Fact or myth? Do people with high stats really get rejected?

[700003]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've read several times on this forum that applicants with 3.8/37 stats have a hard time getting into med school. And recently, I just read that such an applicant took 3 cycles to get accepted! Is this all true or is it another of SDN's neuroticism/myth? I'm planning to take a gap year to boost my application, but now I'm afraid that getting a high MCAT or being well-rounded will hurt me by getting me rejected from low/mid-tier schools and also, from high-tier schools that think I need more! What if the gap year turns out to be for nothing? This is very demoralizing to think of 🙁

 

[efle]

I've read several times on this forum that applicants with 3.8/37 stats have a hard time getting into med school. And recently, I just read that such an applicant took 3 cycles to get accepted! Is this all true or is it another of SDN's neuroticism/myth? I'm planning to take a gap year to boost my application, but now I'm afraid that getting a high MCAT or being well-rounded will hurt me by getting me rejected from low/mid-tier schools and also, from high-tier schools that think I need more! What if the gap year turns out to be for nothing? This is very demoralizing to think of 🙁

https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstable24.pdf

More than 1/5th of people in that stats bin get rejected

A 37 is not high enough to get you screened out from midlevel schools, especially with only a 3.8 (around their medians)

 

[700003]

https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstable24.pdf

More than 1/5th of people in that stats bin get rejected

A 37 is not high enough to get you screened out from midlevel schools, especially with only a 3.8 (around their medians)

Wait, they actually screen you out for having a high MCAT? But whyy? What if an applicant really wants to get into that mid-tier school…how can they prove their interest before getting screened out due to an assumption that the applicant won't attend?

 

[catmario]

The answer is definitely yes.
But my impression is that those people either get cocky and don't apply broadly enough, or are severely lacking in ec's and/or clinical experience and apply with the mistaken assumption that high stats will make up for it.

 

[Pastamahn]

Part of the problem might also be that some people with that high of stats do nothing else but study, and thus don't have any sort of worthwhile ECs

 

[Pastamahn]

Wait, they actually screen you out for having a high MCAT? But whyy? What if an applicant really wants to get into that mid-tier school…how can they prove their interest before getting screened out due to an assumption that the applicant won't attend?

I mean if you have something like a 39 and the school's 90th percentile is a 33, they're going to be assuming you're just using them as a safety

 

[candbgirl]

And then of course there is the interview. I'd imagine more than a few have sunk themselves while being interviewed.

 

[The Real SVB]

Just remember that high stat applicants can sometimes be like hot guys/gals – the looks are all they have; the rest of the package leaves more to be desired.

 

[700003]

I see…but let's say an applicant had high stats, good EC's, research, professionally edited essays, good LORs and practiced interview skills. Let's say this applicant also did something unique (Fulbright, organized a recital for the poor, fundraisers, worked in a mobile clinic, etc.) Provided this applicant applied early to like 40 schools, what could possibly be a cause for rejection? I would assume that this applicant would be pretty much guaranteed an acceptance somewhere right?

 

[The Real SVB]

I see…but let's say an applicant had high stats, good EC's, research, professionally edited essays, good LORs and practiced interview skills. Let's say this applicant also did something unique (Fulbright, organized a recital for the poor, fundraisers, worked in a mobile clinic, etc.) Provided this applicant applied early to like 40 schools, what could possibly be a cause for rejection? I would assume that this applicant would be pretty much guaranteed an acceptance somewhere right?

Given those contingencies, yes. But please don't take this as encouragement to apply to 40 schools...there is no reason for that. The neuroticism needs to stop!

 

[NickNaylor]

We had an unofficial rule on my committee that the higher the numbers, the more likely an applicant was to be socially awkward. And, generally, that's true. So even if people with high stats get interviews, they may be socially weird and have a hard time getting through the interview days.

The idea that schools specifically screen out high numbers only because of their high numbers is completely ridiculous, though.

 

[700003]

I mean if you have something like a 39 and the school's 90th percentile is a 33, they're going to be assuming you're just using them as a safety

Yes, that makes sense. But what can an applicant do in that case to make themselves not get screened out due to high stats? For example, there are some low-tier schools which are heavily focused on primary/rural care, and I am interested in pursuing that. How can I show them that I actually want to attend their school over say a more research-focused school?

 

[700003]

We had an unofficial rule on my committee that the higher the numbers, the more likely an applicant was to be socially awkward. And, generally, that's true. So even if people with high stats get interviews, they may be socially weird and have a hard time getting through the interview days.

The idea that schools specifically screen out high numbers only because of their high numbers is completely ridiculous, though.

Huh…but would the applicant at least get an interview? I'm sure this assumption doesn't apply to everyone! I have high stats, but I don't consider myself socially awkward I'd hate to not have a chance because of this…

 

[Lucca]

Yes, that makes sense. But what can an applicant do in that case to make themselves not get screened out due to high stats? For example, there are some low-tier schools which are heavily focused on primary/rural care, and I am interested in pursuing that. How can I show them that I actually want to attend their school over say a more research-focused school?

Build an application that shows that is the case. If it's in your application somewhere, I'm sure it will come through. Furthermore, be a person during the interview and then you'll be fine.

 

[panda16]

And then of course there is the interview. I'd imagine more than a few have sunk themselves while being interviewed.

AdComs at my state school have confirmed this multiple times.

 

[NickNaylor]

Huh…but would the applicant at least get an interview? I'm sure this assumption doesn't apply to everyone! I have high stats, but I don't consider myself socially awkward I'd hate to not have a chance because of this…

Assuming the rest of your application is decent, yes, you would be likely to get an interview. Again, the idea that high numbers folks get screened out strictly because of their numbers is a complete farse. I imagine that gets perpetuated because people with high numbers that don't get interviewed at XYZ are looking to rationalize why that happened, and that's the best they can come up with. It doesn't even make sense on its face, though.

 

[700003]

Build an application that shows that is the case. If it's in your application somewhere, I'm sure it will come through. Furthermore, be a person during the interview and then you'll be fine.

Would it be okay if my app was half-focused on research, half on primary care stuff? I don't want it to be heavily focused on one thing, because then, I feel like the top schools would reject me thinking I only like primary care or the mid-tier schools would reject me thinking I only like academic med. I want to be able to get interviews at both extremes…and I'm trying to figure out the best way to balance my app around that.

It's hard because each school has a particular "fit" they are looking for, but even if you have that "fit" you are not guaranteed an acceptance. So we need to make our app fit many school's missions.

 

[T1p]

I was a reapplicat with 3.9/40. Did not apply broadly enough 1st cycle. Clinical activities were probably lacking, but had very strong research.

 

[Lucca]

Would it be okay if my app was half-focused on research, half on primary care stuff? I don't want it to be heavily focused on one thing, because then, I feel like the top schools would reject me thinking I only like primary care or the mid-tier schools would reject me thinking I only like academic med. I want to be able to get interviews at both extremes…and I'm trying to figure out the best way to balance my app around that.

It's hard because each school has a particular "fit" they are looking for, but even if you have that "fit" you are not guaranteed an acceptance. So we need to make our app fit many school's missions.

Yah but he's there the thing: you actually might not fit at a certain school. If you have a well rounded application then that's great, you should strive for as many interviews as possible. However, consider that on interview day you may learn that a school is absolutely not for you. If that is your only acceptance then you have to end up going there, don't apply anywhere where you are not prepared for that eventuality.

You are overthinking this. Write an honest application that is true to you as a person. If you have that and high stats then you don't need to play any more games, that's enough.

 

[URMD]

Stats alone do not get you the interview.
Schools do not screen based on high stats alone. If your applying to a DO school with a 39 MCAT and no ties to the area and no understanding of the school mission and osteopathic philosophy that will get you rejected. If you apply to school with a primary care missions with little research opportunity and your app is heavily research focused, that will probably get you rejected. It's a holistic review process, remember that.

At the interview stage, your academic credentials have been confirmed so its more about fit to the school, professional attitude and maturity.

 

[candbgirl]

Maybe be more general in the primary and gear your secondaries to the specific school. You'll get secondaries if you have great stats so don't worry about getting screened out before you get secondaries.

 

[700003]

Maybe be more general in the primary and gear your secondaries to the specific school. You'll get secondaries if you have great stats so don't worry about getting screened out before you get secondaries.

Okay, yeah this make sense. Schools don't send out interviews until after reading over everything right? Primary and secondary?

 

[ComputerGuy365]

I've read several times on this forum that applicants with 3.8/37 stats have a hard time getting into med school. And recently, I just read that such an applicant took 3 cycles to get accepted! Is this all true or is it another of SDN's neuroticism/myth? I'm planning to take a gap year to boost my application, but now I'm afraid that getting a high MCAT or being well-rounded will hurt me by getting me rejected from low/mid-tier schools and also, from high-tier schools that think I need more! What if the gap year turns out to be for nothing? This is very demoralizing to think of 🙁

It's usually because another part of the application was weak. It's not often that a person with a strong application who applied to a variety of schools doesn't get 1 acceptance.

 

[Catalystik]

say an applicant had high stats, good EC's, research, professionally edited essays, good LORs and practiced interview skills. Let's say this applicant also did something unique (Fulbright, organized a recital for the poor, fundraisers, worked in a mobile clinic, etc.) Provided this applicant applied early to like 40 schools, what could possibly be a cause for rejection? I would assume that this applicant would be pretty much guaranteed an acceptance somewhere right?

Institutional action, legal troubles, PS expressing a sense of entitlement, Secondary essay quality not matching the quality of the PS, lack of fit to a school's mission, poorly expressed English, international status without the appropriate visa or proof of ability to pay, nonprofessional appearance/behavior at the interview.

 

[efle]

We had an unofficial rule on my committee that the higher the numbers, the more likely an applicant was to be socially awkward. And, generally, that's true. So even if people with high stats get interviews, they may be socially weird and have a hard time getting through the interview days.

The idea that schools specifically screen out high numbers only because of their high numbers is completely ridiculous, though.

Assuming the rest of your application is decent, yes, you would be likely to get an interview. Again, the idea that high numbers folks get screened out strictly because of their numbers is a complete farse. I imagine that gets perpetuated because people with high numbers that don't get interviewed at XYZ are looking to rationalize why that happened, and that's the best they can come up with. It doesn't even make sense on its face, though.

You really don't think there are any schools out there practicing yield protection, eg that wouldn't invite a 4.0 / 42 without hearing some very convincing reasons they're a great fit?

Edit: In fact I'm pretty sure other adcoms have said yield protection is practiced, but they prefer to call it "managing resources" by not filling their interview spots with people historically unlikely to matriculate

 

[The Real SVB]

Schools don't send out interviews until after reading over everything right? Primary and secondary?

Yes

 

[Dr. Jan Itor]

I see…but let's say an applicant had high stats, good EC's, research, professionally edited essays, good LORs and practiced interview skills. Let's say this applicant also did something unique (Fulbright, organized a recital for the poor, fundraisers, worked in a mobile clinic, etc.) Provided this applicant applied early to like 40 schools, what could possibly be a cause for rejection? I would assume that this applicant would be pretty much guaranteed an acceptance somewhere right?

I'd doubt that that particular applicant would be part of the 20% rejected. Like others have said, it's lack of one or more of those areas that can do you in.

 

[HeLaDeala]

This topic has been hotly debated between my friends and I, and this is what we came up with. Feel free to disregard it, but it seems pretty logical:

Given:
- Every school recieves 100s if not 1000s of applicants that look identical to you; even if you have something unique (barring rhodes/marshall/nobel peace price)
- Every school knows the types of students that matriculate there and succeed there
- Schools have finite resources and spots for interviewing kids

Then:
- If you have much higher stats than the medians at these schools, they know you're less likely to matriculate (due to better offers)
- When there are 1000s of people with a 3.8+/37+ applying to your school, you CANNOT interview all of them and MOST of them will not attend
- Based on these premises, schools will mainly interview "high stat" applicants that are more likely to matriculate because they:
a. display extra interest either through essays, letters or personal contact with the admissions office (I personally know this to be true)
b. have personal and career goals that align with their institution
c. have strong geographic ties to the area

And:
- Oftentimes these schools will simply wait until later in the admissions cycle to interview higher stat (lower-yield) applicants. This is especially true for applicants with geographic ties. Think about your state schools or local, smaller-name privates

Disclaimer: I am not an Adcom. I'm just a dog w/ glasses who aspires to be the Air Bud of medicine.

 

[NickNaylor]

You really don't think there are any schools out there practicing yield protection, eg that wouldn't invite a 4.0 / 42 without hearing some very convincing reasons they're a great fit?

Edit: In fact I'm pretty sure other adcoms have said yield protection is practiced, but they prefer to call it "managing resources" by not filling their interview spots with people historically unlikely to matriculate

Yes, but they could "manage resources" at every level of numbers, high or low. @HeLaDeala's post above is on point. It doesn't matter whether you're a 3.0/30 or a 4.0/40 - there will be many applicants with your numbers applying to similar schools. If you're unable to articulate why you would want to attend that particular school and/or if your experiences don't make that interest clear, of course they're not going to interview or accept you. They have plenty of other people to choose from. The 3.9/41 white Harvard applicant applying to Morehouse will almost certainly be rejected. Is it because of their "high stats?" Or is it because they don't fit the mission of the school?

If your application makes clear that you want to do research and your goal is a research-centered career, you likely aren't going to do well when applying to schools that don't have that focus (most of which are "lower ranked" schools). Are these schools rejecting applications with high numbers or are they trying to interview people that share their mission and will get something meaningful out of their program?

Again, the idea that an applicant will be rejected strictly because of high numbers is stupid. It doesn't make sense on its face. What you're talking about is a more holistic look at applicants' applications - and yes, of course they're not going to interview someone that looks like they have no interest in attending their institution. Why waste the time and slot when you have hundreds of other applicants to choose from? However, this has less to do with numbers and more to do with the general gestalt of their application, of which numbers are only a very small part.

 

[gyngyn]

Schools in CA interview around 5 times the number needed to fill the class.
We could all interview the highest 500 from the state (CA applicants always apply to all the schools!).
Inevitably, some of the schools would be empty at the end of the cycle.
No school can use all its resources on low yield candidates. That is why the best candidates in each category (for that school) will be interviewed, not just the highest scores.

Let's say School "A" knows that its matriculation rate for applicants with a 38+ MCAT is 3/100.
Unless there is a powerful reason to believe that such a candidate is likely to attend there is no reason to waste resources on an interview.

 

[Dr. Jan Itor]

Let's say School "A" knows that its matriculation rate for applicants with a 38+ MCAT is 3/100.
Unless there is a powerful reason to believe that such a candidate is likely to attend there is reason to waste resources on an interview.

If you have an MCAT greater than the school's 90th percentile, is it typical to get screened out before secondaries? Or do you have the chance on secondaries to show why you'd want to attend a lower-tier school with high stats?

 

[The Real SVB]

Or do you have the chance on secondaries to show why

Most CA schools have pretty extensive secondaries for you to write stuff.

 

[GrapesofRath]

IF someone doesn't get into med school with strong stats, there's a very strong chance their issues will be covered by at least one of these four things below.

4) Lack of volunteer experience. There was a video done by Ohio State med schools where they surveyed people involved in admission and asked which of these if lacking is grounds to reject someone(I don't remember the exact phrasing). 57% said lack service and volunteering. Altruism and sacrifice are a big part of medicine. Not having much stands out in a bad way.
3) Lack of clinical exposure and experience. It's quite simple no ADCOM will ever buy you know what you are getting into if you don't have exposure to clinical settings. There are many stories you'll find on this site of people not getting into med school with high stats calling schools to ask about information on their decision and the thing that was cited being lack of clinical experience. This will destroy any application very fast.
2) Poor interviewing skills. This goes without saying but you have to be able to create a reasonably strong impression of yourself to ADCOMs. Again, just amazing how some incredibly fundamental things aren't grasped by incredibly smart pre-meds and how poorly they can describe some of their activities or their passion for medicine. Being the author of 3 papers but then getting flustered at the most basic of questions is something that's been described here a number of times.
1) Poorly chosen lists of schools. While lack of clinical exposure will send applications to the rejection pile quickly this from what I've seen is by far the biggest problem and it's a huge one for pre-meds. Spend some time on the re-applicant page of this site and look at threads of applicants with high stats who have to re-apply. There is a very strong chance their list was poorly chosen. The best example is to look at this link
https://www.aamc.org/download/321442/data/factstable1.pdf
Look at how many schools where less than 15% of matriculants are OOS. Then compare their application pools and see how these schools have over 50% of their applicants being OOS. It really is amazing with all the pre-med advising and other sources and services for help how many schools are on so many pre-meds lists that shouldn't be on their. It's not just being clueless about state of residency issues. Tons of applicants apply to far too few schools or go for far too top heavy lists. Let's just say there are a whole lot of pre-meds think they'll be the one exception to the rule and be the one with a 31 MCAT who gets into WASHU med school and don't need lower tier schools on their list.

 

[nwts]

I could be wrong on this, so please feel free to correct me if you know more on this subject, but I feel like it's unlikely that schools indiscriminately screen out applicants with numbers above a certain threshold with no regard to that applicant's demonstrated interest in the school. If an applicant in some way displays very powerfully and definitively that he/she has a strong interest in some low or mid-tier school, I highly doubt that school would say, "But who cares, he has a 4.0/40 and we don't interview those." I would think the big thing is that those schools are a little more careful with people with very high stats because there is a high probability that the applicant isn't very interested in their school, but if the applicant demonstrates a lot of interest in the school, I wouldn't think they'd reject them just on principle.

 

[Lawpy]

I was a reapplicat with 3.9/40. Did not apply broadly enough 1st cycle. Clinical activities were probably lacking, but had very strong research.

Did you apply MD/PhD?

 

[T1p]

Did you apply MD/PhD?

Nope, wasn't that interested in basic science.

 

[Lawpy]

Nope, wasn't that interested in basic science.

Ah, my apologies. You would probably have gotten a much better chance at MSTP with your strong stats and research. Since you applied MD-only, I'm afraid your lack of clinical exposure might have crushed you. I remember several applicants who didn't get into medical school the first time around despite having good stats and research, and it turns out, they were lacking in clinical and volunteering exposure.

Such a shame, considering that the top schools are more driven to produce academic leaders with strong research and leadership skills.

 

[ComputerGuy365]

I was a reapplicat with 3.9/40. Did not apply broadly enough 1st cycle. Clinical activities were probably lacking, but had very strong research.

3.9/40 AND YOU GOT REJECTED EVERYWHERE?

 

[T1p]

3.9/40 AND YOU GOT REJECTED EVERYWHERE?

I interviewed at 6 top programs. I don't think my interviews went that well. Learned a lot during that cycle. Revamped everything this past cycle. Got accepted into quite a few.

 

[northernlights15]

Some people are honestly just so awkward. I never realized how bad it could be until I met some smart but socially inept people myself.

 

[ComputerGuy365]

I interviewed at 6 top programs. I don't think my interviews went that well. Learned a lot during that cycle. Revamped everything this past cycle. Got accepted into quite a few.

Nice job. Is the one you're matriculating a top 20?

 

[cactusinmyhead]

I'm a re-applicant with 3.9+/35. I know the MCAT isn't super high, but still....
I basically applied to top 20 schools with few "safeties", didn't have enough clinical experience, suck at interviewing....

 

[northernlights15]

This thread is quite depressing. I like the "accepted with low stats" type threads more.

 

[ComputerGuy365]

I'm a re-applicant with 3.9+/35. I know the MCAT isn't super high, but still....
I basically applied to top 20 schools with few "safeties", didn't have enough clinical experience, suck at interviewing....

35 is GOOD. It's not outstanding, but very very good.

 

[mw18]

.

 

[largelyuntrustworthy]

3.9. 36. Multiple years of research and clinical experience. Already started on my third round of applications.

 

[johnnytest]

Someone from my undergrad had 3.9/37 and applied this past cycle. He's very smart and a very likable person. But he didn't get in anywhere because he only applied to 8 schools. Almost all ivies/top tier.

 

[mw18]

.

 

[Gladiolus23]

3.9. 36. Multiple years of research and clinical experience. Already started on my third round of applications.

What?! Do you know what went wrong the first two times? This is very depressing…

 

[Gladiolus23]

I can maybe speak to this because my numbers (3.75/38) are very similar to the postulated numbers OP suggests. I applied in one cycle and had a great cycle. Did that mean that I got into every school? No. Interviewed everywhere? Nope. I didn't even get a secondary at one of the few top 25 schools that screens them. I also got almost universally shutout for interview by mid-tier private schools. It's impossible and would be arrogant to say that it's because of my MCAT, because it is insulting and discounting to those that got interviews. @gyngyn spoke to this - they didn't feel I was good enough to be accepted/ likely enough to to matriculate to spend an interview slot on me. If any one school can reject you, it is certainly a possibility that more will, and maybe even all of them. I think the best advice to someone already applying is to be genuine and genuinely excited and honored to be given the consideration that an interview is. If it's not time for you to apply yet, then beef up to create a well-rounded application and make sure you are doing activities you are passionate about. Don't worry about doing well hurting you, though. Also, be very sure that if you do have high stats you aren't arrogant. Many of some of the best physicians in the world likely didn't kill their MCAT, so thinking you're better than other people interviewing would be the wrong way to go.

I do think some public, state schools would rather not accept you right away and may put you on hold/waitlist to really gauge your interest before they give an acceptance that likely won't lead to matriculation, though.

Congrats! Do you mind sharing how many schools you got accepted to? Also, did the mid-tier schools at least give you a secondary to showcase your interest?