Do ADCOMs consider amount of time applicant had to build resume?

[hefracasado]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm gonna be applying after my third year, hoping to matriculate to med school after graduation. I was wondering if ADCOMs will consider the fact that applicants who took 1-3 gap years had significantly more time to build their resume whereas I basically had just 3 years of college (in which ECs from high school aren't even counted).

 

[Law2Doc]

No. if you think spending more time doing resume building activities will help your application, by all means do so. But let's not pretend there's going to be any benefit to having fewer experiences.

 

[rilte4]

They consider who will be the best physicians.

 

[takeurmeds02]

I feel like there are so many more factors that play a role in what you're asking. There's obviously the expectation of having to explain yourself if you've taken a substantial amount of time off with nothing to show for it or if you've done nothing while in undergrad but all other things being kinda equal, I just think it really depends.

 

[sharkbyte]

When you say "I basically just had 3 years of college" you have to realize that it's your decision to apply straight and only send in 3 years worth of research/clinical experience/etc. From an adcoms perspective it doesn't matter whether you applied straight or you took 7 gap years. You have to apply with meaningful, productive activities that demonstrate an understanding of medicine and a commitment to service.

 

[bagger288]

They consider who will be the best physicians.

I'd be interested to see how anyone can predict an applicant's ability to be a good physician before their first patient encounter as a doctor.

 

[mimelim]

I'd be interested to see how anyone can predict an applicant's ability to be a good physician before their first patient encounter as a doctor.

I think that I can do a pretty good job. Takes about 15 minutes of conversation, generally without the person knowing that they are being interviewed. Fool proof? Not by a long shot, but after you live in the clinical realm long enough, you pick up on the kinds of people that have a higher chance of success.

 

[bagger288]

I think that I can do a pretty good job. Takes about 15 minutes of conversation, generally without the person knowing that they are being interviewed. Fool proof? Not by a long shot, but after you live in the clinical realm long enough, you pick up on the kinds of people that have a higher chance of success.

What qualities or characteristics do you look for in those 15 minutes? I'm not sure if that's been addressed in another thread or not, but I'm just curious

 

[rilte4]

I'd be interested to see how anyone can predict an applicant's ability to be a good physician before their first patient encounter as a doctor.

Your point questions the premise of med school admissions. That's an issue separate from what OP was asking or what I was responding to. As has been discussed pretty widely on SDN, med school admissions is not about the applicants - it's about the patients they'll eventually serve. If two applicants have reached the same level of academic achievement and one has additional years of experience that an adcom believes to be valuable, they will not favor the less experienced applicant in the name of cutting that applicant some slack. It's about the patients, not the applicants. If my viewpoint is off base, the adcoms are welcome to correct my thinking.

 

[Goro]

Nope.

I'm gonna be applying after my third year, hoping to matriculate to med school after graduation. I was wondering if ADCOMs will consider the fact that applicants who took 1-3 gap years had significantly more time to build their resume whereas I basically had just 3 years of college (in which ECs from high school aren't even counted).

And @bagger288, go read my post on "guide to Admissions." It will tell you what we look for. And agree 100% with the wise Mimelim that we can spot good and bad in about 15-30 mins.

 

[Law2Doc]

OP, I think you have to realize that this isn't a race. The goal isn't for you to be a doctor the quickest, nor is the Adcoms goal either. They want to see what they need to to assess your likelihood to be successful on this path. Some people have accomplished so much in college it's pretty clear. Others take a year or two longer to prove themselves, but it's the proof, not the timing, that Adcoms want to see.

In some of my older posts, I suggested that in retrospect a lot of premeds would be better off for admissions purposes taking none of the prereq courses in college, get a high GPA in some other area of interest while doing some fun ECs, and then do the prereqs in a postbac, without as many distractions or other course load hurdles, so they could really focus. Med schools aren't about getting this done fast. They would rather you took these things later for an A than rushed earlier for a B. Same thing with ECs -- if it takes you longer to have a better resume for med school, then maybe you spend the time.

There is no prize for finishing your prereqs and ECs first -- the only rewards go to people who get all their ducks in a row and submit a really strong med school application. If you think a med school is going to say -- this persons application is pretty sparse, but let's give him some slack, he's only a junior, it won't happen.

 

[Officer Farva]

OP, I think you have to realize that this isn't a race. The goal isn't for you to be a doctor the quickest, nor is the Adcoms goal either. They want to see what they need to to assess your likelihood to be successful on this path. Some people have accomplished so much in college it's pretty clear. Others take a year or two longer to prove themselves, but it's the proof, not the timing, that Adcoms want to see.

In some of my older posts, I suggested that in retrospect a lot of premeds would be better off for admissions purposes taking none of the prereq courses in college, get a high GPA in some other area of interest while doing some fun ECs, and then do the prereqs in a postbac, without as many distractions or other course load hurdles, so they could really focus. Med schools aren't about getting this done fast. They would rather you took these things later for an A than rushed earlier for a B. Same thing with ECs -- if it takes you longer to have a better resume for med school, then maybe you spend the time.

There is no prize for finishing your prereqs and ECs first -- the only rewards go to people who get all their ducks in a row and submit a really strong med school application. If you think a med school is going to say -- this persons application is pretty sparse, but let's give him some slack, he's only a junior, it won't happen.

OMG, the pre-pre-med route. A bunch of postbacs at my school did this, but they were like from super-rich families though. I still think it's totally unfair to compare the guy getting A's in orgo who took it with a full courseload to some dude who is going part-time. Hey, I can get an A in particle physics with little to no effort if you gave me unlimited free time.

Doesn't that approach favor the super-rich applicant? Over maybe the guy who is a first generation college student or first generation American?

 

[kb1900]

OP, I think you have to realize that this isn't a race. The goal isn't for you to be a doctor the quickest, nor is the Adcoms goal either. They want to see what they need to to assess your likelihood to be successful on this path. Some people have accomplished so much in college it's pretty clear. Others take a year or two longer to prove themselves, but it's the proof, not the timing, that Adcoms want to see.

In some of my older posts, I suggested that in retrospect a lot of premeds would be better off for admissions purposes taking none of the prereq courses in college, get a high GPA in some other area of interest while doing some fun ECs, and then do the prereqs in a postbac, without as many distractions or other course load hurdles, so they could really focus. Med schools aren't about getting this done fast. They would rather you took these things later for an A than rushed earlier for a B. Same thing with ECs -- if it takes you longer to have a better resume for med school, then maybe you spend the time.

There is no prize for finishing your prereqs and ECs first -- the only rewards go to people who get all their ducks in a row and submit a really strong med school application. If you think a med school is going to say -- this persons application is pretty sparse, but let's give him some slack, he's only a junior, it won't happen.

The admission process already favors those who have a lot of money.

Not disagreeing with you but having to pick up 2 part time jobs w a full course load just so I can afford to apply... If I had to take a post bac I'd still have to work 30-40 hrs/wk to keep food on the table and afford the tuition, so I don't see how the logic applies to anyone who isn't super wealthy.


I definitely wouldn't recommend to anyone that they wait longer to apply. Just have your ducks in line from the get go.

 

[Law2Doc]

OMG, the pre-pre-med route. A bunch of postbacs at my school did this, but they were like from super-rich families though. I still think it's totally unfair to compare the guy getting A's in orgo who took it with a full courseload to some dude who is going part-time. Hey, I can get an A in particle physics with little to no effort if you gave me unlimited free time.

Doesn't that approach favor the super-rich applicant? Over maybe the guy who is a first generation college student or first generation American?

I'm not saying it's fair, I'm just telling like it is. In the end the Adcoms want to see that you have good stats and good ECs. That you aced the prereqs and built up your CV appropriately. They don't really care if that all happened in college or via the extra year or two of postbac. So in retrospect (and if money wasn't an issue), the latter is probably the higher yield approach. And the answer to OPs question of "do I get the benefit of the doubt for doing this earlier with less ECs to show for it?" Is a resounding "no.".

 

[mimelim]

What qualities or characteristics do you look for in those 15 minutes? I'm not sure if that's been addressed in another thread or not, but I'm just curious

What qualities do you think we should be looking for? This isn't exactly rocket science.

 

[Officer Farva]

I'm not saying it's fair, I'm just telling like it is. In the end the Adcoms want to see that you have good stats and good ECs. That you aced the prereqs and built up your CV appropriately. They don't really care if that all happened in college or via the extra year or two of postbac. So in retrospect (and if money wasn't an issue), the latter is probably the higher yield approach. And the answer to OPs question of "do I get the benefit of the doubt for doing this earlier with less ECs to show for it?" Is a resounding "no.".

I definitely understand that these are the times we are living in. But it's also so crazy to compare a 30 year old's accomplishments to a 20 year old.

It is quite unfortunate that medical school admissions is becoming an increasingly pay to play type of arrangement, with the proliferation of postbacs and SMPs. Premed is becoming something you do from when you are 18-22 to something that might stretch to your mid to late 20s, possibly 30s. I am wondering when the applicant base will realize that medicine is no longer worth it from the investment standpoint?

 

[Law2Doc]

... I am wondering when the applicant base will realize that medicine is no longer worth it from the investment standpoint?

See that's the thing. The older crowd already gets this. IMHO Medicine is better off filling up with people who don't look at it as a return on investment. People who are simply passionate about the job, and don't need to live like on MTV Cribs.

 

[Med Ed]

I'd be interested to see how anyone can predict an applicant's ability to be a good physician before their first patient encounter as a doctor.

Some while back I was asked to help decide whether we should abandon traditional interviews and switch to MMI's, so I ended up studying the issue for awhile. Professional researchers, primarily industrial psychologists, have been looking at this for decades and the results are as depressing as they are unequivocal: traditional unstructured interviews are terrible predictors of anything. We persist in using them because they feed a central psychological myth common to all humans: that our subjective first impressions of other people are accurate and meaningful. And they more you interview the more embedded this myth becomes.

The MMI has been touted as a solution in part because it offers standardization and more objective information than the traditional format. All this is true, but MMI's carry systematic errors that bias them towards a certain type of person. To borrow a bit from Myers-Briggs, if your institution's MMI is constructed in a way that favors ESFP's, then you will end up with a class full of ESFP's, with nary an INTJ in sight. Most adcoms do not desire such an outcome.

In the end I just decided to use my interviews as an opportunity to flag the occasional unrepentant weirdo, and to root out significant AMCAS embellishment.

 

[Law2Doc]

... But it's also so crazy to compare a 30 year old's accomplishments to a 20 year old.
...

First, I think a lot of 20 yo have more accomplishments these days than you realize. Second, what's best for the field isn't necessarily what's best for the younger applicants. The field needs leaders and accomplished individuals. So they can play a guessing game of which 20 yo is going to go on and do great things, or they can scoop up someone 3, 5, or ten years further down the road and bank on them continuing to do great things. The latter is less of a gamble. The saving grace for 20 yo is there aren't all that many accomplished people who want to put their lives on hold to be a student or resident.

 

[Officer Farva]

See that's the thing. The older crowd already gets this. IMHO Medicine is better off filling up with people who don't look at it as a return on investment. People who are simply passionate about the job, and don't need to live like on MTV Cribs.

Medicine is definitely a great field to work in though! As someone who came from an immigrant family, I feel like we are trained to think that education is nothing more than an investment on the future. If I love art history so much, I can go to a museum and study it at home.

 

[Mansamusa]

I'd be interested to see how anyone can predict an applicant's ability to be a good physician before their first patient encounter as a doctor.

A couple of my interviews had standardized patient encounters where we had to pretend to be med students.....I don't really know what a bad patient encounter would have looked with the situations we were given. You'd have to be completely silent or a real jerk to mess it up.

@Law2Doc You can't fault people for looking on a return of investment when education has been turned into a business in this country. We are at the point where the debt load for a lot of grads out of residency will be $500K. If students are forced to invest a ton into education then of course we are going to look at the returns. I would like to be able to completely pay off the debt and be able to save enough to retire (I also wanted to be able to support my mom, but it's gonna take a really long time for my loan to be paid so that might not happen). Not an unreasonable return to expect, but is getting more difficult to accomplish as the amount you need to invest increases

 

[mimelim]

I definitely understand that these are the times we are living in. But it's also so crazy to compare a 30 year old's accomplishments to a 20 year old.

It is quite unfortunate that medical school admissions is becoming an increasingly pay to play type of arrangement, with the proliferation of postbacs and SMPs. Premed is becoming something you do from when you are 18-22 to something that might stretch to your mid to late 20s, possibly 30s. I am wondering when the applicant base will realize that medicine is no longer worth it from the investment standpoint?

I'm going to preface this with this is philosophical/theoretical more than practical.

I don't think that this is about comparing the raw level of accomplishments. I likewise don't think that medical schools care about your past accomplishments themselves. We don't brag about what our students have done in the past. We brag about what our alumni have done. So really what we care about is who is most likely to be successful. The only way to make an educated guess is to look at what the applicant has done in the past and the trajectory that they are currently on. Time utility is a big one. Just having a higher raw hours count isn't necessarily better. I think that @Law2Doc (correct me if I'm wrong) and I would say that the real dangers are people who think, "doing well in school = I should be a doctor". There is more to it than that. 4 years of undergrad is more than enough time to demonstrate that you are ready to start your medical training. But, not everyone comes into college mature. Not everyone understands the process/who they are well enough for someone to say after 4 years of undergrad that they are a good bet. For those reasons, it is perfectly logical for schools to take the more experienced applicants.

 

[Officer Farva]

A couple of my interviews had standardized patient encounters where we had to pretend to be med students.....I don't really know what a bad patient encounter would have looked with the situations we were given. You'd have to be completely silent or a real jerk to mess it up.

@Law2Doc You can't fault people for looking on a return of investment when education has been turned into a business in this country. We are at the point where the debt load for a lot of grads out of residency will be $500K. If students are forced to invest a ton into education then of course we are going to look at the returns. I would like to be able to completely pay off the debt and be able to save enough to retire (I also wanted to be able to support my mom, but it's gonna take a really long time for my loan to be paid so that might not happen). Not an unreasonable return to expect, but is getting more difficult to accomplish as the amount you need to invest increases

#MillenialandProud

This process is really not friendly to broke millennials.

Regarding education being a business, look at SMPs. No marketable purpose other than showing adcoms you can take medical coursework.

 

[Goro]

Do you realize the vast majority of med school matriculants are classical pre-meds?

Not everyone wants to be a doctor at age 20. For some this is an evolutionary process ("I always wanted to be a doctor") vs revolutionary (someone has an epiphany and realizes that this is their calling ("When my mom developed cancer, I realized that this was what I wanted to do").

Still others are too immature or have other problems that clobber them in UG and do a post-bac to salvage their GPA. And still others have always wanted to be a doctor, and were either distracted by something else into a different career, or wanted to experience life and then came back to Medicine.

The world is bigger than you know it.

I definitely understand that these are the times we are living in. But it's also so crazy to compare a 30 year old's accomplishments to a 20 year old.

It is quite unfortunate that medical school admissions is becoming an increasingly pay to play type of arrangement, with the proliferation of postbacs and SMPs. Premed is becoming something you do from when you are 18-22 to something that might stretch to your mid to late 20s, possibly 30s. I am wondering when the applicant base will realize that medicine is no longer worth it from the investment standpoint?

Life's not fair, and definitely so to anyone who's broke.

This process is really not friendly to broke millennials.

What's wrong with knowing that a group of applicants have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can handle med school, and that by observing them for a year, you know their personalities? Yes, it's a go-for-broke strategy, compared to a research MS, but consider the goal of the applicants.

Regarding education being a business, look at SMPs. No marketable purpose other than showing adcoms you can take medical coursework.

 

[magictouch]

I for one think AdComs should consider it, and I've got the feeling some do. Yes sure you might have a better resume after 5 years than 3, but if the rate at which you gathered those accomplishments is lower (say -- not working during college, taking 13 credits vs 18, etc) than you will likely still accomplish less in the 4 years of medical school. Residency directors generally place the greatest weight on things done during medical school (Steps, research, etc) vs before entering so in that regard I would expect that traditional matriculants at the same schools tend to do better in residency than non-traditional. Schools want people who match well since it makes them look good, so of course they will select for the applicants who can handle doing well in school while still "checking all the boxes" required to be successful.