Got Close Twice, But Rejected - Need Advice

[2014hopes]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm a nontraditional applicant that's been through two MD admissions cycles. Each time, I was waitlisted at great schools (UCSF, Mt. Sinai, Stanford) but didn't make the final cut. I'm trying to figure out what happened and decide what to do next.

Getting into medical school has been my focus for the past four years, but now I'm seriously starting to wonder if it's possible for me. In addition, the office where I've worked for the past two years just closed. I'm really at a crossroads. I appreciate the depth of knowledge on this site, and would value any advice you all have.

Some background about me:

- I majored in history in college. I have a law degree and two years of experience working in juvenile justice. I'm 31. Those are the reasons I consider myself a nontraditional applicant!

- In spite of that, my reasons for becoming a doctor aren't that different from most applicants: I want to help people and I love science. I just discovered my interest in medicine later than most. My experiences getting ready to apply to medical school (taking the science pre-reqs, volunteering at an ER for 9 months, volunteering at a legal clinic for HIV/AIDS patients) have been some of the most exciting of my life.

- Undergraduate GPA: 3.69. Science GPA: 3.75. I scored 32 on my MCAT the first time, then took it again and scored a 35.

A few specific questions:

(1) Assuming I do decide to apply a third time, what's a better strategy: apply right away, or take a year to improve my application?

(2) What's the best way to get feedback on one's application from schools that rejected me? Medical schools reject lots of people every year, and I can't imagine staff has time to talk to everyone.

(3) The schools that interviewed and waitlisted me are actually *more* selective than many I applied to that didn't interview me at all. It's weird. Any insights into why this happens?

 

[MiniMoo]

A few specific questions:

(1) Assuming I do decide to apply a third time, what's a better strategy: apply right away, or take a year to improve my application?

(2) What's the best way to get feedback on one's application from schools that rejected me? Medical schools reject lots of people every year, and I can't imagine staff has time to talk to everyone.

(3) The schools that interviewed and waitlisted me are actually *more* selective than many I applied to that didn't interview me at all. It's weird. Any insights into why this happens?

1. This depends on the strength of your application, which can be better assessed if you gave us more details about yourself -- such as involvement in research? ECs?

2. Schools do give feedback. I would contact the admissions offices of the schools that interviewed but rejected you to see if you can schedule an in-person or phone meeting with the dean.

3. While on the surface it may seem that things don't make sense, I think it's mainly because every school evaluates applicants a bit differently. Some schools may place a heavy emphasis on clinical experience and less on GPA/MCAT. Others may really value research experience. Also many look for applicants that fit their particular "mission" - for example, UC Davis focuses quite heavily on rural medicine while schools like Temple really value working with the urban underserved.

 

[2014hopes]

1. This depends on the strength of your application, which can be better assessed if you gave us more details about yourself -- such as involvement in research? ECs?

During law school, I volunteered at an ER, four hours a week for 9 months. At the time, I was trying to figure out whether to reorient from law towards medicine. As a volunteer, I didn't have a lot of responsibility, but I had a chance to meet patients and watch doctors at work, which helped convince me to go for medicine.

In my last semester of law school, I worked at a legal clinic for HIV/AIDS patients, 20 hours a week for a semester. That involved some real responsibility - basically, I had clients. Although I was working on legal issues, those were almost always intertwined with their health problems. I look on this as another experience that convinced me to switch to medicine, but also as one that helped me develop the people skills that are important to clinical work.

Also during law school, I took several classes on "medical-legal" topics (e.g., the FDA, the regulation of stem cell research, health insurance). This was a deliberate choice, since I was already getting interested in medicine. Technically, those aren't extracurriculars, but I think they strengthen my application.

I have zero experience in research. I know that's a weakness compared to a lot of applicants. That being said, I don't really plan to go into research. I expect to be a clinician and work on health policy.

 

[MiniMoo]

During law school, I volunteered at an ER, four hours a week for 9 months. At the time, I was trying to figure out whether to reorient from law towards medicine. As a volunteer, I didn't have a lot of responsibility, but I had a chance to meet patients and watch doctors at work, which helped convince me to go for medicine.

In my last semester of law school, I worked at a legal clinic for HIV/AIDS patients, 20 hours a week for a semester. That involved some real responsibility - basically, I had clients. Although I was working on legal issues, those were almost always intertwined with their health problems. I look on this as another experience that convinced me to switch to medicine, but also as one that helped me develop the people skills that are important to clinical work.

Also during law school, I took several classes on "medical-legal" topics (e.g., the FDA, the regulation of stem cell research, health insurance). This was a deliberate choice, since I was already getting interested in medicine. Technically, those aren't extracurriculars, but I think they strengthen my application.

I have zero experience in research. I know that's a weakness compared to a lot of applicants. That being said, I don't really plan to go into research. I expect to be a clinician and work on health policy.

All the ECs you mention took place "during law school". How long ago was that exactly? Your clinical volunteering, as it stands now, is a bit sparse. Most applicants commit to about 4-5 hours a week for 1-1.5 years prior to applying. Additionally, shadowing would be good to have, which is considered separately (shadowing being passive observation, while volunteering encompasses active work with patients). Catalystik, a knowledgeable and frequent poster, typically recommends 50-80 hours of shadowing with 2-3 physicians in different specialties (including at least one in primary care). I would try to get more clinical volunteering and shadowing now, if possible, especially since the experiences you've listed likely took place several years ago.

Also do you have any involvement in non-medical volunteering? Things like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, humane society, tutoring/mentoring, etc?

And yes, the lack of research is going to hold you back, especially at the research-giants that you mentioned (Stanford, UCSF, Sinai). Did you apply broadly enough when you applied these last 2 cycles? Which schools specifically?

 

[aza]

As someone who knows you in real life, read your personal statement, etc, my feelings are this:
I talked to admissions people and other MDs about why you were interviewed at top schools but rejected out-of-hand from less prestigious schools.

They all said the same thing: the top schools are 'intrigued' by the JD and like the idea of students who already have advanced degrees. The less prestigious schools see your (very good) record and think two things:
1. He will probably not go here anyways
2. He's collecting degrees and/or he's not REALLY serious about medicine. The less prestigious schools mostly just want to make good clinicians and the JD actually can work against you on that.

It may help with the less prestigious schools if you're very enthusiastic and specific about why you'd want to go THERE (as opposed to all other schools).

I REALLY think the most important thing you can do is improve your interview skills. If you're getting interviews, you're good enough on paper.
But your interviews just aren't good enough to get you in. If they're good enough to get you waitlisted, you may not have to improve them MUCH.

But knowing you in real life, I think that's the biggest thing holding you back. I know that you were working on certain things, but I'd be more than happy to practice with you and give you feedback.

Given how much you've already sunk into the process, I think you should pay a drama coach or public speaking coach for help. The lady in law school who did free coaching for the Criminal Trial Practice course was VERY good.

 

[MiniMoo]

As someone who knows you in real life, read your personal statement, etc, my feelings are this:
I talked to admissions people and other MDs about why you were interviewed at top schools but rejected out-of-hand from less prestigious schools.

They all said the same thing: the top schools are 'intrigued' by the JD and like the idea of students who already have advanced degrees. The less prestigious schools see your (very good) record and think two things:
1. He will probably not go here anyways
2. He's collecting degrees and/or he's not REALLY serious about medicine. The less prestigious schools mostly just want to make good clinicians and the JD actually can work against you on that.

It may help with the less prestigious schools if you're very enthusiastic and specific about why you'd want to go THERE (as opposed to all other schools).

I REALLY think the most important thing you can do is improve your interview skills. If you're getting interviews, you're good enough on paper.
But your interviews just aren't good enough to get you in. If they're good enough to get you waitlisted, you may not have to improve them MUCH.

But knowing you in real life, I think that's the biggest thing holding you back. I know that you were working on certain things, but I'd be more than happy to practice with you and give you feedback.

Given how much you've already sunk into the process, I think you should pay a drama coach or public speaking coach for help. The lady in law school who did free coaching for the Criminal Trial Practice course was VERY good.

The bolded is an important concern. But I think the best way to show a true dedication to medicine is to have the activities to back it up. At the moment the overall lack of recent clinical experience and shadowing really calls into question the OP's commitment. Sure improving interview skills may help, but in the end, actions speak louder than words - the OP needs to SHOW that he/she has been exposed to all aspects of medicine and is still fully committed to pursuing it as a career. 9 months of hospital volunteering several years ago and no shadowing just isn't enough.

To the OP: You have to realize that you're going to be competing against applicants with hundreds of hours of volunteering, work experience as EMTs/RNAs, shadowing, medical service trips abroad, years of research with publications, years of non-medical volunteering, leadership roles, and awards/scholarships to boot. Your JD background is intriguing, and you have the opportunity to really bring a unique point of view into your pursuit of medicine. But you need to have all of these other activities to make you competitive as well.

 

[2014hopes]

All the ECs you mention took place "during law school". How long ago was that exactly? ...

Also do you have any involvement in non-medical volunteering? Things like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, humane society, tutoring/mentoring, etc? ...

Did you apply broadly enough when you applied these last 2 cycles? Which schools specifically?

First, thank you for the advice. It's really helpful.

I graduated from law school two years ago. Since then, I've been working (more about that below) and applying to med school. So I'm less concerned that my medical ECs are too old than that there are aren't enough of them. I spent a day shadowing an internist, but I never thought that was important enough to mention in my application. I will look for ways to do more of that, and volunteer at another hospital.

I do have other volunteer work. I've done some volunteer legal work on asylum cases. Also, my paying job for the last two years was not your average corporate law gig. I would go to youth prisons, talk to prisoners and staff about conditions there (including some issues about access to mental health care) and write reports. In my sunny pre-law-school days (i.e. over five years ago), I volunteered at a kibbutz in Israel and did some ESL tutoring here in the states.

In addition to a number of top ten schools, I applied to Tufts, Rutgers, BU, Einstein, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, and UCSD.

 

[MiniMoo]

First, thank you for the advice. It's really helpful.

I graduated from law school two years ago. Since then, I've been working (more about that below) and applying to med school. So I'm less concerned that my medical ECs are too old than that there are aren't enough of them. I spent a day shadowing an internist, but I never thought that was important enough to mention in my application. I will look for ways to do more of that, and volunteer at another hospital.

I do have other volunteer work. I've done some volunteer legal work on asylum cases. Also, my paying job for the last two years was not your average corporate law gig. I would go to youth prisons, talk to prisoners and staff about conditions there (including some issues about access to mental health care) and write reports. In my sunny pre-law-school days (i.e. over five years ago), I volunteered at a kibbutz in Israel and did some ESL tutoring here in the states.

In addition to a number of top ten schools, I applied to Tufts, Rutgers, BU, Einstein, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, and UCSD.

Two years ago, while it doesn't feel that long, still places your ECs out of the range of "recent". I would try to get more involved in clinical volunteering and shadowing. Clinical volunteering can be anything where you get exposure to patients -- hospice programs, free community clinics, nursing homes, HIV clinics, etc.

And also the paying job sounds great, but adcoms are going to distinguish "paying" from "volunteer" experiences. The altruistic traits one displays through volunteer work are highly desirable over paid opportunities. The internist shadowing and other non-medical volunteer work are a start. But try to get more recent involvement.

Additionally, from your brief description, it doesn't sound like you applied broadly enough. You have no research. That's going to make an acceptance into heavy research institutions like any of the Top 10 (or even Top 20 for that matter) a reach for you. Your other schools that aren't Top 20 like Rutgers (heavily favors in state applicants -- so unless you're from NJ, this is going to be a stretch for you), UC Davis, UC Irvine, and Boston are still extremely competitive. I highly recommend you get your hands on an MSAR and try to apply to schools that are a bit less research-focused as well as OOS schools that are more OOS friendly (typically private institutions).

 

[2014hopes]

... your MCAT of 32 is relatively average ...

Actually, that raises an interesting question. I took the MCAT a second time because I was concerned that 32 was too low. I got a 35, and managed to turn what had been my weakest section (PS) into my strongest. No prep course, just lots of studying. I felt pretty good. Now I'm wondering if schools care about that, or if they only look at the original score.

(I think you deleted the quote since I wrote this, but the question about the MCAT still interests me. Does anyone know if schools average the scores, look at the more recent one, or what?)

 

[MiniMoo]

Actually, that raises an interesting question. I took the MCAT a second time because I was concerned that 32 was too low. I got a 35, and managed to turn what had been my weakest section (PS) into my strongest. No prep course, just lots of studying. I felt pretty good. Now I'm wondering if schools care about that, or if they only look at the original score.

Sorry that was a mis-read on my part. I noticed you retook and got a 35 and amended my original post. How schools treat retakes varies depending on the school. Some average scores, some take the highest score in each subsection. But I believe the majority take the most recent score. Your 32 (still a very good score, assuming a balanced distribution) should not be held against you. I'm hoping your retake yielded at least a 9-10 in each subsection?

 

[2014hopes]

You have no research. That's going to make an acceptance into heavy research institutions like any of the Top 10 (or even Top 20 for that matter) a reach for you. ... I highly recommend you get your hands on an MSAR and try to apply to schools that are a bit less research-focused as well as OOS schools that are more OOS friendly (typically private institutions).

That's great advice. Another option would be to round out the application by getting that research. I just have no idea how to to do that. I believe the usual route is to approach professors while one is a student. Even assuming I can take a few months off to do nothing but volunteer work / unpaid research, how do I find research opportunities if I'm not a student? Is it even worth it, or will it look like so much resume padding?

 

[2014hopes]

Sorry that was a mis-read on my part. I noticed you retook and got a 35 and amended my original post. How schools treat retakes varies depending on the school. Some average schools, some take the highest score in each subsection. But I believe the majority take the most recent score. Your 32 (still a very good score, assuming a balanced distribution) should not be held against you. I'm hoping your retake yielded at least a 9-10 in each subsection?

Yes: 11 / 13 / 11.

 

[MiniMoo]

That's great advice. Another option would be to round out the application by getting that research. I just have no idea how to to do that. I believe the usual route is to approach professors while one is a student. Even assuming I can take a few months off to do nothing but volunteer work / unpaid research, how do I find research opportunities if I'm not a student? Is it even worth it, or will it look like so much resume padding?

Your best bet, if you're really trying to round out your application with research, is to apply for a Masters degree somewhere. Get some solid research under your belt with publications. A few months of research, as you're suggesting, is not nearly enough. A typical applicant with research has about a year's worth. For Top 10-20 schools, you'd ideally have 2+ years of experience with pubs.

Research is not required to get an acceptance. Whether or not it's worth it depends on the schools you're trying to get into. If you're aiming for UCSF, Sinai, or Stanford then it's absolutely worth it. If you're okay with attending a less research focused school (typically non-Top 20), then not as much.

 

[Simplify]

How about a list of where you've applied and been waitlisted at for the last 2 cycles?

 

[vc7777]

OP, you seemed genuinely interested in constructive criticism.

You obviously are capable of getting interviews. How many interviews did you do?

I agree the dean is an excellent resource to review your application. However, she may not be able to give you insight into your particular interviews.

You are on the cusp of getting in. The 'bubble' if you will. I just wanted to add the following thoughts to the discussion:

1) First let me offer an alternative theory on interviewing: Some of the larger programs may have more resources to interview many more candidates than they have slots when compared to smaller programs. The prestige of your interviews therefore may only be loosely correlated to your experience. Instead, you may want to consider how 'competitive' the interview pool is at those schools - 3 interviews per seat, 4, etc.? Perhaps instead of 'intrigue' what you experienced was more due to their ability to take more chances on interviewing than less prestigious schools - which on the surface may seem counterintuitive. Just an idea.

2) More importantly, I wonder how good your interviewing skills are? This skill is learned, and doesn't not come naturally for all but a few. Let me be clear that this is not an attack on you personally: I have seen very good people who have nervous or subconscious ticks and behaviors that have 'submarined' their job and medical school interviews.

I have interviewed candidates in engineering for years, and can tell you that 9 out of 10 candidates never find out WHY they were rejected. Mainly, because they never bother to ask. Because of this, you should actively seek honest interview feedback.

Unfortunately, you will probably not get very candid interview feedback unless you contact your particular interviewers and emphasize what you are looking for. Even then, they may not remember you at this point, or be reluctant to give you the full truth?

If you feel your interviewing may be a weakness, you should try and find a local group or a pre-med advisor that can perform a full mock interview. I would highly advise you to do so, if this is the case.

Good luck,

vc7777

 

[2014hopes]

How about a list of where you've applied and been waitlisted at for the last 2 cycles?

No problem. The list indicates the last stage I got to in the process.

2008-9
Waitlisted: Stanford
Interviewed: Cornell, Harvard
"Held for Interview": Penn, UCSD
Secondary: Chicago, Columbia, Einstein, Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, OHSU, Penn, Tufts, UC Davis, UCSF, Wash U., Yale
Primary: UW

2009-10
Waitlisted: Mt. Sinai, Rutgers, UCSF
"Held for Interview": UCSD
Secondary: Columbia, Cornell, Einstein, Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, Stanford, Tufts, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA
Primary: BU

Differences between the two rounds.

In the second round, I applied earlier (because I took the MCAT twice, most of my first-round applications were completed right at the deadline). I also revised my personal statement a lot and added a new letter of recommendation. I applied a bit more broadly, although, it seems, not broadly enough (hey, wouldn't you be overconfident too if you almost made it into Stanford?).

 

[Simplify]

The first thing that jumps out about your list is that you've applied to too many of the best schools and a number of research giants at that. Even with your stats acceptance is never a guarantee. Round out your list for the next cycle with some less selective schools. Don't bother with UW unless you're a resident of Washington or one of it's partner states. The going advice around here is some combination of Reach, Average and Safety. It's often stated to apply to 1/3 in each category. My own strategy is that I'm applying to 20 schools this cycle. I have 3 reaches, 1 state school, 8 average and 8 safety.

I don't think it's too late to apply this year. Try to get involved in some clinical volunteering and perhaps some shadowing as soon as possible. The other option is to get involved in these activities heavily and then apply next year.

 

[MiniMoo]

Yeah your list is way too top heavy. In addition to not having any research, your cGPA is also leaning towards the bottom 10% of accepted students at some of those top schools you're aiming for.

What's your state of residence?

 

[SoftwareKevin]

I have interviewed candidates in engineering for years, and can tell you that 9 out of 10 candidates never find out WHY they were rejected. Mainly, because they never bother to ask. Because of this, you should actively seek honest interview feedback.

I 100% agree with this. If you haven't already, call up schools (especially ones you interviewed at) and find out the reason why you weren't accepted. Most are more than willing to review your file and give you tips. I have no idea why most people are hesitant to do this, but it will give you a huge advantage next time you apply.

You need to consider what schools you're applying to. While there's nothing wrong with your GPA and MCAT score, you might be reaching a bit with the caliber of schools you're targeting. As others have pointed out, there are a few weak spots in your application and those need to be resolved. You're competing against people with large amounts of volunteer/shadowing/research experience

 

[mspeedwagon]

I actually think the biggest problem is the schools you applied to... no recent medical research experience, no recent volunteering, no recent clinical experience. You are not a strong candidate for the UCs or Top 10.

Given your non-trad background, applying to schools that are inundated with applications (Tufts/BU) is also not a good idea. I would re-consider your list. You have strong stats and should consider schools that look upon non-trad favorable: OHSU, Ohio State immediately come to mind.

Also consider applying to Creighton, Case Western, Albany Medical College etc.

I think more than anything, you need to revise your medical school list.

In addition to a number of top ten schools, I applied to Tufts, Rutgers, BU, Einstein, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, and UCSD.

 

[2014hopes]

OK, with your collective help, I have come up with this plan:

- Contact as many deans of admission and interviewers as possible ASAP to get feedback on my application. If necessary, use that feedback to revise my primary application materials.

- Apply to several non-top-20 schools for admission in 2011. People on this list have suggested Albany, Case Western, Creighton, Ohio State, OHSU, and Temple. Does anyone have other ideas? I am looking for schools with some combination of these factors: friendly to nontrads, focus on treating the urban underserved, focus on health policy. I live in California, and since the whole UC system has not panned out so far, I guess I'm also looking for schools that are friendly to OOS applicants.

- Spend a lot of time this year volunteering in clinical settings. Does anyone have suggestions? I live in Oakland. My ER experience was at Highland Hospital.

Other possibilities (I wonder if people think these are good ideas or not):

- Take one or two upper-division biology classes this year (e.g. Genetics, Microbiology), not to improve my stats but to help compensate for the lack of research experience.

- Volunteer a research assistant in a setting where my JD would be valuable, e.g. for a professor at UC Berkeley's school of public health.

- I *may* also reapply to UCSF this year, depending on the feedback I get there. They have a program called PRIME that focuses on the urban underserved. I think I would be a good fit, given my paid and volunteer experiences. Unfortunately, I discovered the program around the time I was interviewed this year, and by then it was too late to apply. I think that orienting my application towards PRIME could make up for my lack of research experience. But sometimes I wonder if that's a dumb idea. UCSF's website discourages applicants from reapplying, and I've already reapplied once.

 

[mspeedwagon]

Taking more classes to make up for research is a bad idea.
Volunteering/clinical experience is a great idea.
I wouldn't reapply to UCSF, but UC-Davis has a similar PRIME program. Apply there instead.

 

[2014hopes]

I wouldn't reapply to UCSF, but UC-Davis has a similar PRIME program. Apply there instead.

I think the logic behind this is that UCSF is more selective than UC Davis, so Davis is a safer bet. I'd agree, except that I got close to getting into UCSF this year (they're really selective about who they interview), whereas I've applied to UC Davis twice and haven't been interviewed either time. It doesn't make sense to me either, but it makes me think Davis is just not interested in me, and UCSF is.

 

[Don Draper]

Why not apply DO's?

 

[turkeybean]

Hi OP,

I'm in no position to give you advice since I've not yet applied and I really have no idea how things are going to turn out. But if I were in your situation, I would be equally frustrated.

My 2 cents: The first thing that came to mind after reading through the thread is what happened during your interviews? While your background may intrigue certain programs enough to grant you an interview, it may also set a higher level of expectations for your communication/interviewing skills. In other words, if I were interviewing someone who has a JD, I'd expect (perhaps unfairly) that s/he be able to interview with an above average performance. Do your earnestness and passion come through in an interview? Are you assertive and convincing in your communication?

So, I agree with the above advice that, if you're attractive enough to win these interviews, you're probably attractive enough at least in your presentation on paper. Clearly something was missing post-interview. While you do all the above you listed, do also consider what more you could bring to the interview.

 

[peripherin]

You have good stats. 🙂

Suggestions:

-Apply to a greater number of schools. People will look at you funny if you tell them you applied to 35+ schools, but whatever, it's your life and you want this to be your final application cycle, right?

-Do you follow up with your interviewers and schools after each interview? Send thank you notes, letters of updates, LOIs etc. Your LOIs should be well written and detailed; they should be sent to every school you interviewed. You can start writing your LOIs now, even though it's a little late, for every school you were waitlisted.

 

[2014hopes]

Do you follow up with your interviewers and schools after each interview? Send thank you notes, letters of updates, LOIs etc. Your LOIs should be well written and detailed; they should be sent to every school you interviewed. You can start writing your LOIs now, even though it's a little late, for every school you were waitlisted.

In a word, yes. I don't think that was the problem, particularly this year. But it's good advice. By the way, does LOI stand for "letter of interest" or "letter of intent"? I think it's wrong to simultaneously promise two schools that you will accept an offer if given it, but that could just be the guy-who-took-a-class-on-contracts in me talking.

 

[peripherin]

I should have clarified better. Both, but only one letter of intent (it's bad form to write more than one). The others should be letters of interest. However, the only difference between a letter of intent and a letter of interest is that you make a promise the school where you sent a letter of intent. There should be no difference in quality. Were yours at least 1 page single space (not including heading/signature)?

 

[2014hopes]

The first thing that came to mind after reading through the thread is what happened during your interviews? While your background may intrigue certain programs enough to grant you an interview, it may also set a higher level of expectations for your communication/interviewing skills.

That's really my worst fear. Job interviews have never been my strong suit. Although I felt the interviews went well, or at least not badly, perhaps my expectations were unreasonably low.

I guess the question is, supposing that the interviews are the problem, what do I do? It seems like there's no point in reapplying to schools where I interviewed then ... nothing I do now can change the school's impression that I'm "good on paper, but disappointing in person."

 

[MiniMoo]

I think the logic behind this is that UCSF is more selective than UC Davis, so Davis is a safer bet. I'd agree, except that I got close to getting into UCSF this year (they're really selective about who they interview), whereas I've applied to UC Davis twice and haven't been interviewed either time. It doesn't make sense to me either, but it makes me think Davis is just not interested in me, and UCSF is.

Schools do not select for stats alone. As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, schools also look a lot for "fit". UC Davis places a high priority on individuals interested in rural health. Your experiences thus far don't really align with that mission, thus, UC Davis would be more of a reach for you.

All UC schools have a Prime program, so UCI and UCSD included.

Other schools you can consider: MCW and RFU (love Californians), Jefferson, Cincinnati, UVa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Toledo, SLU, NYU, Georgetown, GW, Iowa, Miami, Loyola, Rush, UIC.

 

[Silverfalcon]

To OP:

1. Your list of top schools is intriguing, but really, why did you pick them? Just because they were top? Near your area? It seems to me that as much as you are a desirable candidate in some areas, you are not in many other areas (research for example).

Also, another suggestion to utilize your JD (and maybe desire to get in public policy) is to find a volunteer position in legal firm specializing in malpractices. I don't know how useful this would be, but at least it wouldn't look like you got JD for nothing.

2. How about consider MD/MPH programs than applying to just top level schools? I mean, you have to really choose here I think... Do you want to be a doctor, or do you want to later get into policy (I think it's latter for you)? If you have a desire to get into public policy, a degree in MPH will help more than JD.

And on the same line, this is my opinion and readings - so don't quote me on this - but being a JD doesn't really make you anything special, and if not, worse. Why? Because JD and MD are two very different professions. Those who have JD and MD will work on either field; rarely both. It's doable, but it's very difficult mainly because of all the information you have to keep up and stuff.

So, I guess the conclusion from that is, try your best, but ask yourself - do I want more health policy side or clinical side as a physician? If it's former, maybe you should go for MS in some science field and get MPH, and go there. It's hard to imagine on not using your JD degree after all that years.

 

[peripherin]

That's really my worst fear. Job interviews have never been my strong suit. Although I felt the interviews went well, or at least not badly, perhaps my expectations were unreasonably low.

I guess the question is, supposing that the interviews are the problem, what do I do? It seems like there's no point in reapplying to schools where I interviewed then ... nothing I do now can change the school's impression that I'm "good on paper, but disappointing in person."

What do you do to prepare for interviews?

 

[mspeedwagon]

I re-read your post... and I agree with minimoo, your background doesn't align with the mission of UC Davis. Might be worth re-applying. I fully agree with the suggestions of minimoo.

I think the logic behind this is that UCSF is more selective than UC Davis, so Davis is a safer bet. I'd agree, except that I got close to getting into UCSF this year (they're really selective about who they interview), whereas I've applied to UC Davis twice and haven't been interviewed either time. It doesn't make sense to me either, but it makes me think Davis is just not interested in me, and UCSF is.

 

[2014hopes]

JD and MD are two very different professions. Those who have JD and MD will work on either field; rarely both. It's doable, but it's very difficult mainly because of all the information you have to keep up and stuff. So, I guess the conclusion from that is, try your best, but ask yourself - do I want more health policy side or clinical side as a physician?

If I had to choose, I would choose the clinical side. I find it more personally satisfying to work with individuals than institutions. I want a job that gives me a chance to go home at the end of the day and (at least sometimes!) know I've done some real, concrete good. That's why I'm going to medical school.

On the other hand, I think that it's really a bad thing if clinicians ignore policy, and policymakers ignore clinicians. That's where the JD comes in. You're right that nobody sees patients in the morning then argues court cases in the afternoon. However, there are doctors that treat patients and either study health care institutions or advocate for changes in them. Two doctors that are often cited as models by incoming med students - Paul Farmer and Atul Gawande - do just that. Do I think I'm as good as they are? Of course not. However, I do think that a JD would help me if I choose to supplement my clinical work by working on or writing about policy. It exposed me to the way that a lot of policymakers are trained to think - there are a lot of JDs in government, of course! - and it gave me a head start in studying some specific policy areas.

In hindsight, maybe an MPH would have been a better choice, but it's been a messy road. I went to law school based on one interesting job working with prisoners, and because it was relatively easy to get in. I had thought about medicine before that, but I thought my science background was too weak to ever get into it. I started to get interested in medicine again while I was in law school, and began exploring it in earnest during my second year there. Things really came together during my third year, when I was doing that job with AIDS patients I talked about above, taking classes on health law, and simultaneously taking general biology.

Sometimes the JD has felt like something I have to work hard to explain instead of an advantage, though. There are time when I think I would have been better off if I had just dropped out of law school and applied to a post-bacc program.

 

[2014hopes]

What do you do to prepare for interviews?

I did two mock interviews back when I started this process. They were with doctors my parents knew, and I hadn't met either of them beforehand, so they were a bit like the real thing. I think they helped ... I got some useful feedback about body language and how to talk about myself.

I could have been more prepared for particular interviews. If I personally knew anyone connected with the school in any way, at any time, I would call them and ask what its strengths were. Sometimes that gave me good information, but not always (e.g., the information I had visiting Mt. Sinai was out of date). I would also look at the school's website before and see if there were programs or department I wanted to talk about, but this did not always yield results.

If I had to travel a long way for the interview, I often ended up bringing something about medicine to read on the way - maybe a burn victim's account of his treatment, or a book about how health insurance works in different countries. It was surprising how often that ended up becoming part of the conversation. It wasn't a conscious strategy, but it is something I'd try to do again. I like to read that stuff anyway.

 

[vc7777]

OK, with your collective help, I have come up with this plan:

- Does anyone have other ideas? ... I guess I'm also looking for schools that are friendly to OOS applicants.

The whole state of Ohio is about as OOS friendly as it gets - you will be considered In state after your first year assuming you meet some easy conditions.

Add U Cincinnati to your list.

I've mentioned before, the use the Mini Medical Interview - which is like speed dating for medical school - this format I feel is advantageous to nontraditional applicants.

 

[vc7777]

In a word, yes. I don't think that was the problem, particularly this year. But it's good advice. By the way, does LOI stand for "letter of interest" or "letter of intent"? I think it's wrong to simultaneously promise two schools that you will accept an offer if given it, but that could just be the guy-who-took-a-class-on-contracts in me talking.

As a JD you will understand these are not contracts -- they are not legally binding. Interest, intent - call them letters of inquisition . Really, you are expressing interest in their program and indicating to the adcom that there is a high probability you will accept the position if it is offered to you at this point in the game.

 

[Gyrene MD]

🙂

 

[Instatewaiter]

No problem. The list indicates the last stage I got to in the process.

2008-9
Waitlisted: Stanford
Interviewed: Cornell, Harvard
"Held for Interview": Penn, UCSD
Secondary: Chicago, Columbia, Einstein, Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, OHSU, Penn, Tufts, UC Davis, UCSF, Wash U., Yale
Primary: UW

2009-10
Waitlisted: Mt. Sinai, Rutgers, UCSF
"Held for Interview": UCSD
Secondary: Columbia, Cornell, Einstein, Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, Stanford, Tufts, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA
Primary: BU

As others have said, too top heavy. Schools to add:
Albany,
Cinci,
VCU & UVA (Virginia is very friendly to out of staters),
GW, Georgetown (DC schools would allow you to mix policy stuff)
probably a few more.

I think applying to DO schools may be a bit premature at this point. If even after applying to non-top 20 schools does not garner you an acceptance, then maybe consider it the next cycle.

Remember, coming from any school you can do an MPH in the middle of med school at Hopkins or Harvard. I know a few of my former classmates that did this and is a good "in" to health care policy.

Also, unlike law schools where it really matters where you go to law school, in med school you can match at some of the most impressive places coming from a "low tier" med school. There really isnt the same kind of difference in education. If you go to a second or third teir law school, you options for the big firms are basically zilch. However even coming from a "low tier" med school you can still match at the best places in the country.

 

[PharmaTope]

No problem. The list indicates the last stage I got to in the process.

2008-9
Waitlisted: Stanford
Interviewed: Cornell, Harvard
"Held for Interview": Penn, UCSD
Secondary: Chicago, Columbia, Einstein, Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, OHSU, Penn, Tufts, UC Davis, UCSF, Wash U., Yale
Primary: UW

2009-10
Waitlisted: Mt. Sinai, Rutgers, UCSF
"Held for Interview": UCSD
Secondary: Columbia, Cornell, Einstein, Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, Stanford, Tufts, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA
Primary: BU

Differences between the two rounds.

In the second round, I applied earlier (because I took the MCAT twice, most of my first-round applications were completed right at the deadline). I also revised my personal statement a lot and added a new letter of recommendation. I applied a bit more broadly, although, it seems, not broadly enough (hey, wouldn't you be overconfident too if you almost made it into Stanford?).

rutgers does not have a medical school.

 

[2014hopes]

rutgers does not have a medical school.

You're right. To be precise, it was UMDNJ's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Since UMDNJ-RWJMS is part of New Jersey's state university of health sciences and is located on a Rutgers campus, I never thought of it as a huge distinction. Also, I live in California, so my friends aren't that familiar with the New Jersey state system ... I just got into the habit of calling it "Rutgers."