How are admission decisions made?

[SciClin]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I’m especially curious to hear if MD/PhD program procedures differ from MD programs’, given how the volume of applications are drastically different. Would like to hear insights especially from program directors.

- How are applicants evaluated? Numerically? (Factoring in everything, not just GPA/MCAT)
- Who determines who receives interviews?
- How many people vote whether or not an interviewed candidate is ultimately accepted?
- Generally, what goes into the decision making process before/after an applicant is interviewed?
- Who votes on acceptance offers?
- Do program directors’ decisions ever get outvoted?

 

[Lucca]

It varies by school to my knowledge, beyond that an adcom would have to clarify how their school, specifically, does things.

That said, for MD/PhD programs the most important element of your app is your research experience, productivity and faculty LORs. Research is not nearly as important for MD-only admissions. Interviews will also be far more focused on research. At several programs you may have to present your research to the full MSTP committee as a part of the interview.

I don’t have the chart, but there used to be an AAMC document that showed the most important factors which weighed in admissions decisions pre and post interview. Pre interview it was basically MCAT/GPA > Clinical ECs > LORs > nonClinical ECs > everything else. Post interview it was Interview feedback > LORs > ECs > MCAT/GPA > everything else. Of course, this document showed weighted averages but the value of each component could vary from school to school somewhat. It is known, for example, that name-brand private medical schools will care much more about the selectivity of your UG institution compared to any public medical school which will care very little.

 

[MyOdyssey]

It varies by school to my knowledge, beyond that an adcom would have to clarify how their school, specifically, does things.

That said, for MD/PhD programs the most important element of your app is your research experience, productivity and faculty LORs. Research is not nearly as important for MD-only admissions. Interviews will also be far more focused on research. At several programs you may have to present your research to the full MSTP committee as a part of the interview.

I don’t have the chart, but there used to be an AAMC document that showed the most important factors which weighed in admissions decisions pre and post interview. Pre interview it was basically MCAT/GPA > Clinical ECs > LORs > nonClinical ECs > everything else. Post interview it was Interview feedback > LORs > ECs > MCAT/GPA > everything else. Of course, this document showed weighted averages but the value of each component could vary from school to school somewhat. It is known, for example, that name-brand private medical schools will care much more about the selectivity of your UG institution compared to any public medical school which will care very little.

I assume this hierarchy applies to the MD-only selection process.

How do schools evaluate the quality of an applicant's clinical ECs? What would be considered outstanding in terms of clinical ECs?

 

[Lucca]

I assume this hierarchy applies to the MD-only selection process.

How do schools evaluate the quality of an applicant's clinical ECs? What would be considered outstanding in terms of clinical ECs?

Yes thanks for pointing that out that document pertains to MD only. If I had to guess what it would look like for MSTP it would be similar but replace clinical ECs with research.

For MD/PhD PDs have always stated that you need enough clinical XP to convince the medical school that you want to be a physician and to spend the rest of your time in the lab. So for MD/PhD applicants the bar is certainly lower in this regard. I don’t like giving numbers but if I had to, I’ve seen 50 hrs shadowing and 50 more hours pt facing clinical XP as being “enough” for MD/PhD. I didn’t have too much more than that, for example, (80 shadow, ~100 pt facing clinical volunteering) and I did just fine.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Yes thanks for pointing that out that document pertains to MD only. If I had to guess what it would look like for MSTP it would be similar but replace clinical ECs with research.

For MD/PhD PDs have always stated that you need enough clinical XP to convince the medical school that you want to be a physician and to spend the rest of your time in the lab. So for MD/PhD applicants the bar is certainly lower in this regard. I don’t like giving numbers but if I had to, I’ve seen 50 hrs shadowing and 50 more hours pt facing clinical XP as being “enough” for MD/PhD. I didn’t have too much more than that, for example, (80 shadow, ~100 pt facing clinical volunteering) and I did just fine.

Thanks. Helpful as always.

Are clinical ECs are primarily evaluated in terms of hours spent?

What are adequate/excellent clinical numbers for a straight MD applicant?

I'm a bit torn right now about which track to apply to.

 

[SciClin]

Not to derail the insightful ongoing conversation, though I was originally more curious as to “how” decisions are made. As in, what are the logistics of it all, rather than what are the general criteria used to evaluate applicants.

As Lucca mentioned, it does vary from program to program, but I’m sure there is some commonality between programs.

 

[rtn1]

Very generally, your app is first screened by a few people (ranging from people on the committee to directors) who decide whether to interview you or not. Once you do your interview your interviewers evaluate you and submit them to the committee. Then there’s committee meetings (directors + other people high up in the med school like professors). Sometimes your interviewers are invited to these too. The frequency ranges, sometimes committes meet right after each interivew day, sometimes they only meet once after all interivews are over. People pretty much discuss you and your merits, the people who met you can vouch for (or against) you. People will say stuff like “well X published 2 papers in undergrad which is really promising” and someone else will counter with something like “but X only got a 513 on the MCAT so he might not be as academically prepared as we want and lowering our MCAT avg will hurt our NIH T32 application”. Then there’s a vote, some schools have committee members assign scores like an NIH study section. Then depending on your scores/votes you get in/rejected/waitlisted.

 

[MSTPadvocate]

Thanks. Helpful as always.

Are clinical ECs are primarily evaluated in terms of hours spent?

What are adequate/excellent clinical numbers for a straight MD applicant?

I'm a bit torn right now about which track to apply to.

if you are torn on which program to apply to, apply MD only. You can internally transfer to MSTP in many programs after a year or two when your goals and interests become crystallized.

 

[EvoMed]

People will say stuff like “well X published 2 papers in undergrad which is really promising” and someone else will counter with something like “but X only got a 513 on the MCAT so he might not be as academically prepared as we want and lowering our MCAT avg will hurt our NIH T32 application”.

Hey, student X here, just wanted to take this opportunity to state my case and let yall know I'm a deeply dedicated, resilient, and resourceful researcher. I know stronger stats would have made this decision simpler for you but I can promise that I will be a resource and return value to your program 😉