for that matter.

If you do want to go to a really prestigious school for whatever reason, then just keep a level head about things and know that first and foremost admissions is about you. But it is better to be equipped with the knowledge that you have to work hard enough to overcome a disadvantage from the very start.

 

[efle]

Gonna plop this here from over in a similar thread because I think it is interesting and relevant to the discussion, and sheds some light on whether Yale is an outlier:

Infographic on the colleges that send the highest percentage of graduates into top medical schools

Specifically this part:

In an analysis across 10 top med school classes, 60% of students come from the 30 colleges (basically the t20 universities plus top LACs) with admit rates below 20% and high test scores.

So Yale, at 75% t20+LACs, is especially prestige focused even relative to other top medical programs.

But, the other big datapoint that stood out to me is that it's still true only 20% come from moderately or minimally selective places (for example, Baylor or UCSD fall into Moderate). So Yale might be especially picky about Ivy-level names, but the full cohort overall has similarly low levels of representation from average schools.

 

[mwsapphire]

It's a huge mix from all over the country, with a little higher representation of the Midwest, same as you see with southerners at Duke/Vandy/Rice. It's true many people make use of the med school for EC building. And I've seen firsthand how much that can matter, my sibling went to a rural unknown LAC for $ reasons and during their brief period of interest in pre-med, they had extremely limited research/volunteering options and zero good clinical opportunities.

But did they get into medical school in the end? Or did they realize it wasn't a true interest?

Like what? That Cornell and WashU are good examples of the percent scoring 36+? If anything you'd expect them to be low-side estimates I suppose, since HYPSM is going to have a lot more of the far right tail genius kids? The other values are all pretty straightforward.

Edit: Actually just checked and the ACT IQRs are very similar between HYPSM schools and places ranked more like ~15. I don't think I'd expect Cornell and WashU to be off in either direction.

:troll:

 

[768730]

But did they get into medical school in the end? Or did they realize it wasn't a true interest?


:troll:

Wut


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[mwsapphire]

Wut


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Efle keeps replying to Tiger Tanks petulant comments. I'm saying Tiger Tank is trolling, and efle doesn't need to " feed" him by replying.

 

[kb1900]

I never got a rejection from Yale nor an update to my status on their portal.

Therefore I can conclude I am still in the running to bring those percentages down a bit.

 

[768730]

Efle keeps replying to Tiger Tanks petulant comments. I'm saying Tiger Tank is trolling, and efle doesn't need to " feed" him by replying.

Oooooooo, on my phone it just says "troll" in place of the emoji. Thought you were calling efle a troll for providing statistics haha, my b


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

But did they get into medical school in the end? Or did they realize it wasn't a true interest?


:troll:

They decided they didn't want to be in school/training for another decade

I don't think they're a troll. If they were a troll they would have responded.

 

[7331poas]

Gonna plop this here from over in a similar thread because I think it is interesting and relevant to the discussion, and sheds some light on whether Yale is an outlier:

Infographic on the colleges that send the highest percentage of graduates into top medical schools

Specifically this part:


In an analysis across 10 top med school classes, 60% of students come from the 30 colleges (basically the t20 universities plus top LACs) with admit rates below 20% and high test scores.

So Yale, at 75% t20+LACs, is especially prestige focused even relative to other top medical programs.

But, the other big datapoint that stood out to me is that it's still true only 20% come from moderately or minimally selective places (for example, Baylor or UCSD fall into Moderate). So Yale might be especially picky about Ivy-level names, but the full cohort overall has similarly low levels of representation from average schools.

The problem with this remains, we need to know what proportion of applicants to that medical school had above median MCAT scores + where top20 or else we are purely speculating as to the extent to which schools are biased.

 

[efle]

The problem with this remains, we need to know what proportion of applicants to that medical school had above median MCAT scores + where top20 or else we are purely speculating as to the extent to which schools are biased.

Only about 1/3rd of the 36+ population goes to a t20. To me that is pretty convincing, it would be great to see internal Yale data with specifics but Occam's says "t20 advantaged" to me, more than "the other 2/3rds don't apply to top med schools"

 

[WedgeDawg]

I posted a similar but less thorough analysis for Columbia med interviews, I think in another thread made by @Lucca a few months back

But my response to this thread is basically "yes"

 

[DBC03]

Only about 1/3rd of the 36+ population goes to a t20. To me that is pretty convincing, it would be great to see internal Yale data with specifics but Occam's says "t20 advantaged" to me, more than "the other 2/3rds don't apply to top med schools"

So ... where are the other 2/3 going? I imagine there's a portion that simply aren't accepted anywhere. Maybe 1/3? 1/6? I really want to do extensive research on these and I don't think I have time...

 

[mwsapphire]

I think that while there is a bias, you should never use your Ugrad to come up with a school list (the exception being top tier schools known for grade deflation, like Princeton).
So if you're from a state school but your MCAT/GPA/EC's are strong don't think " well LOL I can never apply to Yale anyway I'm not HYPSM"
But if you're from, say, Yale UGrad, don't think that your 3.4 is good enough for any school in the country ( Unless, perhaps, you have a strong MCAT ( 517+) and a steep UW trend, but you still need a good base of mid tiers).
I'm from a state school, that's mid tier, and if I have a great MCAT, good grades, and good EC's I'd apply to some top schools. Why not, you know?

 

[efle]

So ... where are the other 2/3 going? I imagine there's a portion that simply aren't accepted anywhere. Maybe 1/3? 1/6? I really want to do extensive research on these and I don't think I have time...

There are a lot more than 10 med schools with at least 25-50% of the class sporting a 518+. And many, many places with at least 10% carrying 518+. I don't think they're mysteriously vanishing / unaccounted for

 

[DBC03]

There are a lot more than 10 med schools with at least 25-50% of the class sporting a 518+. And many, many places with at least 10% carrying 518+. I don't think they're mysteriously vanishing / unaccounted for

I'm thinking more about the top 20 (which, let's be honest - is more like 30 schools since no one can agree one which ones actually are top 20) - not necessarily top 10. I'm having a hard time making my list because my 3.4 precludes me from 80% of the schools, but my >520 puts me in an awkward position for yield protection. I'm applying far and wide, so I'm getting really familiar with the MSAR. It looks like there are some schools that have a very wide spread for MCAT (Rosy Franklin - heck, even UCLA) and they seem to care about mission. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of them... On the other hand, my 3.4 puts me well out of the range for many, if not most med schools.

EDIT: I think we need state schools in their own category as I can see how state schools would traditionally have the largest spread in MCAT - possibly GPA as well, but I think most schools would be a bit pickier on GPA.

 

[efle]

I think you're the kind of person that can have luck with places on the t20 fringe that are big on MCAT, like Case Western. Keeping it very broad is the way to go though.

Also I hear dartmouth likes nontrads!

 

[DBC03]

I think you're the kind of person that can have luck with places on the t20 fringe that are big on MCAT, like Case Western. Keeping it very broad is the way to go though.

Also I hear dartmouth likes nontrads!

You have picked two of the schools I cannot apply to just because of location! Just add WashU, St. Louis, and Tulane in there while you're at it 😉

I feel like I'm applying to too many reach schools, but I'm also applying to a few low tiers. If I don't get in this year, I'll have a slightly higher GPA (3.5c/3.6s), a few publications, and more clinical and volunteering experience, so I may have ok luck as a reapplicant. (long story on why I applied this year instead of waiting. Don't ask)

 

[Lucca]

I posted a similar but less thorough analysis for Columbia med interviews, I think in another thread made by @Lucca a few months back

But my response to this thread is basically "yes"

gonna repost this here from another thread since it contributes to the OP

I have a source where I was able to determine the undergraduate institutions of ~500 MD-only interviewees (all were de-identified, I didn't have access to names or anything) for one of the past 3 cycles at Columbia (being intentionally vague). All of these were from the same cycle and sampling was 100% unbiased.

Here is the breakdown of interviews by category as well as percentage adjusted for the # of schools in each category

1. Columbia & Barnard - 5.2% (5.2% per school, counting Columbia and Barnard as a single institution)
2. HYPMS - 20.6% (4.1% per school)
3. Other top school (includes other Ivies, Duke, NYU, Northwestern, Amherst, etc) - 34.1% (1.5% per school)
4. Top Public (Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley, UNC, UVA, W&M) - 6.6% (1.1% per school)
5. Other Public - 18.1% (0.4% per school)
6. Other Private - 15.4% (0.4% per school)

Of the "Other top school" category, schools that contributed 10 or more students in order were Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn, Duke, WashU, Hopkins, Brown, and UChicago.

If we have an "Other Ivy + Duke, WashU, Hopkins, UChicago" category it would look like this:

1. Other Ivy + Duke, WashU, Hopkins, UChicago - 21.4% (2.7% per school)
2. All other "other top school"s - 12.7% (0.85% per school) (n=15 schools such as NYU, Northwestern, Amherst, Caltech, McGill, Vanderbilt, Rice, etc)

So if we look at this all together:

1. Columbia & Barnard: 5.2% per school
2. HYPMS: 4.1% per school
3. Other Ivy + Duke, WashU, Hopkins, UChicago: 2.7% per school
4. Top Public: 1.1% per school
5. Other Top Private: 0.9% per school
6. Other Public: 0.4% per school
7. Other Private: 0.4% per school

Finally, if we normalize the ratios we get

1. Columbia & Barnard: 13
2. HYPMS: 10.3
3. Other Ivy + Duke, WashU, Hopkins, UChicago: 6.8
4. Top Public: 2.8
5. Other Top Private: 2.3
6. Other Public: 1
7. Other Private: 1

data is fun

found it

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Which are the grade-inflating prestigious undergrads?
Yale, Harvard, Duke, Stanford, Brown?

If you're in HS, those are the schools you should be aiming for.

 

[Lucca]

EDIT 08/03/2017: Fixed a bug in my program that failed to download all of the correct pages of the school's PDF bulletin. I have fixed the script and reproduced the graphs, the graphs you see in the OP from 08/03/2017 onwards are correct. The problem arose because of the way my browser indexed the pages of PDF downloads. I verified that the fix worked by counting two years of graduates by hand and the number of graduates counted by my script and by hand matched perfectly on both accounts. I also added five number summaries for the top 10 feeder schools only, and some plots for people who entered Yale with grad degrees.