Does this sample candidate have a decent chance of getting into Hopkins?

[powerfetish]

---

Members do not see this ad.

4.0 GPA
40+ MCAT
minimum of 100 hours of volunteering in patient services
50 hours of shadowing
half a semester of research with no publications
Great LORs

Does this guy even have a chance at Hopkins? What can he do to improve (please be realistic)?

 

[MedPR]

4.0 GPA
40+ MCAT
minimum of 100 hours of volunteering in patient services
50 hours of shadowing
half a semester of research with no publications
Great LORs

Does this guy even have a chance at Hopkins? What can he do to improve (please be realistic)?

Yes. To improve? More research, more volunteering, more shadowing. In that order.

 

[PreMedOrDead]

I'd suggest bumping up that GPA and retaking the MCAT.

 

[aspiring20]

Yes. To improve? More research, more volunteering, more shadowing. In that order.

absolutely. may i also add some leadership activities somewhere...probably between research and volunteering.

keep in mind that Johns Hopkins is a top ranked medical schools heavily emphasizing research and producing "leaders in medicine". research and leadership ECs are devastatingly critical, even more so than your numbers after a certain cutoff. and that cutoff is lower than 4.0/40. i would say that for top schools, 3.8+/36+ should be enough.

 

[HughMyron]

He needs to start a campaign to eradicate tuberculosis in Namibia, then he's in to sho. Also, writing some articles for the NYT can't hurt.

 

[487806]

I'd suggest bumping up that GPA and retaking the MCAT.

👍👍👍 That GPA and MCAT are way too low for Hopkins' requirements. Plus, he needs more research and clinical/nonclinical volunteering. So many hurdles...

 

[Cynicalbrit]

4.0 GPA
40+ MCAT
minimum of 100 hours of volunteering in patient services
50 hours of shadowing
half a semester of research with no publications
Great LORs

Does this guy even have a chance at Hopkins? What can he do to improve (please be realistic)?

Stats are pretty good, even for Hopkins. The ECs are pretty average, which is a bigger problem at a top ranked school than it would be elsewhere. As people have said, research is the biggest issue, and many applicants to such schools have 2 years of research or more. More important than time, however, is having something to show for it - one year with a pub is generally more impressive than 3 years with nothing to show for it. Leadership would also be very useful, but I would warn you against the cliched leadership positions that seem to be excessively venerated here - adcoms have seen enough presidents of the pre-med club for it to lose its luster. To be honest, this hypothetical applicant could do with a bit more of everything, although with stats like that, you're almost guaranteed to get accepted somewhere.

TLDR -Yes, you have a chance, but it would be much better with more research, more leadership, and more clinical experience. And this thread should really be in What Are My Chances.

 

[La Presse]

👍👍👍 That GPA and MCAT are way too low for Hopkins' requirements. Plus, he needs more research and clinical/nonclinical volunteering. So many hurdles...

You are not getting in with that amount of research. Bet on it.

 

[CrimsonKing]

You are not getting in with that amount of research. Bet on it.

Agreed 100%. You need more research for top 10 schools, regardless of your numbers.

 

[Sidereum]

I think once you get past 3.8/36, the importance of stats starts to diminish, and all you really need is good research experience for schools like Hopkins. With a 3.8-9/36+, combined with either a publication or a senior thesis, it seems like an applicant would stand a good chance.

 

[steackncheese]

I think once you get past 3.8/36, the importance of stats starts to diminish, and all you really need is good research experience for schools like Hopkins. With a 3.8-9/36+, combined with either a publication or a senior thesis, it seems like an applicant would stand a good chance.

I have a 3.9 and a 36. I also have 2 publications in 'high' impact factor journals, and the standard clinical volunteering/shadowing. I applied to most of the top 10s, and got exactly 1 II (at my home institution). The reason (likely) is that I had 0 non-clinical volunteering. Do not underestimate its importance.

 

[Sidereum]

I have a 3.9 and a 36. I also have 2 publications in 'high' impact factor journals, and the standard clinical volunteering/shadowing. I applied to most of the top 10s, and got exactly 1 II (at my home institution). The reason (likely) is that I had 0 non-clinical volunteering. Do not underestimate its importance.

Right, what I should have said is that someone with those stats, research, AND at least average clinical volunteering/shadowing. I don't think you can have any holes in your application if you're aiming that high, but high stats+good research seems like the most important part; I don't think someone with 600 hours of volunteering looks much better than someone with 150, as long as the person with 150 can talk about it.

 

[PreMedOrDead]

I have a 3.9 and a 36. I also have 2 publications in 'high' impact factor journals, and the standard clinical volunteering/shadowing. I applied to most of the top 10s, and got exactly 1 II (at my home institution). The reason (likely) is that I had 0 non-clinical volunteering. Do not underestimate its importance.

Yet on the other hand, I have no publications, and only a couple months of research, yet I have interviews and acceptances to multiple T10s already.

This whole application process can be bonkers sometimes. Basically, be a balanced (well-rounded) individual, and do the best that you can in everything you do. All the rest will fall into place.

I would agree that having > 3.8, > 35 begins a diminishing return. However, the higher the better, every time. Having a 99th percentile MCAT (38 or higher) with a 3.9 GPA or higher will open a whole bunch of doors that you may not have otherwise, regardless of application.

 

[aspiring20]

Yet on the other hand, I have no publications, and only a couple months of research, yet I have interviews and acceptances to multiple T10s already.

This whole application process can be bonkers sometimes. Basically, be a balanced (well-rounded) individual, and do the best that you can in everything you do. All the rest will fall into place.

I would agree that having > 3.8, > 35 begins a diminishing return. However, the higher the better, every time. Having a 99th percentile MCAT (38 or higher) with a 3.9 GPA or higher will open a whole bunch of doors that you may not have otherwise, regardless of application.

congrats! did you have astronomical stats and/or stellar ECs otherwise? multiple T10 acceptances aint nothing to mess around with

 

[Cynicalbrit]

Yet on the other hand, I have no publications, and only a couple months of research, yet I have interviews and acceptances to multiple T10s already.

This whole application process can be bonkers sometimes. Basically, be a balanced (well-rounded) individual, and do the best that you can in everything you do. All the rest will fall into place.

I would agree that having > 3.8, > 35 begins a diminishing return. However, the higher the better, every time. Having a 99th percentile MCAT (38 or higher) with a 3.9 GPA or higher will open a whole bunch of doors that you may not have otherwise, regardless of application.

I hate to resurrect a thread like this, but I'm sort of (hopefully) in the same boat. I've got pretty good stats, some clinical vol., some non-clinical, some decent leadership, and so on, but only one semester of research. Does an applicant like this tend to get any love from top schools, or is it only the 1 year+ of research crowd that they're interested in?

 

[alpinism]

For the majority of applicants, If you don't have significant research experience (ie 1+ year w/ a pub/abstract/poster at least). You'll need to have other impressive ECs (high level leadership, community service, athletics) to make yourself stand out. There are thousands of applicants with great stats competing for ~200 acceptances.

Things like Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, TFA, non-profit NGO work, Military, etc...

Applies to T10 only.

 

[Narmerguy]

I hate to resurrect a thread like this, but I'm sort of (hopefully) in the same boat. I've got pretty good stats, some clinical vol., some non-clinical, some decent leadership, and so on, but only one semester of research. Does an applicant like this tend to get any love from top schools, or is it only the 1 year+ of research crowd that they're interested in?

It's not a hard cutoff or anything. Some students get accepted with no research experience. However, there aren't many of them, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a shot--especially if you have some research. I would say that you need to bring something to the party. If it's not extensive research or volunteering or research, what will it be? Unless your stats are mindblowing (4.0, 41+) it's not going to be your stats because they have plenty of that to choose from already.

For the majority of applicants, If you don't have significant research experience (ie 1+ year w/ a pub/abstract/poster at least). You'll need to have other impressive ECs (high level leadership, community service, athletics) to make yourself stand out. There are thousands of applicants with great stats competing for ~200 acceptances.

Things like Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, TFA, non-profit NGO work, Military, etc...

Applies to T10 only.

I'd agree with a lot of this 👍

 

[cuculici1]

It's not a hard cutoff or anything. Some students get accepted with no research experience. However, there aren't many of them, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a shot--especially if you have some research. I would say that you need to bring something to the party. If it's not extensive research or volunteering or research, what will it be? Unless your stats are mindblowing (4.0, 41+) it's not going to be your stats because they have plenty of that to choose from already.



I'd agree with a lot of this 👍

This is probably a good assessment. Keep in mind this in regards to the "top" schools (i.e. Johns Hopkins), which are more research focused and interested in accepting medical students who will be productive in research down the line. You don't have to do research to get into med school, there are plenty of applicants that don't and get in. However at the top schools research becomes more common, you can check the MSAR to verify this.

Like Narmerguy said, the top schools also generally have plenty of applicants with high stats, so they need to look at what else you bring to the table. You don't necessarily need research to be considered, but keep in mind that these schools are generally looking for people that "stand out", and it's tough to really figure out what they're looking for in a lot of cases. This is true at the undergrad level as well; you hear plenty of stories of kids with perfect SAT scores that don't get in to Harvard or Stanford. They are selective simply because they can afford to be selective.

 

[2010CalBear]

Everyone is spot on with getting great research experience.

I define great as obtaining the ability to critically think about science and developing your own ideas and questions; not merely someone who can follow instructions that are given by a graduate student.

I am definitely not tooting my own horn here but I did fairly well considering my average stats (3.6gpa ~35MCAT). I applied to 6 top 10 programs, interviewed at 3 and accepted into two. I published as a second author in 3 papers (2 in nature and 1 in Infection and Immunity). This goes to show how far great research and corresponding letters of recommendation can go.

WIth crazy stats that you and many others have, great research and clinical experience will make you not only a great candidate for admission but also one for merit scholarship.