For California applicants

[RogueUnicorn]

dude/tte seems pretty legit to me..

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[derryz]

zzz

 

[lovemesomeTJ]

...

That being said, I'm a little worried by your comments in terms of public service. I don't have any volunteer hours logged since high school aside from some leadership roles in student organizations, and my clinical experience is limited to a summer internship where I shadowed doctors on rotation within a renowned medical center.

My background clearly orients well with UCSD, but I'm from norcal and would like to be close to home...UCSF/stanford would be nice. I love helping people and I need that interaction in my career. I've considered grad school but I don't think I could get by JUST doing research.

Should I be worried about my lack of community service hours? I plan to have all my apps in before summer ends, would it be too late to find a clinic to work in? I saw your comment about detecting sincerity, and I fully believe that my humanistic side will shine if its given a chance for an interview.

...

I think you should be worried about your lack of community service/clinical volunteering. You know you want to help people, but have done nothing to show that you are serious about working with them. How do you know that you can handle the ailing? How do you know that you are not supposed to help people by teaching them in a classroom instead? I can get caught up in my head about all kinds of things I could do, but you have to actually experience some degree of it in order to know.

You have to test the waters, IMO. I definitely think it's going to hurt you at UCSF moreso than Stanford, but I don't think Stanford will be too enthusiastic about no CS/CV, even if they are numbers-heavy. You should look into setting aside even a couple of hours a week to devote to this part of your application. A lot of times, it makes the difference.

 

[alibai3ah]

Not everyone who is a non-trad has been out of school for years. I graduated with my degree and then started the pre-med courses the next semester. I will have spent 3 years completing them (I'm in CA and it's difficult to get the schedule that I've needed). By the time I apply I will be 27 and won't matriculate till I'm about 28 if all goes smoothly. So I don't see why my grades and MCAT wouldn't count. I basically never stopped going to school.

I didn't say they don't count. I just said that there is less of a emphasis placed on them b/c it was so long ago. They assume you have matured and changed tremendously within that time period.

People in your situation have a huge emphasis placed on their recent courses, b/c your undergrad was a while back. They might focus on your postbac grades more b/c they are a better representation of how you are as a student now.

 

[alibai3ah]

Hi Dr. School, thanks for taking the time to share your insight.

I'm a california resident applying next cycle and need some direction. BIOE major, 4.08 gpa (A+ counts here, I know it doesn't for AMCAS) / 36 MCAT, been sacrificing my weekends in the lab for 2 years now because frankly I love it (1 publication), and this year i'm part-timing at a start-up biosciences company that just published in nature nanotech - plan to continue working over the summer and through next year.

That being said, I'm a little worried by your comments in terms of public service. I don't have any volunteer hours logged since high school aside from some leadership roles in student organizations, and my clinical experience is limited to a summer internship where I shadowed doctors on rotation within a renowned medical center.

My background clearly orients well with UCSD, but I'm from norcal and would like to be close to home...UCSF/stanford would be nice. I love helping people and I need that interaction in my career. I've considered grad school but I don't think I could get by JUST doing research.

Should I be worried about my lack of community service hours? I plan to have all my apps in before summer ends, would it be too late to find a clinic to work in? I saw your comment about detecting sincerity, and I fully believe that my humanistic side will shine if its given a chance for an interview.

Sorry this was long. Thank you sir!

Sorry I'm not part of admissions. But just thought I would give my input.

There is no way you can prove the bolded part. You say you like helping people and interacting with patients but if you have never done it, how is admissions suppose to know that. You seem very research heavy, so I would stick with that course. You shouldn't try to change your focus just to get into certain UC's. If Davis and Irvine place an emphasis on primary care and patient care then those schools are probably not the best fit for you. Your best bet would be Stanford, UCLA, UCSD, UCSF b/c those are the more research heavy schools. But trust me in your interviews, it will come up "why do you want an MD and not a pHD?"

 

[ILikeDrugs]

Can you define "hands-on clinical experience"?

 

[lovemesomeTJ]

Can you define "hands-on clinical experience"?

It's just like LizzyM said...it's about smelling the patients.

 

[derryz]

wee

 

[lovemesomeTJ]

...

alibai - I have had plenty of interactions with the clinic in high school. volunteered at hospital consistently for over a year, employed at a nursing school, aided with the nursing curriculum, several administrative runs to the various nursing homes/hospitals to validate nursing student's hours, etc.

In my summer internship I was shadowing doctors and had patient contact both in the clinic and OR. (~100 hours) Made some contacts too, I try to catch the occasional total knee arthroplasty when I have time.

Does this "count"?

While it sounds good, it may not sit well with adcoms that the last time you were involved in a clinical setting was in high school, 3-4 years before you enter medical school. At least in my experience, I've been discouraged from listing high school experiences (recent experience is the best experience, I gather). Maybe I screwed myself by not including it, but it helps to stay involved and in touch with your community on a prolonged basis. You did the work to get into college (I'm guessing that's partly why you volunteered, and if it isn't, then you should be even more compelled to give of your time "just because"), now you have to do the work to get into medical school. And then into residency. And fellowship. Really, it never ends.

I understand shadowing a doctor isn't really showing that I am interested in helping people. But in my opinion even if I spent weeks in the clinic "smelling the patients" that barely shows my passion for the field. I view medicine as a science, not just humanitarian outreach.

Shadowing a physician is good because it shows that you understand what goes on in the day of a physician. You understand the kind of schedule a physician can keep, and you understand (on the clinical/practical side) what you will be getting yourself into. That's not a bad thing.

I am definitely willing to sit in a clinic smelling people all day - I've done it before and am fully prepared to do it for the rest of my life. I guess its a little frustrating to feel like I have to "prove" this numerically. I always try to keep the big picture in mind - Service isn't something that should be quantified. Motivation and impact will always be much more important than hours spent. Sure, the hours reflect the motivation and impact, but by no means do they define it.

But in the end, if those are the rules then what other choice do I have but to play by them?

...

It's not quantity, it's quality. Can you take something away from the experience aside from how many hours it took away from your studies? Did you meet anyone who stuck out in your mind? Talk to patients and hear their stories? Connect with them in any way? Service shouldn't be quantified, so qualify it.

You don't necessarily have to think about it as a game and beating the game, but as necessary steps to cover all of your bases. You want a thorough application, and without more recent and relevant experience, you're lacking.

 

[NerdyAndrea]

Hi Doctor School:

First off thank you much for being here and talking about the admissions process. It is nice to be able to de-mysify it long before you ever apply.

I want to ask some questions:

1. When you look at students does a student who has strived like crazy to improve grades catch your eye, even though someone else might have a higher GPA?

2. What are you looking for in personal statements?

3. Is it preferabe for a student to sight their weaknesses and how they go about working on them?

4. Is life experience in general important? (ie not the volunteering and such, just what the student has experienced thrughout their life?)

5. If a student has unique talents are you likely to ask for a demonstration?

6. What do you specifically look for in an interview?

I know this is a lot of quetions, but I am here to learn! I am sure that someone else has the same questions. If there are any other adcoms out there that would like to chime in on this I'd love to hear as many different views as possible, as I am sure all the other people on SDN would too.

Thank you in advance! I know everyone's life is hectic and busy!

 

[Legacy87]

While it sounds good, it may not sit well with adcoms that the last time you were involved in a clinical setting was in high school, 3-4 years before you enter medical school. At least in my experience, I've been discouraged from listing high school experiences (recent experience is the best experience, I gather). Maybe I screwed myself by not including it, but it helps to stay involved and in touch with your community on a prolonged basis. You did the work to get into college (I'm guessing that's partly why you volunteered, and if it isn't, then you should be even more compelled to give of your time "just because"), now you have to do the work to get into medical school. And then into residency. And fellowship. Really, it never ends.



Shadowing a physician is good because it shows that you understand what goes on in the day of a physician. You understand the kind of schedule a physician can keep, and you understand (on the clinical/practical side) what you will be getting yourself into. That's not a bad thing.



It's not quantity, it's quality. Can you take something away from the experience aside from how many hours it took away from your studies? Did you meet anyone who stuck out in your mind? Talk to patients and hear their stories? Connect with them in any way? Service shouldn't be quantified, so qualify it.

You don't necessarily have to think about it as a game and beating the game, but as necessary steps to cover all of your bases. You want a thorough application, and without more recent and relevant experience, you're lacking.

+1. There are so many qualified applicants that adcoms feel the need to find something deficient to weed them out, and thus to reduce the pool. Cover your bases. Showing that you've been helping your community out for months or years weighs so much more than saying it. Pretend your an adcom who has two files with similar stats, but one has more community service than the other. Who would you pick for an invite/acceptance?

 

[alibai3ah]

While it sounds good, it may not sit well with adcoms that the last time you were involved in a clinical setting was in high school, 3-4 years before you enter medical school. At least in my experience, I've been discouraged from listing high school experiences (recent experience is the best experience, I gather). Maybe I screwed myself by not including it, but it helps to stay involved and in touch with your community on a prolonged basis. You did the work to get into college (I'm guessing that's partly why you volunteered, and if it isn't, then you should be even more compelled to give of your time "just because"), now you have to do the work to get into medical school. And then into residency. And fellowship. Really, it never ends.



.

+1, Exactly...

They are going to look at your recent experiences (sophomore-junior year) and look at what you did during that time. If all you have is research, they are going to think that maybe this is what interests you now and you have changed from the time you were in high school.

But instead of worrying about getting into medical school, think about what you really want? If you can reach your goals with a PhD, wouldn't that save you a lot of time and money. If you genuinely think you don't want to only do research, then try doing some community service. Like volunteer at a ER, free clinic, gain some more patient interaction. Shadowing is a bit too passive to count, so I would do some outreach/volunteer work.

And medicine isn't just science, it's a combination of both science and the humanitarian work. That's what separates us from the other hard science fields.....

 

[Salient]

Dr. School,

How do UC schools view teaching experience? By UC standards my volunteering/shadowing ECs are probably somewhat weak, but I have classroom experience teaching science classes to college students. How will that compare to refilling supply carts in the E.R.?

 

[Doctor School]

On the matter of possibly two more UC medical schools, the idea is modeled after how allopathic seats have opened elsewhere in the country recently. Not by expanding enrollments dramatically within a program, but rather by opening new programs in communities that have the momentum to support a primary-care focused outcome. Central Florida and Scranton (the Commonwealth program) come to mind. Both of these UC programs would be primary-care based, perhaps even moreso that UCD and UCI, which in many ways is a good thing and appropriate for where the physician numbers are needed.

But both programs face major challenges in terms of on-site hospitals. Effective teaching hospital clinical training and GME do not happen overnight, as any osteopathic school administrator would attest. So the good news, from my perspective, is that another 250 or so CA residents eventually will have an option for medical school within the state each year. But the news is no news until you actually see a call for applications. Our budget is so precarious right now that a major financial sinkhole such as a medical school will need to have strong private backing or be modeled on such a modest scale that it may not realize its mission.

 

[Doctor School]

Oh my God, I love the expression 'its about smelling the patients'. That's the best definition of hands-on clinical experience I have seen.

We recognize that it is very difficult for a pre-medical student to be in primary contact with patients. For good reason. This is why, in keeping with our theme of accelerating applicants with distinctive features, we really gravitate toward someone who has this experience. My personal admiration goes to the students who serve as personal care attendants for adults with significant dependency. The reason that this carries with me is because educators tend to see the career of doctoring as one in which you need to be more in your patient's moment than you are in your own. Taking on the daunting task of partnering with a dependent adult is a profound gesture of just that. So I just cite it here as an example of the kind of thing that admissions committees notice.

 

[Doctor School]

NerdyAndrea has asked a bucketload of questions. I have time for one - what are we looking for in personal statements. I can say this. A quirky one that moves us is a winner, but by definition they are exceptional and it is easy to go wrong, much like the qualifying for American Idol. But in my career I have read about 3000 and about 10 have made me laugh my ___ off and 10 have made me cry.

In the main we are looking for one of three things. If your numbers sing and your application is strong we expect you to write about what you will do after medical school. Its about confirming that the achievement evident in your record matches a personal confidence (not arrogance, just vision) about where (metaphorically) and how far you are going. If your numbers are lacking and there are flags here and there, we expect you to write about why they do not reflect the real you. And if you are somewhere in between, as most people are, we expect you to write about why you are pursuing medicine. That's what most people do, as you might expect.

 

[Doctor School]

On the recent exchange about service work and showing your commitment and the timing of your extracurriculars, from an ADCOM perspective we look for signs of momentum. One of my all-time favorite applicants was a gentleman with a complete package and 41 total MCAT who opted for two years off before applying to medical school. What carried him was his conviction for the value of those two years in terms of his long-term future. And that captures it. We like applicants who are full-throttle from the moment they decide they want to be a doctor. But the full-throttle is not about numbers of hours in service or number of publications, its about delivering your full energy in everything that you do. A life in medicine is a life that is spent in momentum. Stasis is not good. So we want to see that once you declare THIS is what I want to do, then everything you do from that moment on shines. For every applicant that is a different sequence of events. For the early undergrad it means choosing a major (ANY MAJOR), and just killing it. Because people with momentum have a bottomless tank for learning. For the out-of-school career changer it means blistering your post-bac program and getting letters from a choir full of supporters, because adults with heavy responsibilities and the conviction to change course should have the momentum to MOVE the people around them. I think that from an applicant's point of view the perplexity lies in the great effort you are putting out to accrue this and that, to cover your bases, to prove that you are ready, only to find a mixed bag of results at the end of the application season. But we are not judging you so much on the WHATs in your story, but more on the HOWs. How did your decision to do X impact the people who witnessed you doing it? How much momentum have you gathered each ensuing year toward application? One reason we think this way is because even though we want an eclectic class of students each year, we want all of them to be exactly alike: peaking, right now.

For the most part service on an admissions committee is a willful choice. We want to do this. Because we think we know what 'kind' of person is the 'right' kind of person to doctor. That verges on hubris in some programs, mine included. But it speaks to the theme. We don't really care what clothes you are wearing, but we really really care how good you look in them.

 

[ratrat]

Does the admission office use "fudge" factor to equalize gpa's from various colleges: E.g. Csu vs uc vs stanford/ivy vs liberal art colleges?
If so, is there a rough formula?

 

[Musclemass]

Does the admission office use "fudge" factor to equalize gpa's from various colleges: E.g. Csu vs uc vs stanford/ivy vs liberal art colleges?
If so, is there a rough formula?

It took four years to come up with such a lame question?

 

[rHinO1]

It took four years to come up with such a lame question?

for being so observant and for such a hilarious response. Nice.

 

[csmittyB]

On a less serious note:

What is your opinion about a school pouring salt into the rejection wound by having a glaring spelling error in the rejection email (*cough* UC Davis *cough*)?

 

[Excelsius]

I would like to offer advice to California residents applying to medical school, or to anyone applying to a California medical school.

After following threads on this forum for a while I am aware that some people who comment regularly here are quite skeptical about the credibility of anyone who claims to be a medical school administrator.

That in itself, I believe, is a good reason for an administrator to weigh in on issues that concern so many of you. I think you could use some frank commentary from someone who is responsible for judging your applications.

I have served on the admissions committee of a California medical school for the last twelve years. I currently serve as one of the deans in our clinical education program and recently authored a book about going to medical school. I believe I am very well aware of the dynamics of medical school admissions in general, and California issues in particular.

I welcome your questions and will do my best to keep up. My job is quite consuming and I have young children, which might explain why a day or so might go by without a response from me. But I'll try.

California residents in general are up against odds that do not pertain to residents of other states. I want to help you understand those odds and put your best applications forward.

I suppose the most important question is what is the homogeneity of your responses compared to other adcoms in the UC system (or the medical school system in general). Adcoms are human and each one has individual values which vary even in the same school. Would you say that your responses are more syncretic in terms of what some of your colleagues might use to judge the applicants or are your views more individualistic? Your advice is valuable in either case; however, it is important to know the commonality of your own views within this system. Some brief questions below.

1. Research vs clinical experience vs non-clinical experience: Around 100 hrs or less of clinical experience but perhaps over 500 hrs in research with publications (including first authorship(s)) and experience in completely non-clinical settings, such as the Bach Society or work with the homeless. In this hypothetical scenario, would the overall extracurricular experience be viewed as lacking due to little hourly clinical exposure or would it be considered closer to excellent due to breadth? Assume low GPA, high MCAT, great recommendation letters, if relevant.
2. You mentioned the importance of a good story. Please clarify what is the thought process involved when a disadvantaged applicant (be it ethnically, financially, psychologically, or for any other reasons) is considered over an applicant with better numbers. Is the consideration based on the assumption that most of these disadvantaged applicants are going to go into primary care? Or perhaps practicing in undeserved areas? To put it more bluntly, I would appreciate if you could honestly state if there is a "catch," if you will, when an applicant with a good story and low numbers is considered for admission.
3. Do you hold physicists to the same GPA standards as biologists?
4. Are there circumstances where an applicant could be considered weak for an MD program but a much stronger candidate for an MD/PhD program?
5. What can you say about the importance of knowing Spanish?

I would appreciate your responses, as well as qualifications to your responses, so that if your response is more applicable to your particular school and you don't know how a more research-oriented school adcom would respond, that you make it known.

Thank you.

 

[Doctor School]

Excelsius brings up an important point. I speak firstly from my own perspective, tempered by what I have learned from and observed in colleagues over the years. Call it a consensus, but in general I address topics based on those for which my interest and advice are aligned with those of my peer group, more or less.

On Q1, your appeal would depend mostly on what was said about you by those you impacted. In CA some campuses (UCSD, Stanford, UCSF) will accelerate an application deep in research more than will others, in general, but especially if it comes with multiple endorsements.

On Q2, if I understand it correctly, there is no assumption that disadvantaged applicants will go into primary care. An applicant with a good story but low numbers might prevail on that story if the interview carries. A recent one in my program was a very old (relatively speaking) applicant who wrote about why he gave up his pursuit of medicine 30 years ago to help his ailing father in the family business. After raising children and keeping the company profitable, he returned to his first intention - medicine. His post-bac numbers were fine, not stellar, as were his MCATs. But the story was genuine. And then at the interview you just fell in love with him. He was who he was and we all got the sense that this could turn out very well. There will be no dry eyes when he walks at graduation this year.

On Q3, GPA is what it is. We really do not care about majors, just about students who know who they are. My program's data match the national data closely in terms of the relative percentages of fine arts, social science, and 'hard' science majors who matriculate each year. And in CA it is not that we are passing on applicants with modest GPAs; we just have lots of applicants with stellar GPAs.

On Q4, absolutely. There is no expectation that an MSTP graduate will ever practice medicine, in the patient-based clinical sense. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that for most serious MD/PhD applicants, their appeal is heavily weighted to the PhD side.

On Q5, zero for admissions. Hard to say for the profession, given politics and technology. I live in a CA community that is easily 50% Spanish as a first language, in a district that routinely votes Democratic, and yet my newspaper and city signage offers ZERO bilingual outreach. Go figure.

Late now. Best wishes.

 

[NerdyAndrea]

TY for the response Doctor School

A

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

The opinions and posts of Doctor School are emblematic of everything wrong with the medical school admissions process. Rather than making the process as objective and clear as it can be you see nothing but subjectivity and obfuscation.

I am sure that some of these people on admissions committees have a great deal of fun dangling acceptances in front of applicants who have worked like hell for years and still can not figure out what these people want.

This business of the personal statement is a perfect example. Some of them are ghost written. Most are perfectly insincere. How many applicants really want to go to Darfur and treat people with TB? Based on personal statements you would conclude its 80% of all applicants.

It is time for California to put some skin in the game. Every year 1,000 Californians leave their home state to mooch medical educations off the rest of the country. When will this end?

 

[lovemesomeTJ]

The opinions and posts of Doctor School are emblematic of everything wrong with the medical school admissions process. Rather than making the process as objective and clear as it can be you see nothing but subjectivity and obfuscation.

I am sure that some of these people on admissions committees have a great deal of fun dangling acceptances in front of applicants who have worked like hell for years and still can not figure out what these people want.

This business of the personal statement is a perfect example. Some of them are ghost written. Most are perfectly insincere. How many applicants really want to go to Darfur and treat people with TB? Based on personal statements you would conclude its 80% of all applicants.

It is time for California to put some skin in the game. Every year 1,000 Californians leave their home state to mooch medical educations off the rest of the country. When will this end?

From another thread:

Around 4500 residents apply each year to a maximum of about 800 allopathic seats, including those at the three private programs. The two DO programs offer about 270 more seats and both programs are keenly interested in California residents. But even at that the ratios are way worse than those in other states.

According to the numbers, when more seats open up for them.

 

[Musclemass]

The opinions and posts of Doctor School are emblematic of everything wrong with the medical school admissions process. Rather than making the process as objective and clear as it can be you see nothing but subjectivity and obfuscation.

I am sure that some of these people on admissions committees have a great deal of fun dangling acceptances in front of applicants who have worked like hell for years and still can not figure out what these people want.

Sorry Dad, you don't get it. Schools want to be sure that matriculants have enough of the right intangibles too, it's not fluff. If admissions were strictly a numbers game, there would be no need for interviews. You seem to be very bitter.

Fluky, absolutely. Intentionally obfuscated, unlikely.

My subjectivity: Your grade=Fail.

 

[ScronCron]

The opinions and posts of Doctor School are emblematic of everything wrong with the medical school admissions process. Rather than making the process as objective and clear as it can be you see nothing but subjectivity and obfuscation.

I am sure that some of these people on admissions committees have a great deal of fun dangling acceptances in front of applicants who have worked like hell for years and still can not figure out what these people want.

This business of the personal statement is a perfect example. Some of them are ghost written. Most are perfectly insincere. How many applicants really want to go to Darfur and treat people with TB? Based on personal statements you would conclude its 80% of all applicants.

Of course the process is subjective, and it should be. Medicine is such a broad field and medical schools, for the most part, try to meet the diverse demands of the profession within the framework of their own mission (ex. serving the region, advancing biomedical research, global healthcare, public health, etc.). The personal and professional qualities and experiences that prepare someone for the many different areas of medicine are all different and should certainly not be limited to "objective" factors such as GPA and MCAT.

I agree that much of the application process is unclear. No schools are explicit in what they want, likely because they don't have any hard and fast rules about what they want. Again, schools are looking for many things, not one thing. Some schools could do a better job on clarifying their mission, but they cannot really go into too much detail without confusing or convoluting the overall goals and objectives of the institution (details that probably change slightly year to year). Also, going into too much detail would result in applicants catering to a particular school's preferences rather than sincerely pursuing thier own interests.

Also, remember that class sizes are very small. Rather than selecting individual candidates, many schools try to build a class. This goes along with meeting a broad mission and the diverse needs in medicine, as well as ensuring a positive and cohesive culture. If you've applied for a job before, "fit" is very important and the same principle applies.

As to your point about insincere applicants, who cares? If people write about wanting to serve third world countries, that's fine. Their applications will probably be tossed aside anyway, sincere or not, if they don't have any experience doing service abroad to match their personal statement. If they do have the experience, then they have valid experiences and a consistent story and may have a successful application. You'll just have to compete with these applicants and try to come across as more sincere. Sorry but that's life. Admissions committees try to make the best decisions with the information available and it's the applicant's responsibility to sell himself/herself.

 

[ScronCron]

Out of curiosity, why do many schools not read the PS prior to interview. If fit to mission is so important, wouldn't this be a key piece of information?

I don't think the California schools are guilty of this since their interview numbers are relatively low, but I wonder if some schools interview tons of candidates to try to get their name out there. Harvard interviews 800-1000 only to accept 200. Case Western interviews well over 1000. A lot of these numbers seem are really quite excessive and I'm sure could be cut down by more thorough pre-interview screening (which would also be less expensive). Is the interview process, to a certain extent, a PR campaign for medical schools?

 

[DoctaFuture]

Doctor School, first thanks for this thread. I graduated this past June 2009. I will applying this upcoming cycle. In my personal statement am I suppose to mention why I took the extra year/what I've been doing on that extra year off?

Also for my senior year, I went part time for my Winter quarter for some personal reasons. Do I need to explain this in my personal statement? The counselors said I don't because my gpa of 3.84 is high and that one quarter doesn't matter especially with my strong academic background. Thank you.

 

[WannaBePreMed]

Doctor School, I've been reading a lot of your post. It seems students with high GPA's and mcat scores that fit your mission are prioritized for secondaries and interviews. Students with lower stats must rely on consistency and fit to mission. In another thread you wrote that students with lower statistics get "triaged (unless there are contravening issues such as a LOR from someone at the medical school)."


Some of your posts contradict them-self. If students below the "modal" stats are triaged, how will they ever get the light of day to show consistency and fit to mission? Can you clarify what must be done to become noticed, and can you give an example a student who has?

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] While uncommon, the FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

Of course the process is subjective, and it should be. Medicine is such a broad field and medical schools, for the most part, try to meet the diverse demands of the profession within the framework of their own mission (ex. serving the region, advancing biomedical research, global healthcare, public health, etc.). The personal and professional qualities and experiences that prepare someone for the many different areas of medicine are all different and should certainly not be limited to "objective" factors such as GPA and MCAT.

I agree that much of the application process is unclear. No schools are explicit in what they want, likely because they don't have any hard and fast rules about what they want. Again, schools are looking for many things, not one thing. Some schools could do a better job on clarifying their mission, but they cannot really go into too much detail without confusing or convoluting the overall goals and objectives of the institution (details that probably change slightly year to year). Also, going into too much detail would result in applicants catering to a particular school's preferences rather than sincerely pursuing thier own interests.

Also, remember that class sizes are very small. Rather than selecting individual candidates, many schools try to build a class. This goes along with meeting a broad mission and the diverse needs in medicine, as well as ensuring a positive and cohesive culture. If you've applied for a job before, "fit" is very important and the same principle applies.

As to your point about insincere applicants, who cares? If people write about wanting to serve third world countries, that's fine. Their applications will probably be tossed aside anyway, sincere or not, if they don't have any experience doing service abroad to match their personal statement. If they do have the experience, then they have valid experiences and a consistent story and may have a successful application. You'll just have to compete with these applicants and try to come across as more sincere. Sorry but that's life. Admissions committees try to make the best decisions with the information available and it's the applicant's responsibility to sell himself/herself.

 

[ScronCron]

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] While uncommon, the FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

What an absurd analogy. I'm neither defending nor praising the admissions committees. I just had the sense and did enough research to know what I was going up against in the application process. You obviously don't "get it" and if you choose to continue to be mystified and frustrated by the application process, that's your problem. Hopefully others will take the information from this thread to help them make more informed decisions and pursue their careers with conviction rather than with your sentiments.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

Obnoxious dad, if adcoms are doing such a bad job at picking applicants, wouldn't the fail/drop out rate be a lot higher? As far I know, the fail/drop-out rate is fairly small. I doubt the application process can ever be perfect so that only the most genuine, and most academically successful gain entrance. What do you suggest be changed?

 

[NerdyAndrea]

I think the adcoms are doing their bests. I also think the candidates are. I read a lot of stories about pople who apply more than one cycle. I think it probably shows that yes you REALLY want to do medicine if you keep coming back each cycle, and you've worked on something new each time, then you probably want to be a Doctor.

As with any process there are things to improve, again as I say in most of my posts on the subject, I have not interviewed at a medical school. i am still finishing my undergrad coursework as a nontraditional. I have a long road ahead. When I have some actual experience Obnoxious Dad I'll come back with whatever positives I can.

 

[randombetch]

...
On Q5, zero for admissions. Hard to say for the profession, given politics and technology. I live in a CA community that is easily 50% Spanish as a first language, in a district that routinely votes Democratic, and yet my newspaper and city signage offers ZERO bilingual outreach. Go figure.

Late now. Best wishes.

What!! I was under a completely different impression from SDN sources. I guess I should reconsider taking Spanish next year...

 

[Whale]

Does the admission office use "fudge" factor to equalize gpa's from various colleges: E.g. Csu vs uc vs stanford/ivy vs liberal art colleges?
If so, is there a rough formula?

I do think this is a legitimate question. When interviewing at East Coast, I felt maybe top UCs were given preference b/c all those from Cal are from top UCs.

Also I heard from my Psych instructor that her friend in an adcom says difficulty of undergrad institution is taken into account. There may be boost to applicants from supposedly harder schools as opposed to those with grade inflation.

Also, how does being an URM play into admission decision? Does URM get bonus?

 

[FutureScaresMe]

...

On Q5, zero for admissions. Hard to say for the profession, given politics and technology. I live in a CA community that is easily 50% Spanish as a first language, in a district that routinely votes Democratic, and yet my newspaper and city signage offers ZERO bilingual outreach. Go figure.

What!! I was under a completely different impression from SDN sources. I guess I should reconsider taking Spanish next year...

I've heard the same as randombetch, especially at UCLA.

 

[Doctor School]

ScronCon is in tune on many points. We do try to build classes, in the sense that applications are reviewed for admission in batches. After a week or two-week cycle of interviews the committee meets for the vote and in that session it becomes very apparent, over time, how the class is shaping up. When 60 - 70% of the class is full, but many qualified applicants remain, the subjectivity factor increases. If you have heard it once you have heard it 100 times, applying early is your best hedge against non-merit factors impacting your outcome.

On the matter of interview numbers, the following data speak to the unusual conditions that play out in California:

TypeResidentResApp/IntInt/MatUniversity of California - San Franciscopublic13.221.94Stanford Universityprivate11.885.91Loma Linda Universityprivate10.172.36University of California - Los Angelespublic10.033.38Albany Medical Collegeprivate9.523.02Mayo Clinic College of Medicineprivate8.713.00University of California - Davispublic8.604.26University of Chicagoprivate8.423.81University of California - Irvinepublic8.244.50Loyola UniversitySchool of Medicineprivate7.872.66Northwestern Universityprivate7.723.42University of California - San Diegopublic7.463.93University of Southern Californiaprivate7.264.21

Of the top 13 programs in the country in terms of how many residents apply per interview granted, eight of them are THE eight allopathic programs in California. The right hand column is most telling - how many resident interviews are given per resident matriculant. Now, clearly, this is not the same thing as admittees, because someone could be admitted to a California program and then choose to go out of state. But the data affirm that California programs can afford to be very selective in terms of granting interviews because they all (with the possible curious exception of Stanford) have histories of matriculating a very good ratio of those they interview.

Very late now. Sorry to be lagging a bit. Best wishes.

 

[Doctor School]

Oops, sorry for the formatting on that table. It looked perfect in my little Quick Reply box. I'll try again. The school order is from most selective to interview down. The first number is resident applicants per interview; the second number is resident interviews per matriculant:


TypeResidentResApp/IntInt/MatUniversity of California - San Francisco: 13.22 / 1.94
Stanford University 11.88 / 5.91 Loma Linda University 10.17 / 2.36 University of California - Los Angeles 10.03 / 3.38 Albany Medical College 9.52 / 3.02 Mayo Clinic College of Medicine 8.71 / 3.00 University of California - Davis 8.60 / 4.26 University of Chicago 8.42 / 3.81 University of California - Irvine 8.24 / 4.50 Loyola UniversitySchool of Medicine 7.87 / 2.66 Northwestern University 7.72 / 3.42 University of California - San Diego 7.46 / 3.93 University of Southern California 7.26 / 4.21

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

For your information the drop out - flunk out rate is about 5%.

My basic problem with this process is the utter lack of transparency. Admissions committees are handing out prizes that have a present value of about $1,000,000 a piece and I think the applicants as well as the people who are putting up the cash have a right to know how that is done. The arbitrary nature of the current process allows for corruption (see the Florida case two years ago) and a great deal of wasted time and effort.

When my daughter , who is in medical school, had to choose among undergraduate colleges, she had no clue as to whether she should go to an expensive private college, a huge prestigious state university or a slightly less prestigious state university that would have been tuition free. All of the research we could do at the time left us completely stumped. There is simply no answer.

Who says the adcoms are doing a great job? They could produce better physicians if they emphasized scientific talent in the process. This is the reason schools will not publish their step scores. I guarantee you that if schools published step scores you would see more physics and chemistry majors get in and fewer people with degrees in anthropology. Perhaps we would no longer see 100,000 deaths per year from medical errors.

Obnoxious dad, if adcoms are doing such a bad job at picking applicants, wouldn't the fail/drop out rate be a lot higher? As far I know, the fail/drop-out rate is fairly small. I doubt the application process can ever be perfect so that only the most genuine, and most academically successful gain entrance. What do you suggest be changed?

 

[jboz]

For your information the drop out - flunk out rate is about 5%.

My basic problem with this process is the utter lack of transparency. Admissions committees are handing out prizes that have a present value of about $1,000,000 a piece and I think the applicants as well as the people who are putting up the cash have a right to know how that is done. The arbitrary nature of the current process allows for corruption (see the Florida case two years ago) and a great deal of wasted time and effort.

When my daughter , who is in medical school, had to choose among undergraduate colleges, she had no clue as to whether she should go to an expensive private college, a huge prestigious state university or a slightly less prestigious state university that would have been tuition free. All of the research we could do at the time left us completely stumped. There is simply no answer.

Who says the adcoms are doing a great job? They could produce better physicians if they emphasized scientific talent in the process. This is the reason schools will not publish their step scores. I guarantee you that if schools published step scores you would see more physics and chemistry majors get in and fewer people with degrees in anthropology. Perhaps we would no longer see 100,000 deaths per year from medical errors.

Words of a troubled soul...Reality will still be here when you get back.

 

[KoopaT89]

For your information the drop out - flunk out rate is about 5%.

My basic problem with this process is the utter lack of transparency. Admissions committees are handing out prizes that have a present value of about $1,000,000 a piece and I think the applicants as well as the people who are putting up the cash have a right to know how that is done. The arbitrary nature of the current process allows for corruption (see the Florida case two years ago) and a great deal of wasted time and effort.

When my daughter , who is in medical school, had to choose among undergraduate colleges, she had no clue as to whether she should go to an expensive private college, a huge prestigious state university or a slightly less prestigious state university that would have been tuition free. All of the research we could do at the time left us completely stumped. There is simply no answer.

Who says the adcoms are doing a great job? They could produce better physicians if they emphasized scientific talent in the process. This is the reason schools will not publish their step scores. I guarantee you that if schools published step scores you would see more physics and chemistry majors get in and fewer people with degrees in anthropology. Perhaps we would no longer see 100,000 deaths per year from medical errors.

Wow, way to take a stab at Liberal Arts majors.

If your daughter is in medical school why are you here? Did you get rejected and are living vicariously through her? Clearly the pre-allo forums are no longer necessary. Unless...you're trying to go to medical school...?

for an Obnoxious dad.

 

[Excelsius]

Thanks for the responses, Doctor School.

The opinions and posts of Doctor School are emblematic of everything wrong with the medical school admissions process. Rather than making the process as objective and clear as it can be you see nothing but subjectivity and obfuscation.
...

This business of the personal statement is a perfect example. Some of them are ghost written. Most are perfectly insincere. How many applicants really want to go to Darfur and treat people with TB? Based on personal statements you would conclude its 80% of all applicants.

It is time for California to put some skin in the game. Every year 1,000 Californians leave their home state to mooch medical educations off the rest of the country. When will this end?

Since you mention psychology, I presume that you are well aware that every time a human is involved, there is always subjectivity that goes along with that. If the process was entirely objective, no adcoms would be needed at all. All you'd need would be an algorithm where a computer could decide whether an applicant gets accepted or not based solely on numbers. If you think that would produce the best doctors, then I hope you recognize your own subjectivity on this entire matter based on your past experiences. Having a robotic system of selection where every time the guy with 3.701 gets selected over the guy with 3.700 would not create a heterogeneous group of doctors. Subjectivity is good because it gives a chance to those who might not have stellar numbers, but have a potential to be stellar doctors nevertheless. That's the only thing that matters.

Finally, doctors service people. The best doctors are the ones who care and respect their patients, not the ones who had the highest grades. And you can't select these people objectively.

Please note that this thread is about answering admission questions. Let's not turn it into a diatribe about the process itself. No one is saying the process is perfect (that's because people aren't either), but if you really want to discuss it, I think a separate thread would be better and the title of the thread would lure those who wish to respond to the points concerning the process.

 

[ucladoc2b]

For your information the drop out - flunk out rate is about 5%.

My basic problem with this process is the utter lack of transparency. Admissions committees are handing out prizes that have a present value of about $1,000,000 a piece and I think the applicants as well as the people who are putting up the cash have a right to know how that is done. The arbitrary nature of the current process allows for corruption (see the Florida case two years ago) and a great deal of wasted time and effort.

When my daughter , who is in medical school, had to choose among undergraduate colleges, she had no clue as to whether she should go to an expensive private college, a huge prestigious state university or a slightly less prestigious state university that would have been tuition free. All of the research we could do at the time left us completely stumped. There is simply no answer.

Who says the adcoms are doing a great job? They could produce better physicians if they emphasized scientific talent in the process. This is the reason schools will not publish their step scores. I guarantee you that if schools published step scores you would see more physics and chemistry majors get in and fewer people with degrees in anthropology. Perhaps we would no longer see 100,000 deaths per year from medical errors.

Interesting how the Anthro majors have a higher MCAT total than the Bio majors...

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table18-facts09mcatgpabymaj1-web.pdf

As far as I can tell, once you hit a certain score on the MCAT (about 33), there is minimal separation between scores (the difference between a 29-32 is significant, but a 33-38 could be no more than a few questions). This is one of the problems with standardized testing in general: it doesn't do a great job of differentiating top applicants.

There is an emphasis on scientific talent and logical thought in the process. Additionally, as far as I know, I have not seen ANY evidence that higher test scores lead to fewer medical errors. The cause of medical errors is often so complex that it would be a complete waste of time to look at test scores and error rates. Even so, the brightest minds can still misprescribe a drug, forget an antibiotic, or work poorly on a team.

I do agree with you on the need for more transparancy in the process, though. Some schools are really good about it, however (UCSD comes to mind).

 

[deleted261193]

I heard in general that public medical schools tend to prefer applicants who will be staying in-state (so usually the in-state applicants). I am not a CA resident although I currently attend UCSD and I am definitely interested in staying in CA -- will my OOS status put me at a disadvantage in any way for admission to any of the UC medical schools? Also, in the undergrad process, I know that the UCs had higher admission standards for OOS students -- is the same true for medical school admissions?

Thank you so much for answering!

 

[missbones]

Interesting how the Anthro majors have a higher MCAT total than the Bio majors...

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table18-facts09mcatgpabymaj1-web.pdf

Go anthro majors!
haha

Don't be such a hater obnoxious dad. Your daughter made it in, didn't she?

edit: and just to clarify, anthropology is not liberal arts, by any means!

 

[randombetch]

Can we not argue with people in this thread? It's primarily supposed to be for us to seek answers from Doctor School...

 

[Dianyla]

UCSF is far and away the most eclectic, and least likely among the five to admit only state residents.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit? I'm obsessed withvery interested in UCSF and am trying to evaluate whether I am a good fit for their mission. From what I've been reading so far they seem to have two missions... one being the research/academic heavy focus and the other being primary care and outreach. I am targeting the latter flavor.

I'll be applying early this summer OOS, non-trad 32 y/o healthcare-IT career changer, lots of community service and clinical volunteering, ~3.5/34Q, strong LORs. End goal is primary care for underserved populations.

 

[Nasrudin]

Dear Dr. School,

By what process do med schools offer scholarships to students? And what is the goal of these scholarships?

thanks.