Do all schools preferentially invite stronger candidates to interview earlier or do some schools review apps in a completely chronological or random order? Basically, do all school stratify apps to some extent?
Louder for the people who think med schools are benevolent orgs who have an applicant’s best interest in mind.they are a business
What do you think?? What would you do? Risk losing stronger applicants to other schools in order to adhere to a first come, first served methodology?Do all schools preferentially invite stronger candidates to interview earlier or do some schools review apps in a completely chronological or random order? Basically, do all school stratify apps to some extent?
I wrote this a while back
Once an application has reached a school there are 3 different phases done by 3 different people or groups for 3 different goals
1) Screening: Also can be referred to pre-screen, initial review, early review, etc. This is done usually by adcom (office) staff and/or readers/evaluators to sort, classify, and assign applications to evaluators and/or teams/subcommittees on broad criteria and priorities. Initial academic metrics (GPA/MCAT), URM, alumni, linked programs, feeder schools, and other items can have an application moved up in the queue for processing and evaluation.
2) Evaluation: This is where a reader and/or group of readers fully analyze and evaluates an application. Since schools get thousands of applications, all the evaluations will be recorded an what is known as a cover sheet, summary sheet, evaluation sheet, or similar which will usually have some kind of scoring and/or classification system for each part of your application. This may assign categories from Outstanding, Excellent, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Subpar, Not Qualified or a system that assigns points that are then added and given an overall metric. For example, GPA, school selectivity, difficulty of program, grade trends, post bacc, MCAT subscores may be given points added to an overall academic metric or score. Additionally, your application may be broken apart and evaluated by different people and brought together in an overall score that would best be seen as your review priority. They may evaluate each part as they come in This may have intermediate steps of a subcommittee and predetermined criteria that certain score levels are granted interviews before the next step
3) Review: This is where the adcom meets and reviews each applicant for interview. and this where is where applications must be complete (primary, secondary, MCAT, LOR) prior to review. Application may be presented by the primary reader/evaluator, by the subcommittee chair, the adcom staff, or just reviewed as they come up. Applications that receive higher priorities in the evaluation step are likely to be scheduled for review first. Since schools get thousands of applications presenting large workflow, lower priority applications may take several weeks or months to reach review and possible interview invite.
Yes
it can be by formal policy at initial screen, informal policy by screeners, by individual evaluators, by team of evaluators, by formal subcommittee vote, by full adcom. I will add that since 80% applications must be "rejected" or rather not accepted, virtually any evaluator can recommend no action
Irrelevant mostly; its when you get INVITED for an interview not when you get interviewd
With 5,000 plus applications, screening, evaluations, and reviews take place constantly. Essentially, your evaluation summary / classification / score becomes your review priority for interview, whatever that process is by the school
This makes no sense as non-rolling admissions has no pressure that seats will fill; there isnt a bias on when they submit in order to get a seat. As in every school there are limited admissions resources/finite interview slots, so they undoubtedly classify applications for evaluation and review priority. I know of no school that randomizes applications in the manner you describe. I do know many premeds who have random "I have heard" myths with no evidence other that their own hopeful goals