Do reapps have an easier time getting in?

[700003]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Perhaps their persistence to get into med school is seen as a plus? Same goes with MCAT retakes…are such applicants seen as determined and loyal to the field? I don't get why these would be harmful…

 

[Spector1]

only if you show improvement over the previous year.

 

[Grace184]

No, their apps are typically scrutinized for improvement from the past application to the school. And as @gyngyn says persistence is one thing but a lot of schools specifically state do not apply a third time.

If you are applying to different schools you are considered a first time applicant and evaluated equally

And multiple MCATS can also be viewed negatively as a poor indicator of success on the boards, if I remember Gyngyn correctly

 

[gyngyn]

Being a re-applicant is never an positive independent variable. It is, however the only way to get into medical school after a failed attempt. For some schools re-applicants are some of their better students. For others, re-applicants are rarely considered. These tend to be very different kinds of schools.

There are many reasons for becoming a re-applicant.
Depending on those reasons, neither determination nor loyalty will count for much.

The best MCAT strategy is a single strong score. Anything else opens up interpretation to any number of unpredictable conclusions. There is only one (passing) bite at the USMLE.

 

[Goro]

Many pre-meds mistake determination as an attribute equal to competence. It's not.

MCAT retakes for many schools don't seem to hurt, but there are times where they do. Failing to improve, doing worse, or having a really poor reason for a poor score and not taken well. Is someone who takes the MCAT the day after being in a car accident showing determination, or poor choice making?

Perhaps their persistence to get into med school is seen as a plus? Same goes with MCAT retakes…are such applicants seen as determined and loyal to the field? I don't get why these would be harmful…

 

[justadream]

Perhaps their persistence to get into med school is seen as a plus? Same goes with MCAT retakes…are such applicants seen as determined and loyal to the field? I don't get why these would be harmful…

Using this logic, the following MCAT patterns


Case 1:
First MCAT: 3/45
Second MCAT: 6/45
Third MCAT: 12/45
Fourth MCAT: 24/45
Fifth MCAT: 38/45

or

Case 2:
First MCAT: 3/45
Second MCAT: 3/45
Third MCAT: 3/45
Fourth MCAT: 3/45
Fifth MCAT: 38/45

would be better than:

Case 3:
First and only MCAT: 38/45

In the first case, you can claim "massive improvement" (you almost double your score each time!!!). In the second, you can showcase your sheer determination to get a good score.

Who would you rather have as your physician? The guy who doesn't adequately or seriously prepare the first (or second, or third, or fourth) time or the guy who makes sure he is adequately prepared the first time?

 

[Goro]

This is a straw man question. The MCAT is not the be all and end of in being a physician. This is like asking, "do you want your doctor to be a good standardized test taker?"

What gyngyn and I look for are people who will be good students, because you can't be a good doctor with being a good student first. Cases 1 and 2 are loaded with risk factors for med students. Dripping with risk factors.

Who would you rather have as your physician? The guy who doesn't adequately or seriously prepare the first (or second, or third, or fourth) time or the guy who makes sure he is adequately prepared the first time?[/QUOTE]

 

[Cotterpin]

Do you think that there might be more understanding for MCAT retakes this cycle because of the new test?

 

[gyngyn]

Do you think that there might be more understanding for MCAT retakes this cycle because of the new test?

In what way?

 

[Cotterpin]

In what way?

Like, if someone takes the brand new test without much practice material available and little advice to learn from, doesn't do great, then waits a cycle, retakes it, and does much better. Are adcoms likely to just think, "Well, it's a new test, so that's pretty understandable," rather than thinking the applicant is incompetent or made an error in judgement by taking the test before they were ready? Or is the attitude more like, "You should all be crushing this new test. No excuses"?

 

[gyngyn]

Like, if someone takes the brand new test without much practice material available and little advice to learn from, doesn't do great, then waits a cycle, retakes it, and does much better. Are adcoms likely to just think, "Well, it's a new test, so that's pretty understandable," rather than thinking the applicant is incompetent or made an error in judgement by taking the test before they were ready? Or is the attitude more like, "You should all be crushing this new test. No excuses"?

When you take the test twice, you open yourself up to every possible interpretation of the scores.
We will see them all, compared in percentages.

 

[Cotterpin]

When you take the test twice, you open yourself up to every possible interpretation of the scores.
We will see them all, compared in percentages.

Hopefully things will go well next week and I'll only need the one score.

 

[Goro]

This smacks of wishful thinking. We always expect people to do well.

Like, if someone takes the brand new test without much practice material available and little advice to learn from, doesn't do great, then waits a cycle, retakes it, and does much better. Are adcoms likely to just think, "Well, it's a new test, so that's pretty understandable," rather than thinking the applicant is incompetent or made an error in judgement by taking the test before they were ready? Or is the attitude more like, "You should all be crushing this new test. No excuses"?

 

[gyngyn]

Hopefully things will go well next week and I'll only need the one score.

Everyone shares the same disadvantages you outlined.
Don't take the test if you are not ready.

 

[LizzyM]

I can't find any data but I suspect that as a group first time applicants are more successful and garnering admission than second time applicants. In other words, perhaps 55-60% of first time applicants are admitted but only 38-40% of second time applicants.

Some applicants will be able to fix what was deficient in their application and be successful the second time around but some applications are irreparable regardless of how many times the applicant applies (some cheaters, felons, misanthrops).

 

[Cotterpin]

Everyone shares the same disadvantages you outlined.
Don't take the test if you are not ready.

No, I get it. I was just asking out of curiosity. I am ready.

I can't find any data but I suspect that as a group first time applicants are more successful and garnering admission than second time applicants. In other words, perhaps 55-60% of first time applicants are admitted but only 38-40% of second time applicants.

Some applicants will be able to fix what was deficient in their application and be successful the second time around but some applications are irreparable regardless of how many times the applicant applies (some cheaters, felons, misanthrops).

How do you know who is a misanthrope?

 

[LizzyM]

How do you know who is a misanthrope?

It can be evident in essays and in interviews. Not 100% sensitive but when someone "tests positive" we are likely to turn them away.

 

[Cotterpin]

It can be evident in essays and in interviews. Not 100% sensitive but when someone "tests positive" we are likely to turn them away.

Are there people out there who are just saying blatantly misanthropic things during interviews?

 

[Goro]

As an example, people who come from very patronistic cultures are less likely to be sympathetic to a hypothetical female patient in an interview question. No, I'm not sharing either.

Others simply exude this attitude: "Patients? I don't need no stinkin' patients!" I wanna do research!"


Still others are just poor interviewees, period.

Are there people out there who are just saying blatantly misanthropic things during interviews?

 

[Nietzschelover]

A single strong score certainly makes sense as the most optimal outcome regarding the MCAT. That said, I find the oft-noted maxim of "Don't take the MCAT until you are ready" to be easier to say than to do. I wonder what percentage of MCAT takers who end up disappointed with their scores thought they were ready. In other words, how do you know you aren't ready until you actually find out you weren't ready? And given that there is not a "good enough" standard, but rather a "good enough relative to percentiles" standard, and given further that the test is more demanding than ever with even more material to cover, the process seems to favor candidates who naturally do very well with testing and/or those who can afford to dedicate 4-6 months almost exclusively to studying for the test. Studying while also taking a full course load with some tough courses, and also somehow getting in all the ECs needed to be competitive, seems almost impossible, so again, advantage goes to those who apparently will score highly no matter what or those who have the luxury of extended full-time MCAT study. A long way of saying that adcoms might be more forgiving of a single re-take than is suggested on the site, especially if the first score is borderline acceptable instead of horrible.

On a related note, are there any data to suggest that applicants who score 37-43 on a first take will be better physicians than those that score 31-33? Whether the former score higher on the Step exams may be important, but I'm asking something a little different. Does a 43 have better hand/digital dexterity than a 32? Or better skills relating to and interviewing patients? Or better diagnosticians?

 

[HarryH00d]

So lets say School A averages multiple MCAT scores for a candidate. The candidate is successful and matriculates at said school. Does the school report the average MCAT or the highest when releasing MCAT/GPA statistics (be it on their website or for the MSAR).

 

[sliceofbread136]

I can't find any data but I suspect that as a group first time applicants are more successful and garnering admission than second time applicants. In other words, perhaps 55-60% of first time applicants are admitted but only 38-40% of second time applicants.

Some applicants will be able to fix what was deficient in their application and be successful the second time around but some applications are irreparable regardless of how many times the applicant applies (some cheaters, felons, misanthrops).

There's probably some selection bias there though, and alot of that variation is probably explained by reapplicants just being poorer applicants in general (which is why they are reapplying).

 

[DielsAlder]

Depends entirely on the type of reapplicant who is applying in my opinion. Low GPA/MCAT reapps who are not doing much to improve their application would probably face a hard time. I have also known some very high stat reapps who were deficient in one or more ways (low clinical, low research, bad essays, applied late, etc) who fixed those problems only to have a wildly successful second cycle.

 

[gyngyn]

There's probably some selection bias there though, and alot of that variation is probably explained by reapplicants just being poorer applicants in general (which is why they are reapplying).

High stats re-applicants are at the greatest disadvantage in a re-application.

 

[largelyuntrustworthy]

High stats re-applicants are at the greatest disadvantage in a re-application.

For what reason? Do ADCOMs think that the fact that they are reapplying with high stats must be indicative of a red flag that was not included in the app or only showed up in the interview at other schools last cycle?

 

[familyaerospace]

I really think it depends on the school and if you are an unusual interview. My application had a ton of stuff going on so it was easy to pick any one of the zillions of things "wrong" with my app to deny me admission. I bring out the worst in interviewers for sure but it all worked out for the best.

A friend of mine interviewed at a school out west that loved their reapps. I can't remember what it was, but she said usually it was the reapps who were interviewed.

MCG seems to like them as well. I got in on my 4th round to MCG and another got in on his 7th round. We are likely the exception and not the rule though.

 

[gyngyn]

For what reason? Do ADCOMs think that the fact that they are reapplying with high stats must be indicative of a red flag that was not included in the app or only showed up in the interview at other schools last cycle?

If you rule out stats as the reason for re-application that only leaves everything else.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Every school is different about how they look at re-applications. Some schools such as Brody are actual rather open and up front about "reapplicants being looked upon in a favorable light if they have shown noticeable improvement from their last app cycle" and actually have a fair amount of people in their class who had to apply twice to get in. Note that Brody also is somewhat of a unique situation only getting around 1200 applications a year from a specific state and subset of people.

I would add to gonnif's list that a lack of volunteering to demonstrate altruism is a very easy way for top stat applicants to get shut out. I think it was Ohio State in their survey of ADCOMs that asked the question "what is one thing that would cause you to reject an applicant if they were lacking in it"---57% of them said lack of volunteering, nothing else got more than 17%, and research which is so often cited as some requirement for any pre-med got 3% of the votes.

Oh, and if you ever turn down an MD acceptance, don't expect to get another one again. Period.

 

[Lancer]

If you rule out stats as the reason for re-application that only leaves everything else.

So let's say a high stats applicant doesn't get in due to little clinical/volunteer experiences.

Said applicant fills in those gaps before reapplying. They would have a harder chance of getting in than other reapps?

 

[gyngyn]

So let's say a high stats applicant doesn't get in due to little clinical/volunteer experiences.

Said applicant fills in those gaps before reapplying. They would have a harder chance of getting in than other reapps?

If a school to which he previously applied compares the two applications and determines that lack of experience was the reason for not interviewing him, then he might still be a candidate for interview. We will also consider the judgement issue (applying with no experience) as well as a presumption that he was probably interviewed by schools that decided not to accept for other reasons. This is also where we would double check the clearinghouse for those who were accepted to schools felt to be "beneath" them.

Many factors besides the salient ones are considered.

 

[SpicyFalafel]

Gonnif, do you mind Pm you?

 

[sliceofbread136]

High stats re-applicants are at the greatest disadvantage in a re-application.

Even if they do have high stats there is likely something that held their application back the year or years before. I'm not doubting that being a reapplicant alone hurts in some way, I'm just saying that it may be difficult to tell exactly how much it will hurt you due to other confounding factors. Then again I'm not an adcom so what do I know

 

[gyngyn]

Even if they do have high stats there is likely something that held their application back the year or years before. I'm not doubting that being a reapplicant alone hurts in some way, I'm just saying that it may be difficult to tell exactly how much it will hurt you due to other confounding factors. Then again I'm not an adcom so what do I know

The reasons are not actually confounders.
The differential for a high stats reapplicant is somewhat different from those re-applying with lower stats.

 

[Cotterpin]

Some reapplicants are just people who accidentally fell through the cracks, though, aren't they? Like, without having any red flags or anything. Like maybe they didn't apply broadly enough the first time and they just happened to not get in anywhere.

 

[GrapesofRath]

The reasons are not actually confounders.
The differential for a high stats reapplicant is somewhat different from those re-applying with lower stats.

Question here from what you said earlier

You cited a judgement issue above as something to take into account with a high stat reapplicant who lacks a basic necessity like clinical exposure

Isn't there going to be at least as big of a judgement issue for a reapplicant who's stats were average? Maybe they didn't apply broadly enough? Maybe they wasted half their apps on top 20 schools delusionally? Maybe they applied when there were still clear questions about their gpa and transcript? Maybe they applied with some other kind of issue that could be detected?

I guess the question is are ADCOMs more likely to look at a borderline app and say "this was a 50-50 app to begin with its not a surprise they have to apply again" or will they look at it and say " this person probably didn't apply as broadly as they could have or included too many top schools or completely ignored DO schools the first time around"? These are just examples of what they could say This is all speculation but that's nothing different than the things cited on here above for the further scrutiny high stat reapps get.

It's also rather interesting ADCOMs will go out of there with high stat reapps to see if they turned down an acceptance before. Does this extend to MD reaps getting checked to see if they rejected a DO acceptance before? Either way this is info every single person should get their hands on knowing; it could save some peoples career

 

[gyngyn]

Question here from what you said earlier

You cited a judgement issue above as something to take into account with a high stat reapplicant who lacks a basic necessity like clinical exposure

Isn't there going to be at least as big of a judgement issue for a reapplicant who's stats were average? Maybe they didn't apply broadly enough? Maybe they wasted half their apps on top 20 schools delusionally? Maybe they applied when there were still clear questions about their gpa and transcript? Maybe they applied with some other kind of issue that could be detected?

I guess the question is are ADCOMs more likely to look at a borderline app and say "this was a 50-50 app to begin with its not a surprise they have to apply again" or will they look at it and say " this person probably didn't apply as broadly as they could have or included too many top schools or completely ignored DO schools the first time around"? These are just examples of what they could say This is all speculation but that's nothing different than the things cited on here above for the further scrutiny high stat reapps get.

The odds that a high stats applicant was interviewed and denied is much higher than an applicant with lower scores.
This raises the specter of non-cognitive reasons for the re-application.

 

[deleted702880]

Some reapplicants are just people who accidentally fell through the cracks, though, aren't they? Like, without having any red flags or anything. Like maybe they didn't apply broadly enough the first time and they just happened to not get in anywhere.

This is me for the most part. I only applied to CA schools last cycle and got 2 II but I blew them both (because I have poor social skills). Now I'm reapplying more broadly and I'm still wondering what I should put in the "have you applied for medical school in the past" question. I'm considering finding a job as a bartender or something to work on my social skills a little more ha.

 

[Cotterpin]

This is me for the most part. I only applied to CA schools last cycle and got 2 II but I blew them both (because I have poor social skills). Now I'm reapplying more broadly and I'm still wondering what I should put in the "have you applied for medical school in the past" question. I'm considering finding a job as a bartender or something to work on my social skills a little more ha.

What do you mean, you're wondering what you should put in the "have you applied for medical school in the past" question? You just said you applied last cycle, so the answer is "Yes."

Also... if you blew your interviews because you have poor social skills, then you did have a red flag and are not the kind of student I was talking about.

 

[timeflies]

What do you mean, you're wondering what you should put in the "have you applied for medical school in the past" question? You just said you applied last cycle, so the answer is "Yes."

Also... if you blew your interviews because you have poor social skills, then you did have a red flag and are not the kind of student I was talking about.

Some schools give you space to describe your activities since your last application as a follow-up to this question. I think the answer to that prompt is what OP meant.

 

[deleted702880]

What do you mean, you're wondering what you should put in the "have you applied for medical school in the past" question? You just said you applied last cycle, so the answer is "Yes."

Also... if you blew your interviews because you have poor social skills, then you did have a red flag and are not the kind of student I was talking about.

There are secondaries that ask for details about your application cycle as timeflies pointed out, a current example is Albany's secondary.
Also, I realized that poor social skill is a red flag (that's why I said "for the most part") but the principle issue was that I didn't apply broadly enough and only had 2 II as a result. My poor social skill is mostly just a lack of interview-fu; I get super nervous in the whole "career interview" setting even though anywhere else outside of the interview I'm perfectly sociable.