Gender of applicants

[okokok]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It seems that medical schools typically accept 50% men and 50% women. Is anyone aware of any statistics concerning the percentage of male applicants vs. female applicants?

Recently I was told by someone that I would have a much easier time getting accepted as a white female applicant than this person's son, a white male applicant. Whatever, who knows. But I became curious about the numbers. Anecdotally, I have attended one interview so far and it was about 12 guys and 3 girls. Could've just been how the scheduling worked out that particular day, though. There seemed to be plenty of girls in my pre-med classes. I'm sure there are more male applicants, but I wonder how many more.

 

[yehhhboiii]

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/

 

[kyamh]

Women are slightly underrepresented in applications. On the US News website, you can see the actual numbers for each school (if you have a subscription). What ends up happening is that it is easier to get an interview as a woman but then most schools accept about the same number of women as men that they interview.

There could also be a selection bias happening as well though. While fewer women at applying to medical schools, the women who are applying are likely as a whole stronger candidates than the men. In many parts of the country it is still much more typical for a man with sub-par stats to have the confidence/forwardness to apply anyhow whereas a woman with comparable stats would chose to apply to a different profession.

Edit: when I say it's easier to get an interview, I mean that we have a statistically higher chance to get invited than men do. I don't mean to say anything as far as actual 'ease' of getting invited to interview.

 

[okokok]

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/

So it's pretty much 40-45% women and 55-60% men. Ie not a huge difference. Interesting. Thanks for looking it up.

 

[okokok]

While fewer women at applying to medical schools, the women who are applying are likely as a whole stronger candidates than the men. In many parts of the country it is still much more typical for a man with sub-par stats to have the confidence/forwardness to apply anyhow whereas a woman with comparable stats would chose to apply to a different profession.

That's a really interesting, thoughtful point. I agree with that.

 

[volcomx]

Women are slightly underrepresented in applications. On the US News website, you can see the actual numbers for each school (if you have a subscription). What ends up happening is that it is easier to get an interview as a woman but then most schools accept about the same number of women as men that they interview.

There could also be a selection bias happening as well though. While fewer women at applying to medical schools, the women who are applying are likely as a whole stronger candidates than the men. In many parts of the country it is still much more typical for a man with sub-par stats to have the confidence/forwardness to apply anyhow whereas a woman with comparable stats would chose to apply to a different profession.

Edit: when I say it's easier to get an interview, I mean that we have a statistically higher chance to get invited than men do. I don't mean to say anything as far as actual 'ease' of getting invited to interview.

Interesting theory, but no data to support it. What we do know about male/female applicants and matriculants are the stats from the AAMC website. For 2012, the average female applicant had an MCAT score of 27.1 while male applicants had 29.4. Pretty significant difference. sGPA is slightly higher for males while non-science went to females. A similar, but less drastic trend is seen in the matriculant data.

Basically, the data suggest that standards are a little lower (~1.5 pt) regarding the MCAT for female applicants, while the non-science GPA standards are a little lower (~.07) for male applicants. We can't prove this without knowing everything else about the applicants. Kyamh could be correct - female applicants could be stronger in areas outside of the MCAT. What we can say is that there are differences in female and male applicants and matriculants. Differences are minimal and generalized and probably can't be applied on an individual basis. Whoever told you that you would have an easier time as a female is probably just setting up a defense in the case that his/her son doesn't get accepted.

 

[yehhhboiii]

So it's pretty much 40-45% women and 55-60% men. Ie not a huge difference. Interesting. Thanks for looking it up.

there's a lot of data there but try not to draw conclusions too quickly. it's difficult to even when you have data
you can say that women aren't as aggressive as men so they aren't as likely to apply if they have lower stats but that's just pseudosociology. it could be true for some but be careful when you make blanket statements

 

[mtbski]

Whoever told you that you would have an easier time as a female is probably just setting up a defense in the case that his/her son doesn't get accepted.

Probably true.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

It used to be true that being female was an advantage in admissions back when the gender disparity in med school was something like 80% men and 20% women. However, in the last 20-30 years that disparity has more or less been wiped out as societal norms toward women and careers change and more females apply to professional schools. And at least in the case of undergrad and social science and life science graduate programs, females are actually overrepresented so I expect that any remnants of a gender disparity in medicine will soon be completely gone, if not slightly reversed.

At this point the only academic programs in which women are still greatly underrepresented are engineering and computer science programs (and to some degree the physical sciences I believe).

 

[BlueLabel]

It used to be true that being female was an advantage in admissions back when the gender disparity in med school was something like 80% men and 20% women. However, in the last 20-30 years that disparity has more or less been wiped out as societal norms toward women and careers change and more females apply to professional schools. And at least in the case of undergrad and social science and life science graduate programs, females are actually overrepresented so I expect that any remnants of a gender disparity in medicine will soon be completely gone, if not slightly reversed.

At this point the only academic programs in which women are still greatly underrepresented are engineering and computer science programs (and to some degree the physical sciences I believe).

Just out of curiosity, do you know if this shift occurred due just to changes in the makeup of undergrad institutions and social norms, or through deliberate admissions criteria by AdComs?

 

[kyamh]

I didn't look at the AAMC data, I looked at what USNews put out for some of the schools I was applying to. I agree that the effect is small, but I see it in most of the schools I am applying to. As far as my comment about women having stronger applications, I am looking at the numbers accepted. Here are three:

shown as number applied/number interviewed/number accepted

Harvard:
women 2440/420/119 17% interviewed, 28% accepted
men: 3364/498/107 14% interviewed, 21% accepted

Michigan State University
women 2738/311/197 11% interviewed, 63% accepted
men 3448/303/166 9% interviewed, 55% accepted

Pittsburgh
women 2103/371/198 18% interviewed, 53% accepted
men 2809/456/189 16% interviewed, 41% accepted

Edit: USNews gives a total statistic and then women specifically so I subtracted the numbers for women from the totals to get a heteronormative estimate of numbers for male applicants.
Edit 2: Although the interview rates are very very similar, it's also clear that quite a few more men are applying, at least to the schools on my list.
Edit 3: added acceptance rates

 

[okokok]

Whoever told you that you would have an easier time as a female is probably just setting up a defense in the case that his/her son doesn't get accepted.

Definitely, and I know something so simplistic can't be applied on an individual basis, but it got me curious about the overall trend.

 

[Womb Raider]

I'm fairly certain that UTSW (Texas #1 school) give female applicants an extra point PER science section of the MCAT (phys science & bio science) if they scored <10. (Not sure if its &#8804;10 or just <10...).

For instance, say female x scores a 9B 9P 9V. Rather than being evaluated with having a 27 MCAT, they would receive a 29.

Fair? I think not.

Once again, we should remove gender/race from applications and go from there.

 

[mcloaf]

I'm fairly certain that UTSW (Texas #1 school) give female applicants an extra point PER science section of the MCAT (phys science & bio science) if they scored <10. (Not sure if its &#8804;10 or just <10...).

For instance, say female x scores a 9B 9P 9V. Rather than being evaluated with having a 27 MCAT, they would receive a 29.

Fair? I think not.

Once again, we should remove gender/race from applications and go from there.

Fairly certain? That seems like a big claim to make without any evidence provided. Is their gender ratio still really skewed or what?

 

[kyamh]

Given the data that women tend to have slightly lower MCATs and GPAs, women as a group likely have more solid ECs or interview skills based on the fairly large difference I see in acceptance rates for those interviewed (post #11). I don't have time to look at and post many more schools, but it would be interesting to see if the trend holds up.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Just out of curiosity, do you know if this shift occurred due just to changes in the makeup of undergrad institutions and social norms, or through deliberate admissions criteria by AdComs?

I don't know. I've never paid much attention to the issue. I'd be surprised if societal factors weren't a major contributor though. Starting with gen X women seem to be much more open to the idea of having a career even if it means delaying having a family or never being a stay-at-home mom which is what the ideal used to be. It also helps that thanks to the decay of the middle class it's no longer feasible for one spouse to financially support a family all by themselves.

 

[Womb Raider]

Fairly certain? That seems like a big claim to make without any evidence provided. Is their gender ratio still really skewed or what?

The reason given for the supplementation: women tend to have worse scores on science subjects than men, thus equalizing the playing field.

 

[BlueLabel]

The reason given for the supplementation: women tend to have worse scores on science subjects than men, thus equalizing the playing field.

How do you know though?

 

[volcomx]

Given the data that women tend to have slightly lower MCATs and GPAs, women as a group likely have more solid ECs or interview skills based on the fairly large difference I see in acceptance rates for those interviewed (post #11). I don't have time to look at and post many more schools, but it would be interesting to see if the trend holds up.

That's not evidence that women have more solid ECs. That only shows that there is a difference in the applicant and matriculant pool between men and women.

For example, say 10 women and 90 men apply for a medical school with 10 spots. However, the school mandates that the slots are split 50/50 male female. The school can have their choice with the male applicants, but not so much with the women. All 10 women could have crappy applications, but the school will still have to pick 5 of them.

Same thing happens with medical schools - they try to even out the gender ratio. None of them are perfect 50/50 because they don't know who will accept their offers, but it usually is close.

There are only 2 ways to really discover a gender bias. The first would be to know EVERYTHING about applicants, which we don't. The second would be to do a gender blind admissions study. You would control for MCAT and GPA and see, retrospectively, if women were preferred over men due to Kyamh's theory of "better ECs." As it stands, with the data we know, we can only say that the standards seem slightly lower for women with regards to MCAT and slightly lower for men with regards to non-sci GPA. That is all.

 

[volcomx]

Given the data that women tend to have slightly lower MCATs and GPAs, women as a group likely have more solid ECs or interview skills based on the fairly large difference I see in acceptance rates for those interviewed (post #11). I don't have time to look at and post many more schools, but it would be interesting to see if the trend holds up.

Another point - the data that shows that more women are interviewed and accepted only suggests that well qualified female applicants may end up with a higher number of acceptances. Schools then need to compensate to maintain balanced gender ratios.

If you look at highly qualified URM applicants (this is just judging by MDApps), they end up with a large number of acceptances relative to similar ORM applicants. This trend is not due to increased ECs or better interviewing skills, because in fact we do know that URMs are actively recruited for diversity. Similarly, women may be actively recruited for diversity - to balance gender ratios.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Yes, men continue to be discriminated based on gender thanks to militant females and men who haven't realized we're not in the 60s and still give preference to women even though men are the minority of college graduates.

 

[BlueLabel]

Yes, men continue to be discriminated based on gender thanks to militant females and men who haven't realized we're not in the 60s and still give preference to women even though men are the minority of college graduates.

...wow

 

[kyamh]

shown as number applied/number interviewed/number accepted

Harvard:
women 2440/420/119 17% interviewed, 28% accepted
men: 3364/498/107 14% interviewed, 21% accepted

Michigan State University
women 2738/311/197 11% interviewed, 63% accepted
men 3448/303/166 9% interviewed, 55% accepted

Pittsburgh
women 2103/371/198 18% interviewed, 53% accepted
men 2809/456/189 16% interviewed, 41% accepted

That's not evidence that women have more solid ECs. That only shows that there is a difference in the applicant and matriculant pool between men and women.

For example, say 10 women and 90 men apply for a medical school with 10 spots. However, the school mandates that the slots are split 50/50 male female. The school can have their choice with the male applicants, but not so much with the women. All 10 women could have crappy applications, but the school will still have to pick 5 of them.

I think the numbers above do, in fact, show that there is some difference. We definitely have fewer women applicants - at least in the three schools I looked up numbers for - of those fewer applicants, the schools choose a larger % to interview for women. This is totally in line with what you said: in your imaginary case with 10 women and 90 men a larger percentage of women is interviewed.

Then, I gave the acceptance rates, which are higher for women than for men (percent calculated as acceptances offered divided by interviews offered). So then at the second stage, even though there are more comparable numbers of female and male applicants as far as interviews, more women are accepted as a percentage of those who apply. If we go back to the idea that women have an easier time getting an interview because there are fewer to choose from (your 10/90 scenario), then as a group women should be less qualified than the men since schools could be choosier with men. Yet, more women get acceptances.

A previous poster said that women as a group have lower average MCAT scores and GPAs - as per data on AAMC. If, then, women are still being admitted over men after the numbers of applicants have been more or less equalized for interviews, then some other part of women's applications must be driving that decision. Or, alternatively, women have an artificial leg up in the process that compensates for their lower stats despite having equal ECs and interview skills to men.

 

[volcomx]

In the end, the differences are so minimal. It might be better to be a women vs a man. It's better to be URM than an Asian applicant. It's better to come from a harsh socioeconomic background than mid/upper class. Unless you are planning on gender and race reassignment and time traveling to sabotage your parent's financial success, it's best to worry about the MCAT, grades, and experience.

 

[volcomx]

I think the numbers above do, in fact, show that there is some difference. We definitely have fewer women applicants - at least in the three schools I looked up numbers for - of those fewer applicants, the schools choose a larger % to interview for women. This is totally in line with what you said: in your imaginary case with 10 women and 90 men a larger percentage of women is interviewed.

Then, I gave the acceptance rates, which are higher for women than for men (percent calculated as acceptances offered divided by interviews offered). So then at the second stage, even though there are more comparable numbers of female and male applicants as far as interviews, more women are accepted as a percentage of those who apply. If we go back to the idea that women have an easier time getting an interview because there are fewer to choose from (your 10/90 scenario), then as a group women should be less qualified than the men since schools could be choosier with men. Yet, more women get acceptances.

A previous poster said that women as a group have lower average MCAT scores and GPAs - as per data on AAMC. If, then, women are still being admitted over men after the numbers of applicants have been more or less equalized for interviews, then some other part of women's applications must be driving that decision. Or, alternatively, women have an artificial leg up in the process that compensates for their lower stats despite having equal ECs and interview skills to men.

You could be right, or I could be right (or we both could be partially right). Unless someone with insight from the admissions committee can tell us if women are actively recruited (like URMs) to balance gender ratios, we really can't say for sure.

 

[mcloaf]

In the end, the differences are so minimal. It might be better to be a women vs a man. It's better to be URM than an Asian applicant. It's better to come from a harsh socioeconomic background than mid/upper class. Unless you are planning on gender and race reassignment and time traveling to sabotage your parent's financial success, it's best to worry about the MCAT, grades, and experience.

This is far too reasonable an attitude to be posted in pre allo.

 

[Shjanzey]

.

 

[mcloaf]

What are you doing slumming in the pre-med forums, your majesty? 😀

You guys are more fun than studying signaling pathways and back anatomy for the moment. And the med student forums are usually pretty slow.

 

[BlueLabel]

In the end, the differences are so minimal. It might be better to be a women vs a man. It's better to be URM than an Asian applicant. It's better to come from a harsh socioeconomic background than mid/upper class. Unless you are planning on gender and race reassignment and time traveling to sabotage your parent's financial success, it's best to worry about the MCAT, grades, and experience.

Maybe between men and women. You're right that we can't do anything to change our gender, nor can we as premeds influence admissions policy. But the magnitude of the disparity in MCAT/GPR between matriculants of different racial/ethnic groups demonstrated in the WAMC graphs isn't minimal so that has nothing to do with why we shouldn't worry about this and focus on other things.

 

[volcomx]

Maybe between men and women. You're right that we can't do anything to change our gender, nor can we as premeds influence admissions policy. But the magnitude of the disparity in MCAT/GPR between matriculants of different racial/ethnic groups demonstrated in the WAMC graphs isn't minimal so that has nothing to do with why we shouldn't worry about this and focus on other things.

I was referring to gender differences being minimal. Seriously, a point on the MCAT can be like 1 question.

For other racial groups, yes, the disparity might be significant, but there is still nothing we can do except further our own med school applications.

On a side note, thanks for your fashion advice haha. I would never have known that black suits = no good, to button only the top button of the suit, etc.

 

[BlueLabel]

I was referring to gender differences being minimal. Seriously, a point on the MCAT can be like 1 question.

For other racial groups, yes, the disparity might be significant, but there is still nothing we can do except further our own med school applications.

On a side note, thanks for your fashion advice haha. I would never have known that black suits = no good, to button only the top button of the suit, etc.

Haha for sure man.

Agreed that worrying about admissions preferences with regard to things we can't change is pointless.