I disagree with that, too. I think people on this site get a little too stuck on the black and white and don't really consider the shades of gray. It's rare that someone applies with a truly lacking application. Usually people (especially SDNers who know what the competition looks like) apply feeling that the overall package is acceptable, the letters are going to be good, etc. I have yet to meet someone who has spent 2 hours on a PS (those that do are the kinds of people who can pull that off). I haven't seen any obviously rude or clearly socially ******ed people at my interviews. It's just not that black and white.
The problem is that because the vast majority of us operate in the gray area, it makes differentiating between us that much more difficult. Is a 3.6/32 more acceptable than a 3.3/37, all things considered? Do hours of research count more than the product of the research itself? Is it fair to expect premeds to be published when so many PIs are unwilling to let college students on their papers? Etc etc. People who apply and don't get in anywhere aren't social ******s or people with awful LORs, usually. They're usually people who were compared to a couple of others with similar stats and found not to fit the school's mission, or they were simply found to be "not as good".
I agree with Law2doc entirely when he says that everyone needs a "hook". You need to be so memorable and so different from the unwashed masses that you can be compared to someone with better grades or a better MCAT or more impressive EC's and still come out on top. You want whoever reads your application to have questions and want to meet you. Show them enough to make them want to get to know you.
I have a friend from college who, bless his soul, is a total nut. He has tons of interests and instead of quashing them to follow the premed path, he embraced them and didn't apply to med school until he felt that he had done all the things he wanted to do. These include things like pursuing an opera singing career, participating in Iron Mans (men?), and getting into more educational debt than anyone I've ever met by majoring in everything he had an interest in (this I wouldn't recommend). Then he eventually did his post-bac, got a decent MCAT score, and applied. His undergrad grades weren't great, and way too varied to really be easy to read. His MCAT was ok, but average. He applied on the deadline. He got something like 10 interviews, including HMS. Why? They told him that they just needed to meet him. They wanted to hear his life story.
So yeah, instead of saying that those who get rejected had something bad in their app, maybe we should consider that what they didn't do right is sell themselves in such a way that they stood out of an extremely competent pack filled with people who also applied with all their ducks in a row, but in the midst of which there is one person who the adcom wants to meet.
