Does it help/hurt if a parent went to same med school?

[Lola222]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Don't take offense.
Nobody is referring to you specifically.
He's talking about the practice being "not smart."

I understand that. But like you said above, most times if the applicant has really bad stats the only interview is a courtesy one. The only times, from what I understand, that the legacy student actually gets admission is if their stats are good as well. You've been very helpful and I appreciate it! This was more directed to the person above haha

 

[Lucca]

I hear if your parent still holds the bench press record at the school they just give you an ortho residency spot.

 

[Lawpy]

I am told that it increases the odds that they will become donors.
If they donated enough to significantly reduce tuition, I guess I could understand.
I've seen no data to support this, though.

So... it just benefits the school by giving more money. I was hoping there would be other factors involved that could be helpful to medicine in general

Why do you think "legacy admissions" aren't smart? As someone who's worked very very hard to get where I am, this is rather offensive.

I understand that. But like you said above, most times if the applicant has really bad stats the only interview is a courtesy one. The only times, from what I understand, that the legacy student actually gets admission is if their stats are good as well. You've been very helpful and I appreciate it! This was more directed to the person above haha

I don't understand your rage. Legacy admissions isn't a smart move because it acts purely out of self-interest and doesn't help the intended patient population and/or medical education/leadership. And with schools employing the so-called "resource management", having courtesy interviews for poor stats can be pretty misleading and ironic, especially since that another applicant with equally poor stats but no legacy tie-ins doesn't get to enjoy these interviews.

 

[gyngyn]

So... it just benefits the school by giving more money. I was hoping there would be other factors involved that could be helpful to medicine in general

I've also seen it used as a display of power. The "champion" is showing his personal power by exerting it over the application process. ...I know, icky.

 

[Lawpy]

I've also seen it used as a display of power. The "champion" is showing his personal power by exerting it over the application process. ...I know, icky.

So it's pretty clear that legacy admissions is basically just... self-interest. More $$$ for school and more prestige for the power family. Of course, having strong stats + ECs will significantly help (and possibly even diminish this legacy factor), but having a courtesy interview just because of a legacy link despite bad stats is pretty disappointing. Especially when schools employ "resource management" by autorejecting strong applicants due to historical trends. It's just wasting resources with no societal benefits in the long run.

 

[Goro]

Yes

Hypothetically, lets say John Doe had like a 3.0 GPA and an extremely bad MCAT, and went through a courtesy interview. What if he really impressed the interviewer, and did incredibly well, would he still be "politely rejected"?

 

[Lola222]

So... it just benefits the school by giving more money. I was hoping there would be other factors involved that could be helpful to medicine in general




I don't understand your rage. Legacy admissions isn't a smart move because it acts purely out of self-interest and doesn't help the intended patient population and/or medical education/leadership. And with schools employing the so-called "resource management", having courtesy interviews for poor stats can be pretty misleading and ironic, especially since that another applicant with equally poor stats but no legacy tie-ins doesn't get to enjoy these interviews.

I wasn't aware I was enraged? I just took offense to what you said. Honestly, the courtesy interviews sound pretty bad, so I would rather not have the interview than have an interview where I know i'll be rejected.

 

[Lola222]

Yes

Thanks! It's weird though, because the school i'm referring to makes it's admissions decisions based 90% on the interview, so if there was a candidate like that it would be interesting so see what happens.

 

[Lawpy]

I wasn't aware I was enraged? I just took offense to what you said. Honestly, the courtesy interviews sound pretty bad, so I would rather not have the interview than have an interview where I know i'll be rejected.

I took your took offense comment to be upset. And I still don't know why exactly. I'm not demeaning you or other legacy applicants' accomplishments. I'm just disappointed about courtesy interviews for reasons mentioned before.

 

[gyngyn]

So it's pretty clear that legacy admissions is basically just... self-interest. More $$$ for school and more prestige for the power family. Of course, having strong stats + ECs will significantly help (and possibly even diminish this legacy factor), but having a courtesy interview just because of a legacy link despite bad stats is pretty disappointing. Especially when schools employ "resource management" by autorejecting strong applicants due to historical trends. It's just wasting resources with no societal benefits in the long run.

I haven't actually seen it improve the school in any way.

 

[Lola222]

I took your took offense comment to be upset. And I still don't know why exactly. I'm not demeaning you or other legacy applicants' accomplishments. I'm just disappointed about courtesy interviews for reasons mentioned before.

I wasn't upset, and i'm sorry if I gave that impression. I think I took your initial comment to mean that you didn't feel that students who were helped in the admissions process by being a legacy were going to help medicine, when obviously most physicians do. I too am disappointed at courtesy interviews, because it seems rather cruel and ridiculous to interview someone and give them false hope.

 

[Lawpy]

I haven't actually seen it improve the school in any way.

Then I have no idea other than hoping that schools would at least minimize the courtesy interviews. Well, that would require some significant changes in the application system, but I'm still keeping note of all these!

I wasn't upset, and i'm sorry if I gave that impression. I think I took your initial comment to mean that you didn't feel that students who were helped in the admissions process by being a legacy were going to help medicine, when obviously most physicians do. I too am disappointed at courtesy interviews, because it seems rather cruel and ridiculous to interview someone and give them false hope.

Yep. Glad we could agree. And yeah it's kinda expected that anyone going into medicine will help the patients + medical education/leadership in the long run, but there are some very minor instances when that's not the case unfortunately 🙁

 

[gyngyn]

Then I have no idea other than hoping that schools would at least minimize the courtesy interviews. Well, that would require some significant changes in the application system, but I'm still keeping note of all these!

It's not just the application system that would need to change. It is society.

 

[Lawpy]

It's not just the application system that would need to change. It is society.

Well call me a cynic but that will take forever. Changing the application system is probably a lot easier and more efficient 😛

 

[gyngyn]

Well call me a cynic but that will take forever. Changing the application system is probably a lot easier and more efficient 😛

You haven't worked in a medical school yet, I take it.

 

[Lawpy]

You haven't worked in a medical school yet, I take it.

Nope 😢😢 but i mean the changes like capping the applications, more pre-secondary screening, and immediate response after interview seem pretty good changes for AMCAS (the first one) medical schools (latter two) to employ!

Or even if we can't get the last two implemented, we could still pressure AMCAS/AAMC to cap the applications right? Or is it still difficult?

Sorry for being eager for change

 

[gyngyn]

Nope 😢😢 but i mean the changes like capping the applications, more pre-secondary screening, and immediate response after interview seem pretty good changes for AMCAS (the first one) medical schools (latter two) to employ!

Or even if we can't get the last two implemented, we could still pressure AMCAS/AAMC to cap the applications right? Or is it still difficult?

Sorry for being eager for change

I've been trying for what seems like a lifetime, with absolutely no traction in any quarter.

Heavily pre-screening only increases the odds of frivolous applications when there is no cap on the number of applications that can be submitted.
I would be delighted to have a universally accepted (short) interval for post interview decisions. Would you like to convince the "Ivies" that their tradition of late decisions is outmoded?

 

[Lawpy]

I've been trying for what seems like a lifetime, with absolutely no traction in any quarter.

Heavily pre-screening only increases the odds of frivolous applications when there is no cap on the number of applications that can be submitted.
I would be delighted to have a universally accepted (short) interval for post interview decisions.
Would you like to convince the "Ivies" that their tradition of late decisions is outmoded?

🙁 well that's unfortunate, but it's good to be able to converse with you and other faculty here on these things even when nothing gets changed at the moment. So I really appreciate this and learning more about how things work 😀

 

[Goro]

They are, and they are. And I had to sit through enough of them!

Are courtesy interviews actually a thing? It sounds like a waste of resources and could possibly result in the school losing the opportunity to get a stronger candidate.