Do schools review the applications in the order they come in just like the AMCAS

[naixin]

Or in batches (still in the order when they come in)? Some schools say that they wont review applications until late Aug or early Sept.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

I'll bump this for the info.

 

[alerk323]

Or in batches (still in the order when they come in)? Some schools say that they wont review applications until late Aug or early Sept.

I have heard a variety of things. I've heard some schools do it in order, some do it in batches, and some have the ability to pull applications based on various parameters (gpa/mcat, OOS) and do it partially that way.

Either way, they don't review apps that haven't come in yet, so earlier is always better and there's no way to know when it's neutral for the few schools that do it weirdly.

 

[BecksTriad]

i dont think its in order they come in. if that were the case i would've alrdy heard back from like 10 of the schools i applied to!

 

[LizzyM]

When applications were paper, I think that the first in were the first reviewed because it was physically taxing to physically sort them.

Today, everything is electronic and it is very easy to view the stats of 30 applicants all at once and choose which one to review first. It is also easy to sort and skim the cream on a daily basis. The lesser lights will get reviewed eventually but the superstars are going to be snapped up and invited to interview early so that they can get early offers (if a school does that).

 

[naixin]

So then why the importance of applying early is so stressed? Maybe its beneficial to apply early for those schools that review applications early or review in small batches as the applications come in?

 

[LizzyM]

So then why the importance of applying early is so stressed? Maybe its beneficial to apply early for those schools that review applications early or review in small batches as the applications come in?

The hope that you're the "cream of the crop" among the first 100 applicants in the door if not among the top of the first 1,000. The only flaw in that argument is that some schools get a data dump of 25% of their entire applicant pool on day #1.

I think that being early is less of an advantage these days but being late continues to be a disadvantage.

 

[TipToad]

The hope that you're the "cream of the crop" among the first 100 applicants in the door if not among the top of the first 1,000. The only flaw in that argument is that some schools get a data dump of 25% of their entire applicant pool on day #1.

I think that being early is less of an advantage these days but being late continues to be a disadvantage.

So would a mediocre applicant who applies early not have much of an advantage simply because the "cream of the crop" get reviewed first? Also, this question may be irrelevant because it's school specific, but what defines "cream of the crop?"

 

[kmb8]

I'm curious if schools take into account a "realistic matriculant" factor when deciding who to interview. For example, my state school is mid tier at best, maybe even low tier. Their matriculant average stats are below national average. So it makes me wonder... they can interview all the 3.8/36's they want, but those students more than likely will not matriculate there, so why would they waste a lot of precious interview spots on those candidates? Wishful thinking? Or do I just not understand the process?

 

[LizzyM]

So would a mediocre applicant who applies early not have much of an advantage simply because the "cream of the crop" get reviewed first? Also, this question may be irrelevant because it's school specific, but what defines "cream of the crop?"

I think that the applicants most likely to be plucked from the stack of applicaitons first for review would be those with a LizzyM score 7-10% above the school's average and URM candidates at or above the school's LizzyM score.

They are likely to be offered interviews but not if the rest of the application is unimpressive or fails to match the school's priorities/mission or if the applicant doesn't seem to have a specific interest in that school.

I'm curious if schools take into account a "realistic matriculant" factor when deciding who to interview. For example, my state school is mid tier at best, maybe even low tier. Their matriculant average stats are below national average. So it makes me wonder... they can interview all the 3.8/36's they want, but those students more than likely will not matriculate there, so why would they waste a lot of precious interview spots on those candidates? Wishful thinking? Or do I just not understand the process?

The school may interview almost every instate applicant with the understanding that those with high stats may choose to matriculate there for financial or personal reasons and it would be disrespectful to set aside a talented local applicant who, in the end, might choose a top tier school. A top candidate from out of state might be ignored. The cream of the crop for that school might be instate applicants who have a LIzzyM scores at or above last year's average for those offered admission (which is different -- usually highter-- than those who matriculate). The hope is that strong applicants who interview early and get an offer early in the process may have a more positive impression of the school and may consider matriculation.