Horror stories that scare you.....

[mwsapphire]

Hello!
Have you ever heard of pre-med " horror stories" , of people with great stats/EC's/Very sociable, really want to go into medicine , but they get rejected at almost every school they apply to? Or somebody will have a top 20 worthy app, but barely make it into their state school? Has this happened to anybody you know? Does it freak you out?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JPSmyth]

Hello!
Have you ever heard of pre-med " horror stories" , of people with great stats/EC's/Very sociable, really want to go into medicine , but they get rejected at almost every school they apply to? Or somebody will have a top 20 worthy app, but barely make it into their state school? Has this happened to anybody you know? Does it freak you out?

Myths like this scared me into applying to 35 schools. I ended up getting accepted at my top two choices and got 10+ interviews.

I feel like these cases are VERY rare. Apply smart, apply relatively broadly and you'll be fine.

 

[libertyyne]

Hello!
Have you ever heard of pre-med " horror stories" , of people with great stats/EC's/Very sociable, really want to go into medicine , but they get rejected at almost every school they apply to? Or somebody will have a top 20 worthy app, but barely make it into their state school? Has this happened to anybody you know? Does it freak you out?

These applicants have interviewing problems or serious issues with their school choice or other red flags not disclosed or app timing issues.

 

[mwsapphire]

These applicants have interviewing problems or serious issues with their school choice or other red flags not disclosed or app timing issues.

I wonder if @LizzyM or @Goro can tell us why that happens? I know it must be some rare issue that they don't disclose, but ever time I hear another story of somebody get rejected with a solid app it freaks me out.

 

[CharlieBillings]

They could also be terrible at writing. PS and secondaries being poor could totally kill your app, and obviously nobody submits them thinking they're bad even if they are.

 

[CoffeeMug13]

These applicants have interviewing problems or serious issues with their school choice or other red flags not disclosed or app timing issues.

Eh, agree and disagree. There's a statistical probability to it happening as well. I applied to 30 schools with 10 IIs across the range from top to bottom, so there is a list in there of 20 schools that I could have applied to exclusively without success.

 

[libertyyne]

I wonder if @LizzyM or @Goro can tell us why that happens? I know it must be some rare issue that they don't disclose, but ever time I hear another story of somebody get rejected with a solid app it freaks me out.

1. People lie.
2. People are bad at interviews.
3. 3.0 ,510 and only applying to the t20 is a disaster
4. Criminal records don't help nor do IA.

 

[mwsapphire]

Eh, agree and disagree. There's a statistical probability to it happening as well. I applied to 30 schools with 10 IIs across the range from top to bottom, so there is a list in there of 20 schools that I could have applied to exclusively without success.

True.....but IDK. I mean, there is a small statistical probability, but not enough to explain how some weaker applicants get acceptances and some stronger ones don't , that's what gets to me.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I wonder if @LizzyM or @Goro can tell us why that happens? I know it must be some rare issue that they don't disclose, but ever time I hear another story of somebody get rejected with a solid app it freaks me out.

People aren't going to tell you their red flags. It's embarrassing to them. Also, humans are typically pretty bad at judging their own interview skills. When these things happen, it's one or the other. Or both.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Great applicants with no red flags, appropriate school lists, and great interview skills are not getting rejected everywhere.

 

[libertyyne]

These applicants have interviewing problems or serious issues with their school choice or other red flags not disclosed or app timing issues.

Eh, agree and disagree. There's a statistical probability to it happening as well. I applied to 30 schools with 10 IIs across the range from top to bottom, so there is a list in there of 20 schools that I could have applied to exclusively without success.

 

[CoffeeMug13]

It really wouldn't be a serious issue with my school choice though. It would be 4 top 10s, 7 ranked from 10 - 30, 6 from 30 - 60, and 3 from 60 - unranked. And for scale, I had at least 2 interview offers in each of those ranges.

I'm not saying that it happens all the time, but I am saying that there's a distinct possibility of it as a function of an inherent element of randomness to the process.

 

[LizzyM]

It really wouldn't be a serious issue with my school choice though. It would be 4 top 10s, 7 ranked from 10 - 30, 6 from 30 - 60, and 3 from 60 - unranked. And for scale, I had at least 2 interview offers in each of those ranges.

I'm not saying that it happens all the time, but I am saying that there's a distinct possibility of it as a function of an inherent element of randomness to the process.

But you also applied to some schools for which you were a better fit in the eyes of the adcoms of those schools and so they interviewed you and, I hope, you'll be offered admission to at least one.

Some of the 30-60 and unranked might have believed you were treating them as safeties and eschewed you for that reason-- you weren't going to attend if you got into Duke or Columbia or Emory, etc.

 

[CoffeeMug13]

But you also applied to some schools for which you were a better fit in the eyes of the adcoms of those schools and so they interviewed you and, I hope, you'll be offered admission to at least one.

Some of the 30-60 and unranked might have believed you were treating them as safeties and eschewed you for that reason-- you weren't going to attend if you got into Duke or Columbia or Emory, etc.

Lol, someone looked at my post history. I do have acceptances (which I'm very grateful for), and I agree that some of the lower ranked schools may have yield-protected me, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a reasonable school list out there that would have left me empty-handed.

 

[hubbsbubbs]

How often does it occur that a person is rejected from reach schools because they don't have the numbers, rejected from safety schools because the schools perceive being treated as safety schools, and also rejected from schools that are reasonable for their app due to the competitive nature of the process (or simply not being a good enough of a 'fit')? Are there many that would be expected to matriculate somewhere and yet fail to gain acceptance?

 

[bararaboi]

EDIT: Deleted.

 

[bararaboi]

Not always. I do think that there are applicants that fall in "the cracks" of the whole admissions machinery.

These applicants have interviewing problems or serious issues with their school choice or other red flags not disclosed or app timing issues.

 

[Dr.Sticks]

These applicants have interviewing problems or serious issues with their school choice or other red flags not disclosed or app timing issues.

What kind of interview problems?
Having no manners, being like Sheldon Cooper basically?

 

[mwsapphire]

How often does it occur that a person is rejected from reach schools because they don't have the numbers, rejected from safety schools because the schools perceive being treated as safety schools, and also rejected from schools that are reasonable for their app due to the competitive nature of the process (or simply not being a good enough of a 'fit')? Are there many that would be expected to matriculate somewhere and yet fail to gain acceptance?

I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS THIS

 

[Goro]

To summarize:

Poor essays
Mistakes in the app forms
Weak ECs
Red flag of a bad LOR
IAs
Evidence of poor choice making (as an example, sending updates to a school that specifically states "no updates")

This is not a random process. It only seems that way to people who have no experience serving on Adcoms.

I wonder if @LizzyM or @Goro can tell us why that happens? I know it must be some rare issue that they don't disclose, but ever time I hear another story of somebody get rejected with a solid app it freaks me out.

 

[CoffeeMug13]

I would view slightly differently. The variation due to how individual reviewers and interviewers see a candidate, how a candidate may perform/behave on a specific day of interview, and the small group dynamics of an adcom, can make some of this seem quite unpredictable. This is especially true when you are dealing with a applicant group of close and similar high-achieving attributes. The best analogy would be a olympic downhill skiing event where fractions of a second separate the top 10 contenders.

Agreed, there 100% is an element of randomness, especially at the top levels.

 

[efle]

https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstablea23.pdf

the attached grid shows that even at the highest academic metric (3.8+ GPA and 517+ MCAT) has 87.5% acceptance rate. it goes down from there

To be fair it feels like the AAMC is pushing an agenda with the 517+ all being in one bin for the new tables. The old MCAT grid had the highest bin (equivalent to 3.8+ / 523+) at a 90+% chance overall and like 95+% for URM. You really gotta mess something up bad in the process to not get in with the highest of high numbers

Hello!
Have you ever heard of pre-med " horror stories" , of people with great stats/EC's/Very sociable, really want to go into medicine , but they get rejected at almost every school they apply to? Or somebody will have a top 20 worthy app, but barely make it into their state school? Has this happened to anybody you know? Does it freak you out?

I have seen and know IRL of close calls, where someone with a very solid app gets into a single school from a bunch of interviews, or even gets in off waitlist at the very tail of the cycle. I also can think of some "disappointing/underwhelming" cases where what you describe happens and someone that looked great ended up at unranked state.

This process can be very random sometimes. I've seen someone get a full ride merit package to a top 20 yet not even get interviewed by almost all the peer schools. I've seen people get like 3-4 interviews at schools they were excited about and not get into any of them, which isn't even that unlikely statistically when a lot of competitive schools reject 60-65% or more post interview.

All that said, I don't think I know anyone that had to completely reapply with what struck me as a strong application. As long as you don't do stupid things like apply to only the top, apply late, apply to only a few schools, halfass your essays/descriptions, be weird in interviews etc you should be fine.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Guy I used to study with:

3.93
524
Great ECs and lots of research
Know him personally and unless he drastically changes in interviews he is a very down to watch normal sociable guy.

I think his flaw was hubris and he only applied to the top 15; got a number of interviews but couldn't get off a waitlist.

 

[Goro]

One could say that the app with the fewest flaws wins, just as in sports?

I would view slightly differently. The variation due to how individual reviewers and interviewers see a candidate, how a candidate may perform/behave on a specific day of interview, and the small group dynamics of an adcom, can make some of this seem quite unpredictable. This is especially true when you are dealing with a applicant group of close and similar high-achieving attributes. The best analogy would be a olympic downhill skiing event where fractions of a second separate the top 10 contenders.

 

[Princeton Medical Student]

This whole thing scares me. I mean like come the **** on, my state schools have a 4, and 5 percent acceptance rates. 3.25 years to go.

 

[CoffeeMug13]

let me be clear, it isnt randomness in how an adcom works, but rather the difficult situation when you have 300-500 highly qualified candidates who all would be acceptable for becoming physican and how you then prioritize the order accepting them for the 100 seats your school has.

Agreed, adcoms aren't throwing darts at a board, but the ultimate decision of this candidate over that candidate isn't scientific at a certain point. One adcom could go one way, the other another.

 

[mwsapphire]

True, but its how those last few very, very slight differences in both the virtues and the flaws and in the human variation in judging them is the largest "randomness" in the process, especially when you have several hundred highly qualified candidates with similar yet different backgrounds that you are comparing with the that somewhat fuzzy concept that doesnt fit into a simple checklist: who will make a good physician?

I'm honestly gonna puke....

 

[libertyyne]

Something that is missing from this discussion is what are you going to do? It's not like the applicant has any power to reduce any of the randomness that may be associated with the process that would be any different than crafting the best possible app , which the applicant should be doing anyway. There is no value to obsessing about any perceived randomness. The truth is that if you have the app and are able to be a human during the interview you will get an acceptance somewhere. And that's what we have been saying , if you have a good app and a good school list you will get in somewhere . Now you may think you deserve to get into Harvard but Harvard's adcoms may think differently and you end up at your state school. Nothing in life is certain, this process is not an exception.

 

[mwsapphire]

Something that is missing from this discussion is what are you going to do? It's not like the applicant has any power to reduce any of the randomness that may be associated with the process that would be any different than crafting the best possible app , which the applicant should be doing anyway. There is no value to obsessing about any perceived randomness. The truth is that if you have the app and are able to be a human during the interview you will get an acceptance somewhere. And that's what we have been saying , if you have a good app and a good school list you will get in somewhere . Now you may think you deserve to get into Harvard but Harvard's adcoms may think differently and you end up at your state school. Nothing in life is certain, this process is not an exception.

Well, that's the point, you're helpless. This was kind of implied to be the basis of this convo.

 

[efle]

It's not like the applicant has any power to reduce any of the randomness

Applying to a larger list maybe

 

[libertyyne]

Well, that's the point, you're helpless. This was kind of implied to be the basis of this convo.

Your also helpless against developing cancer or an aneurysm. I don't see people freaking out about that and the outcome is much worse.

 

[libertyyne]

Applying to a larger list maybe

I must confess I applied to an excessive amount of schools for this reason.

 

[prehealthadvisor55]

What kind of interview problems?
Having no manners, being like Sheldon Cooper basically?

Cockiness was the #1 killer at my former school.

 

[efle]

What kind of interview problems?
Having no manners, being like Sheldon Cooper basically?

Being such a nervous wreck that you can't communicate. Being arrogant or rude. Giving problematic answers to key questions (Why your school? US News ranks it high. Why medicine? Among the high paying professions I liked it best because...). Being generally weird/inappropriate (I can think of one person at one of my interviews that was just obnoxious, another guy wouldn't stop talking about league of legends). You get the idea

 

[WhittyPsyche]

Everyone I know who claim deal situation for having to reapply had horrible PS and secondary essays and went into it assuming they were getting in -Top 5 Top5- (In my Drake voice).

There is a certain quality humility adds to your writing, unfortunately, so does arrogance.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[mimelim]

I have yet to see an unexplainable application cycle. I can appreciate the splitting of hairs that @gonnif talks about, but that is why you apply to more than one school. Can one be mystified by why someone got into one school, but not another? Sure. But, the concept that the process is random or that someone didn't get in that "should have" is a little silly. The fundamental problem is that people (of which pre-meds are a sub-set of) are on average poor at introspection. This coupled with special snowflake syndrome, arrogance etc. can explain the vast majority of "unexplainable" situations. I have a decade worth of medical training/education more than the typical pre-med that I run into. I have a fair number of accolades and have been reasonably successful in what I have done, yet somehow my ego is still smaller than many of them. THAT is terrifying to me.

Well, that's the point, you're helpless. This was kind of implied to be the basis of this convo.

The basic formula of what medical schools look for is well documented. Certain tenants of that formula require work, some require sacrifice. The concept that you are "helpless" is asinine.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

I have yet to see an unexplainable application cycle. I can appreciate the splitting of hairs that @gonnif talks about, but that is why you apply to more than one school. Can one be mystified by why someone got into one school, but not another? Sure. But, the concept that the process is random or that someone didn't get in that "should have" is a little silly. The fundamental problem is that people (of which pre-meds are a sub-set of) are on average poor at introspection. This coupled with special snowflake syndrome, arrogance etc. can explain the vast majority of "unexplainable" situations. I have a decade worth of medical training/education more than the typical pre-med that I run into. I have a fair number of accolades and have been reasonably successful in what I have done, yet somehow my ego is still smaller than many of them. THAT is terrifying to me.



The basic formula of what medical schools look for is well documented. Certain tenants of that formula require work, some require sacrifice. The concept that you are "helpless" is asinine.

Can we just sticky this post alone? Seriously, why has "this process is completely random" become an anthem? It isn't. Not by a long shot.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

Disagree very strongly about the randomness being negligible. There are people every single year that get in but would have been a reapplicant with just one or two schools changed out for similar places on their list. It's extremely significant at the individual school level but still influences a lot at the groups/tiers.

Outcomes can be predictable, but that doesn't tell you anything about randomness. I can predict with very high accuracy whether four coin flips will all come up heads, but that doesn't mean it isn't random.

 

[libertyyne]

Disagree very strongly about the randomness being negligible. There are people every single year that get in but would have been a reapplicant with just one or two schools changed out for similar places on their list. It's extremely significant at the individual school level but still influences a lot at the groups/tiers.

Outcomes can be predictable, but that doesn't tell you anything about randomness. I can predict with very high accuracy whether four coin flips will all come up heads, but that doesn't mean it isn't random.

The flip side is the anecdotal reports that are heard about this are not assessed in any standard fashion. We do not know if the quality of their app, timing,school selection, essays , were appropriate. Nor do we know their interview performance or any unsavory parts of their application. It is the rejected applicant claiming to be a victim of the "randomness" of the process, hardly seems like a person capable of giving an unbiased assessment of their own application or interview.

If an applicant doesn't get any II the likelihood that they fell through the cracks at all the schools they applied to is very small and the likelihood that there is something off-putting or inadequate for adcoms on their app is much larger. And if you are getting multiple IIs and not converting , there is something going on in the interviewing.

 

[efle]

The flip side is the anecdotal reports that are heard about this are not assessed in any standard fashion. We do not know if the quality of their app, timing,school selection, essays , were appropriate. Nor do we know their interview performance or any unsavory parts of their application. It is the rejected applicant claiming to be a victim of the "randomness" of the process, hardly seems like a person capable of giving an unbiased assessment of their own application or interview.

If an applicant doesn't get any II the likelihood that they fell through the cracks at all the schools they applied to is very small and the likelihood that there is something off-putting or inadequate for adcoms on their app is much larger. And if you are getting multiple IIs and not converting , there is something going on in the interviewing.

Again small odds is not an argument against it being random though. In anecdotes I'm thinking about I know their app was quality - e.g. you don't end up at a top 20 on full ride merit otherwise. But had they changed out 2 of 20 schools they'd most likely be reapplying instead of getting a free ed. Riddle me that one.

It's all an issue of perspective and ability to explain away a bad outcome because it isn't purely random. Consider a poker play as an anecdote: you know your hand is moderately strong and you think it's good enough to best your opponent's based on how they've been betting. So you bet pretty big, they call, and it turns out you lose by the thinnest margin.

Easy to explain away - if you'd waited for a hand a little stronger, or the threshold on the other end you needed to surpass a little lower, or maybe even just if you'd approached the bet differently you could've had it. Yet the game and that moment did have a big element of chance.

I'm not arguing this process is that flawed, or that unpredictable overall. It usually is predictable. But it's usually predictable in spite of the randomness involved. For some more than others it is still felt very acutely though.

 

[libertyyne]

Again small odds is not an argument against it being random though. In anecdotes I'm thinking about I know their app was quality - e.g. you don't end up at a top 20 on full ride merit otherwise. But had they changed out 2 of 20 schools they'd most likely be reapplying instead of getting a free ed. Riddle me that one.

It's all an issue of perspective and ability to explain away a bad outcome because it isn't purely random. Consider a poker play as an anecdote: you know your hand is moderately strong and you think it's good enough to best your opponent's based on how they've been betting. So you bet pretty big, they call, and it turns out you lose by the thinnest margin.

Easy to explain away - if you'd waited for a hand a little stronger, or the threshold on the other end you needed to surpass a little lower, or maybe even just if you'd approached the bet differently you could've had it. Yet the game and that moment did have a big element of chance.

I'm not arguing this process is that flawed, or that unpredictable overall. It usually is predictable. But it's usually predictable in spite of the randomness involved. For some more than others it is still felt very acutely though.

We don't know if this person had switched 2 for different set of schools if the person would have been accepted to the new pair. The person ended up matriculating.

Plus asymmetrical information gives the impression of randomness , but doesn't necessarily mean it is random. You don't know the rubrics used by each school to assess the person's app and where the person fell on them prior to interview. Once again it may seem random and we may not understand it, yet there is a non random process behind the scenes.

The randomness that exists is in the interview stage and schools have been implementing MMIs to help reduce even that variable.
They sure as heck aren't pulling names out of hats.

 

[efle]

We don't know if this person had switched 2 for different set of schools if the person would have been accepted to the new pair. The person ended up matriculating.

That's why I said most likely. Seeing as they were ignored by the half dozen peers to their school they did go to, a swap out to a couple others would most likely not have gone well. Or if you prefer I can say if they had stopped at 18 and not added the last 2, they'd have been rejected everywhere.

Plus asymmetrical information gives the impression of randomness , but doesn't necessarily mean it is random. You don't know the rubrics used by each school to assess the person's app and where the person fell on them prior to interview. Once again it may seem random and we may not understand it, yet there is a non random process behind the scenes.

The randomness that exists is in the interview stage and schools have been implementing MMIs to help reduce even that variable.
They sure as heck aren't pulling names out of hats.

This is like arguing that because the next card in the deck is physically fixed, the process of guessing what it is is not actually random, just asymmetrical. It's semantics and obviously not what people mean when they talk about randomness in this process.

 

[Endoxifen]

I have a decade worth of medical training/education more than the typical pre-med that I run into. I have a fair number of accolades and have been reasonably successful in what I have done, yet somehow my ego is still smaller than many of them. THAT is terrifying to me.

I'm sorry that the luminous flame of my glory is to great for you to appreciate.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

I have a bigger horror story about a relative of mine, close as a sibling:

Wanted to do "pre-med" his whole life. Got to college. KILLED the classes, ended up as valedictorian. During organic chem he found his love to be synthetic chemistry and research, but of course, the parents were all "be a real doctor not a PhD." Score 99th percentile on his MCAT. Accepted to his top choice.

THEN the horror began.
Failed all of first year, his heart wasn't in medicine. Dragged his feet through the rest of med school, ended up poorly matching and barely finishing residency. At 32 years old he said "fu" to medicine and went back to his PhD.

Truly sad how sometimes people are forced into careers that aren't what they want. I'm happy that he's finally happy with his grad-student life, defending this may too

 

[mimelim]

Disagree very strongly about the randomness being negligible. There are people every single year that get in but would have been a reapplicant with just one or two schools changed out for similar places on their list. It's extremely significant at the individual school level but still influences a lot at the groups/tiers.

Outcomes can be predictable, but that doesn't tell you anything about randomness. I can predict with very high accuracy whether four coin flips will all come up heads, but that doesn't mean it isn't random.

That isn't randomness. That is the applicant being a more borderline applicant than they realize. They may have no idea that they were borderline. And more importantly, they don't know why they were borderline, but they were. People get very caught up in the numbers because it is the easiest thing for them to sink their teeth into, but the reality is that other parts of the application can play a significant role. Students are notoriously poor evaluaters of their own application and honestly, unless you have read a couple hundred (or thousands) of applications, I doubt that anyone is really able to discuss the relative weaknesses of an application. I've lost count of the number of letters of rec that I've been told were "strong" that are mediocre at best. Personal statements? Forget it. Everyone thinks that it their is strong, or at least good, mainly because they don't have types... Then there are the interviews. Lord have mercy...

In general, medical school admissions does a poor job of selecting for desirable physician qualities, it is very good at finding people who will survive the schooling/training because it selects for academic prowess over all else, but it isn't great at the other things. But, when I hear about or see an application of someone with reasonable/strong scores that didn't get into medical school, or going down further on their list than they were expecting, there has always been a good explanation. Maybe not on the surface, but as always, the devil is in the details.

 

[efle]

That isn't randomness. That is the applicant being a more borderline applicant than they realize. They may have no idea that they were borderline. And more importantly, they don't know why they were borderline, but they were. People get very caught up in the numbers because it is the easiest thing for them to sink their teeth into, but the reality is that other parts of the application can play a significant role. Students are notoriously poor evaluaters of their own application and honestly, unless you have read a couple hundred (or thousands) of applications, I doubt that anyone is really able to discuss the relative weaknesses of an application. I've lost count of the number of letters of rec that I've been told were "strong" that are mediocre at best. Personal statements? Forget it. Everyone thinks that it their is strong, or at least good, mainly because they don't have types... Then there are the interviews. Lord have mercy...

In general, medical school admissions does a poor job of selecting for desirable physician qualities, it is very good at finding people who will survive the schooling/training because it selects for academic prowess over all else, but it isn't great at the other things. But, when I hear about or see an application of someone with reasonable/strong scores that didn't get into medical school, or going down further on their list than they were expecting, there has always been a good explanation. Maybe not on the surface, but as always, the devil is in the details.

So what's your explanation for people that get into a top school, or even a fat merit package to a top school, and then don't have luck elsewhere? They clearly aren't borderline. Yet swapping out or skipping school or two on their list would have left them reapplying. My answer would be they just happened to get the right eyes on their app and the right interviewer across the table at that program.

 

[mimelim]

So what's your explanation for people that get into a top school, or even a fat merit package to a top school, and then don't have luck elsewhere? They clearly aren't borderline. Yet swapping out or skipping school or two on their list would have left them reapplying. My answer would be they just happened to get the right eyes on their app and the right interviewer across the table at that program.

This example doesn't run counter to anything I have said. Someone getting an acceptance to a single school, even a "top" school doesn't mean that they weren't borderline. This is a major problem with the obsession with rankings or "top schools" and the concept that if you get into a "top ranked" school, you deserve to get into lower ranked schools. Just because there was a single believer at one school, even at HMS, doesn't mean that everyone else should have taken you. It means that you got lucky that person saw your application.

Again, most applicants have no idea what the deficits are in their application. Heck, most advisers don't know and even on admissions committees, if they are volunteer/short term, they likely gloss over/miss things a lot. Which again, is why so many people at each school read each application and we apply to more than one school. Personally, I interviewed at every top 10 school I applied to, I had multiple top 5 acceptances. Yet, my application was for sure borderline. I sure as hell had gaping holes in my application and as an applicant beyond the obvious sub-par GPA. I had no idea those existed until many years later after a lot of introspection and frankly being involved in this process for years.

 

[mwsapphire]

I have yet to see an unexplainable application cycle. I can appreciate the splitting of hairs that @gonnif talks about, but that is why you apply to more than one school. Can one be mystified by why someone got into one school, but not another? Sure. But, the concept that the process is random or that someone didn't get in that "should have" is a little silly. The fundamental problem is that people (of which pre-meds are a sub-set of) are on average poor at introspection. This coupled with special snowflake syndrome, arrogance etc. can explain the vast majority of "unexplainable" situations. I have a decade worth of medical training/education more than the typical pre-med that I run into. I have a fair number of accolades and have been reasonably successful in what I have done, yet somehow my ego is still smaller than many of them. THAT is terrifying to me.



The basic formula of what medical schools look for is well documented. Certain tenants of that formula require work, some require sacrifice. The concept that you are "helpless" is asinine.

Well, if somebody isn't qualified , doesn't that make them helpless?

 

[efle]

This example doesn't run counter to anything I have said. Someone getting an acceptance to a single school, even a "top" school doesn't mean that they weren't borderline. This is a major problem with the obsession with rankings or "top schools" and the concept that if you get into a "top ranked" school, you deserve to get into lower ranked schools. Just because there was a single believer at one school, even at HMS, doesn't mean that everyone else should have taken you. It means that you got lucky that person saw your application.

Again, most applicants have no idea what the deficits are in their application. Heck, most advisers don't know and even on admissions committees, if they are volunteer/short term, they likely gloss over/miss things a lot. Which again, is why so many people at each school read each application and we apply to more than one school. Personally, I interviewed at every top 10 school I applied to, I had multiple top 5 acceptances. Yet, my application was for sure borderline. I sure as hell had gaping holes in my application and as an applicant beyond the obvious sub-par GPA. I had no idea those existed until many years later after a lot of introspection and frankly being involved in this process for years.

It runs contrary to things you've said in the past about it being rather clear cut (to you) who is and isn't going to get in at the top. But if we're operating with the idea that an HMS admit might not be very good/qualified medical school candidate, I've got nothing.

 

[efle]

Also what insanely dope ECs did you have with a 3.4 GPA that you didn't get passed over by a single top 10 ??