Does being a reapplicant hinder people compared to 1st timers? (same stats)

[Pigglyjuff]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Say two students with similar stats, and EC, volunteering, etc. apply, but one is a reapplicant from a previous year. Will the first timer have a better chance of interviewing?

If so, what if the reapplicant has slightly better non-academic ECs/volunteering?
(I am a first timer)

 

[HurricaneKatt]

Generally reapplying helps more than it hurts. I shows that you're committed enough to keep trying! Applying to the same school twice shows your strong interest in the school. Also, as a reapplicant you, in theory, will have one more year of life experience and ECs to contribute, which is a plus.

 

[sinombre]

Generally reapplying helps more than it hurts. I shows that you're committed enough to keep trying! Applying to the same school twice shows your strong interest in the school. Also, as a reapplicant you, in theory, will have one more year of life experience and ECs to contribute, which is a plus.

This is a good point, but don't reapplicants generally have a lower acceptance rate? Also, some schools only let you reapply once. Interesting way of weeding people out.

 

[Frazier]

This is a good point, but don't reapplicants generally have a lower acceptance rate? Also, some schools only let you reapply once. Interesting way of weeding people out.

It makes sense for reapplicants to have lower acceptance rates... aggregated, the group was "unsuccessful" (for whatever reason). Some correct their flaws, others do not.

 

[alerk323]

It makes sense for reapplicants to have lower acceptance rates... aggregated, the group was "unsuccessful" (for whatever reason). Some correct their flaws, others do not.

Right, re-applicants come from a pool of only people who were rejected from every school, so naturally they would have a lower acceptance rate compared to the general applicant pool.

A lot of people on here say that being a re-applicant is worse and to avoid it. When pressed, they gave vague explanations of why but none of it seems to be based on anything. I've yet to hear a good argument that shows having the "re-applicant" status makes it harder for you to get in correcting for all other variables. People will say "oh its cause adcoms know you failed the first time so you need to prove to them you've improved those areas". But if you apply with different essays and added EC's, you're essentially applying again and "trying it a different way". I havn't heard anyone with authority say this hurts you. (I would believe it more if one of our resident adcoms, or even a med student who does interviews, would comment).

Now, if you applied and didn't get in, then send in the same app, you didn't not get in because you were a "re-applicant" you didn't get in because you didn't have the credentials to get in, just like the first time.

 

[Frazier]

Right, re-applicants come from a pool of only people who were rejected from every school, so naturally they would have a lower acceptance rate compared to the general applicant pool.

A lot of people on here say that being a re-applicant is worse and to avoid it. When pressed, they gave vague explanations of why but none of it seems to be based on anything. I've yet to hear a good argument that shows having the "re-applicant" status makes it harder for you to get in correcting for all other variables. People will say "oh its cause adcoms know you failed the first time so you need to prove to them you've improved those areas". But if you apply with different essays and added EC's, you're essentially applying again and "trying it a different way". I havn't heard anyone with authority say this hurts you. (I would believe it more if one of our resident adcoms, or even a med student who does interviews, would comment).

Now, if you applied and didn't get in, then send in the same app, you didn't not get in because you were a "re-applicant" you didn't get in because you didn't have the credentials to get in, just like the first time.

well said.

 

[samsunimomo]

From the University of Washington Medical school website:

"Do 2nd time re-applicants typically have a higher acceptance rate than 1st time applicants?
No. It is almost exactly the same - 1 in 5 chance"

http://uwmedicine.washington.edu/Education/MD-Program/Admissions/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

This is a good point, but don't reapplicants generally have a lower acceptance rate? Also, some schools only let you reapply once. Interesting way of weeding people out.

Who only allows you to apply once? I've never heard of any school that does that.

And reapplicants generally have a lower acceptance rate because a good chunk of them are getting rejected for the same reasons as the first time.

 

[Goblue89]

From my own personal experience, I believe that being a reapplicant (with the same stats) puts you at a disadvantage. If you add new experiences then I think it brings you up to an almost level playing field with first timers.

My first application cycle I received 3 interviews and during the 2nd cycle I received 8. However, when controlling for school selection (taking out reaches and schools with extreme regional biases) my interview success rates were 3/9 and 8/23. I had the same stats during both cycles. During my 2nd cycle I had added 1 year of research with pub (initial was 0 research), 6 months of scribing (initial clinical experience was 80 hours of hospital volunteering) and 6 months of leadership experience (initial was 0). On top of this, I applied 2 months earlier during my 2nd cycle. All things considered, I didn't fare much better the 2nd time around. The only reason why I was able to get an acceptance was because I applied smarter, and this is really the only benefit of reapplication.

 

[rubisco88]

Being a reapplicant only hurts if you haven't improved your application. If you apply with the same minimal ECs or MCAT of course you will get rejected the second time . You have to do something different from the previous cycle.

 

[alerk323]

Being a reapplicant only hurts if you haven't improved your application. If you apply with the same minimal ECs or MCAT of course you will get rejected the same time . You have to do something different from the previous cycle.

Based on the post before yours by goblue, applying earlier and to a better mix of schools could be counted as "doing something different" although you will still have to jump through the "what did you do to improve" question that a lot of schools use".

 

[Frazier]

Who only allows you to apply once? I've never heard of any school that does that.

And reapplicants generally have a lower acceptance rate because a good chunk of them are getting rejected for the same reasons as the first time.

I think a person is only allowed to apply twice at harvard... (although it may be 3 times, I am not 100%).

 

[rubisco88]

Based on the post before yours by goblue, applying earlier and to a better mix of schools could be counted as "doing something different" although you will still have to jump through the "what did you do to improve" question that a lot of schools use".

He did improve his ECs though, so that would be in his favor when writing his essays.

 

[alerk323]

He did improve his ECs though, so that would be in his favor when writing his essays.

true, perhaps not a perfect example.

I mean, if you want to go based on numbers, then more re-applicants get in on their second try then their first...so....

 

[Arbor Vitae]

I think a person is only allowed to apply twice at harvard... (although it may be 3 times, I am not 100%).

Ya, my mistake. I thought they said "apply once" but they actually said "reapply once", meaning only apply twice.

 

[HurricaneKatt]

I have been told multiple times by multiple sources that if you correct what the schools asked you to improve upon and reapply you have a much higher chance of getting in. I was essentially told by one school that if I improved where they told me I needed to I would be *almost* garuanteed to get in thr next cycle. Another school told my friend the same thing. They just about outright said come back next year and you're in. They just wanted him to get another year of "life experience."

 

[drizzt3117]

Being a reapplicant is a negative, all things equal. That being said, improving your application can put you on even ground with other applicants and some schools tend to take a good amount of reapplicants.

 

[music2doc]

Right, re-applicants come from a pool of only people who were rejected from every school, so naturally they would have a lower acceptance rate compared to the general applicant pool.

A lot of people on here say that being a re-applicant is worse and to avoid it. When pressed, they gave vague explanations of why but none of it seems to be based on anything. I've yet to hear a good argument that shows having the "re-applicant" status makes it harder for you to get in correcting for all other variables. People will say "oh its cause adcoms know you failed the first time so you need to prove to them you've improved those areas". But if you apply with different essays and added EC's, you're essentially applying again and "trying it a different way". I havn't heard anyone with authority say this hurts you. (I would believe it more if one of our resident adcoms, or even a med student who does interviews, would comment).

Now, if you applied and didn't get in, then send in the same app, you didn't not get in because you were a "re-applicant" you didn't get in because you didn't have the credentials to get in, just like the first time.

You want a good argument against being a reapplicant?

Maybe the stigma attached. The fact of the matter is that if you were rejected at every school last time, others are likely to see you as unsuccessful. They may either see you as persistent (a neutral to positive trait) or simply someone who was viewed poorly before (clearly negative) and is unlikely to be a jewel now. Taking you is basically scraping the leftovers from the previous year. That's the basic argument.... Not really that "vague" actually....

 

[alerk323]

You want a good argument against being a reapplicant?

Maybe the stigma attached. The fact of the matter is that if you were rejected at every school last time, others are likely to see you as unsuccessful. They may either see you as persistent (a neutral to positive trait) or simply someone who was viewed poorly before (clearly negative) and is unlikely to be a jewel now. Taking you is basically scraping the leftovers from the previous year. That's the basic argument.... Not really that "vague" actually....

It's vague in the sense that it's based on nothing but conjecture, I guess vague isn't the right word. I counter with "being a re-applicant is a positive because it shows, just by the fact that you're going through the entire process again, that you're a motivated individual and dedicated to becoming a doctor, two things medical schools actively seek".

I have see nothing to believe that either is right over the other. Numbers aren't good evidence because of what we talked about and I haven't seen an adcom say anything decisive either way. Usually they say something along the lines of "you need to show improvement". That is maybe where the vagueness begins, as improvement could be anything from retaking the mcat and all your grades, to just applying earlier and re-writing a couple things. Even so, "improvement" could be necessarily not to "get rid of the stigma of being a re-applicant" but just because, if you didn't get in anywhere the first time, you probably have areas to improve just to be competitive.

 

[kpcrew]

I think a person is only allowed to apply twice at harvard... (although it may be 3 times, I am not 100%).

You can only apply to Albert Einstein twice.

 

[pacersfan712]

I don't know if I should've posted this in the "What are my chances" forum, but this thread has a lot to do with what I am thinking about now. I have a 3.95 gpa and decent ECs, but when I got my MCAT score it clearly was not what I wanted, a 26. I already submitted my primary, but it has yet to be verified. I did not want to rush and take the MCAT again in September, because clearly I was not ready last time and need more time to improve (taking anatomy and biochem this semester should help). I will most likely be taking the MCAT again in January. I was just wondering what would be the downside in just applying to my state school, and seeing if I might just get in? Is this a bad idea and I should just withdraw my application?

 

[Haislip]

I would save money and withdraw your application. Reinvest in a prep course!

 

[TheShaker]

I don't know if I should've posted this in the "What are my chances" forum, but this thread has a lot to do with what I am thinking about now. I have a 3.95 gpa and decent ECs, but when I got my MCAT score it clearly was not what I wanted, a 26. I already submitted my primary, but it has yet to be verified. I did not want to rush and take the MCAT again in September, because clearly I was not ready last time and need more time to improve (taking anatomy and biochem this semester should help). I will most likely be taking the MCAT again in January. I was just wondering what would be the downside in just applying to my state school, and seeing if I might just get in? Is this a bad idea and I should just withdraw my application?

If you're not planning to retake then I would withdraw. A 26 is not competitive at MD schools unless you have some kind of earth shattering story. You might be good at DO schools though if you want to try that.

Important point: If you withdraw before verification, you won't be a reapplicant.

 

[alerk323]

If you're not planning to retake then I would withdraw. A 26 is not competitive at MD schools unless you have some kind of earth shattering story. You might be good at DO schools though if you want to try that.

Important point: If you withdraw before verification, you won't be a reapplicant.

Pretty sure if you don't send any secondaries, you won't be a re-applicant. Most schools don't ask you about reapplication unless you've applied to their school specifically in the past.

 

[mvenus929]

Generally reapplying helps more than it hurts. I shows that you're committed enough to keep trying! Applying to the same school twice shows your strong interest in the school. Also, as a reapplicant you, in theory, will have one more year of life experience and ECs to contribute, which is a plus.

It completely depends on what your application looked like the first time and the second time. If it's the exact same application and you reapply to the exact same schools, then it's going to hurt because whatever was wrong the first time wasn't addressed the second time.

From my own personal experience, I believe that being a reapplicant (with the same stats) puts you at a disadvantage. If you add new experiences then I think it brings you up to an almost level playing field with first timers.

I reapplied with the same stats (actually, slightly lower GPA -- stats were not the problem with my application). The first time, I applied to 9 schools and interviewed at 4. The second time, I applied to 9 schools and was invited to interview at 4 (I turned down an interview after I was accepted). Of the (4) schools I reapplied to, one rejected me post-interview, one accepted me (this one has an extreme regional bias), one that previously interviewed me did not invite me to interview, and one that did not invite me to interview the first time did not invite me the second time either. I ultimately went to a school that I hadn't applied to the first time.

I changed virtually everything about my clinical experience. I had a job working in a physician's office for a year, and worked as a phlebotomist for a year and a half. Plus, I was the guardian to my little sisters during the year and a half prior to matriculation.

Bottom line: being a reapplicant can work in your favor, or it can work against you. It's all about how you spin your application. My application was focused on the fact that I was a reapplicant, so even the schools I hadn't applied to the first time knew it. If you don't think about what you did wrong the first time and make the same mistakes again, it's more likely to hurt you. These mistakes can range from applying late to not having clinical experience to having a poor MCAT score or GPA.

 

[45408]

Right, re-applicants come from a pool of only people who were rejected from every school, so naturally they would have a lower acceptance rate compared to the general applicant pool.

A lot of people on here say that being a re-applicant is worse and to avoid it. When pressed, they gave vague explanations of why but none of it seems to be based on anything. I've yet to hear a good argument that shows having the "re-applicant" status makes it harder for you to get in correcting for all other variables. People will say "oh its cause adcoms know you failed the first time so you need to prove to them you've improved those areas". But if you apply with different essays and added EC's, you're essentially applying again and "trying it a different way". I havn't heard anyone with authority say this hurts you. (I would believe it more if one of our resident adcoms, or even a med student who does interviews, would comment).

Now, if you applied and didn't get in, then send in the same app, you didn't not get in because you were a "re-applicant" you didn't get in because you didn't have the credentials to get in, just like the first time.

I think it hurts you. It's obviously not insurmountable, but the person who can figure out "the game" the first time around is a more competitive applicant than someone who needed a second time around.

That's not to say a re-applicant can't do things to make themselves become a much better applicant, even better than a first-time applicant, but it certainly doesn't help to be a re-applicant, and I think it casts a shadow on your application as to why you are applying for a second time. YMMV, but I did do interviews for med school applicants.

 

[Law2Doc]

Being a reapplicant only hurts if you haven't improved your application...

I would reword this. Being a reapplicant hurts. You have to show substantial improvement to get the same consideration. That's a big negative.

 

[gyngyn]

I would reword this. Being a reapplicant hurts. You have to show substantial improvement to get the same consideration. That's a big negative.

agreed.

 

[alerk323]

I would reword this. Being a reapplicant hurts. You have to show substantial improvement to get the same consideration. That's a big negative.

Again, I hear this claim without any backing. (it sounds like "the prowler" did interviews but wasn't part of the decision process, although correct me if I'm wrong). I dont know if it helps or hurts or does nothing, but I hear a lot of strong claims one way or another and until there are substantial numbers involved or an adcom specifically says one way or another, none of these have any weight (and i'm not sure what numbers, as obviously more re-applicants get in their second time than their first...also re-applicants are a lower quality applicant by definition on average). There's logic for both sides of the argument but little evidence for either.

edit: also it's most likely different for every school.

 

[pacersfan712]

...

 

[Hemorrage]

How on earth does re-applying "hurt"? Every year the admissions comittee is different and even if they weren't i highly doubt they could remember you or your application unless you got an interview.

 

[circulus vitios]

How on earth does re-applying "hurt"? Every year the admissions comittee is different and even if they weren't i highly doubt they could remember you or your application unless you got an interview.

I could see how it might hurt if you re-apply with the same exact application. That is, you didn't make any effort to improve your extracurricular activities or hard stats. Schools might see that as being lazy, some might not. I know that some schools permanently reject applicants after 2 applications.

 

[Law2Doc]

How on earth does re-applying "hurt"? Every year the admissions comittee is different and even if they weren't i highly doubt they could remember you or your application unless you got an interview.

Simple. First, if its the same school they generally still have your old application and their adcom notes about your application and interview. There can be quite detailed -- often people who talk to deans after the process to see what they can do to improve their chances get quite detailed responses regarding how their application was perceived and fell short. In the digital age these kinds of things are scanned and stored for eternity. Second, only a percentage of the admission committee changes year to year -- the core remains largely the same, so they may remember your application and how it rubbed them wrong.Third, even at different med schools the second time around, they will know that you applied to med school previously (based on your responses to questions on your application and secondary). They know by the fact that you are reapplying that you weren't admitted. So they will typically look to see what you've done in the interval since the last round of applications, to see if there was some dramatic improvement that would render a previously unacceptable applicant acceptable. Maybe they give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply applied to too few of the right places, applied late or whatever. Most likely not, since places have literally thousands of applications to wade through and are really looking for any excuse to cull the herd a bit, and knowing no one wanted you last year is as good a reason as any. I think a lot of us who have been through med school, some involved with the admissions process, as well as seeing results via SDN over the years can tell you that reapplicants don't always get as fair a shake, and really do have more of a hurdle, because they have to overcome presumptions a first tine applicant won't. While folks on the reapplicant board understandably want to believe that persistence is viewed positively, I think few who have been involved in the process would disagree that you want to get all your ducks in a row and then apply once. Best foot forward. One shot one kill. Folks who rush things and figure they will wing it and can always fix things the next time around often find out that's a bad game plan, and that they uneccesarilly created obstacles for themselves.

 

[gyngyn]

Generally reapplying helps more than it hurts. I shows that you're committed enough to keep trying! Applying to the same school twice shows your strong interest in the school.

A reapplication which either shows dramatic improvement or a more informed strategy is better than not reapplying (if one still wants to be a physician). It is not better than a strong first application with a sound strategy. Continuing to make the same mistakes over and over is not a valued quality. Most schools have thousands of applicants, so strong interest alone is not sufficient. It is only important after one has distinguished oneself.

 

[SpecterGT260]

How on earth does re-applying "hurt"? Every year the admissions comittee is different and even if they weren't i highly doubt they could remember you or your application unless you got an interview.

most adcoms keep your last-years application and use the two together when making a decision. However, it has not been my understanding (per input from sitting down with an admissions administrator) that re-applying is a bad thing. In fact, I was told if you were on the line before it demonstrates commitment which is a good thing. However some schools have clauses that say if you were rejected 3x or something like that that they will not even consider your app. This is because there are people with literally no hope that will spam schools with applications.