how are re-applicants considered by ADCOM?

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

---

Members don't see this ad.

just curious how re-applicants are pushed further down the priority to be reviewed just because? how do ADCOM view them? and also if there is a difference between how they are approached if ... rejected last cycle, withdrawn last cycle or interviewed waitlisted then rejected?

 

[Goro]

This will vary from school to school.

I've seen tons of SDN posts from people who got in on thier second try after applying late in cycle 1, and then early in cycle 2.

in general, we look for people who have fixed the deficits in their apps.

When we interview applicants, we also often ask "how have you improved since the last cycle?"

I believe the wise @gyngyn has mentioned that his school looks unfavorably towards reapplicants. Just remember that's just one of the 170ish medical schools in the USA.

 

[gyngyn]

This will vary from school to school.

I've seen tons of SDN posts from people who got in on thier second try after applying late in cycle 1, and then early in cycle 2.

in general, we look for people who have fixed the deficits in their apps.

When we interview applicants, we also often ask "how have you improved since the last cycle?"

I believe the wise @gyngyn has mentioned that his school looks unfavorably towards reapplicants. Just remember that's just one of the 170ish medical schools in the USA.

We tend to see rather high achieving re-applicants.
When someone has failed to be admitted with what appears to have been an exemplary application, there can only be so many explanations...

 

[Unlimited Apps]

We tend to see rather high achieving re-applicants.
When someone has failed to be admitted with what appears to have been an exemplary application, there can only be so many explanations...

But isn't there a group of high-achieving applicants every year that slip through the cracks? I can think of several anecdotes where students are top 20 caliber, interview at multiple such schools, and end up being waitlisted at majority/all. And in the end many of them unfortunately finish the cycle stuck on several waitlists with no luck and have to re-apply.

Obviously interview skills could be a reason for the above but one doesn't have to bomb an interview to get rejected or waitlisted. Especially when these top schools have 20-40% post-interview acceptance rates, it is very reasonable for a decent number of great applicants to just end up on a couple of waitlists, have no luck with lower stat schools (for whatever reason), and then end up being unlucky and not selected by anyone.

 

[Goro]

But isn't there a group of high-achieving applicants every year that slip through the cracks? I can think of several anecdotes where students are top 20 caliber, interview at multiple such schools, and end up being waitlisted at majority/all. And in the end many of them unfortunately finish the cycle stuck on several waitlists with no luck and have to re-apply.

Obviously interview skills could be a reason for the above but one doesn't have to bomb an interview to get rejected or waitlisted. Especially when these top schools have 20-40% post-interview acceptance rates, it is very reasonable for a decent number of great applicants to just end up on a couple of waitlists, have no luck with lower stat schools (for whatever reason), and then end up being unlucky and not selected by anyone.

As gonnif has pointed out, it's an Olympic class event.

We tend to see rather high achieving re-applicants.
When someone has failed to be admitted with what appears to have been an exemplary application, there can only be so many explanations...

Is your school more forgiving of people who simply apply late?

 

[gyngyn]

Is your school more forgiving of people who simply apply late?

For the second application?
When I check on the actual timing of these "late" applications, they are usually not late at all (especially given the quality of the application).

 

[gyngyn]

But isn't there a group of high-achieving applicants every year that slip through the cracks? I can think of several anecdotes where students are top 20 caliber, interview at multiple such schools, and end up being waitlisted at majority/all. And in the end many of them unfortunately finish the cycle stuck on several waitlists with no luck and have to re-apply.

Obviously interview skills could be a reason for the above but one doesn't have to bomb an interview to get rejected or waitlisted. Especially when these top schools have 20-40% post-interview acceptance rates, it is very reasonable for a decent number of great applicants to just end up on a couple of waitlists, have no luck with lower stat schools (for whatever reason), and then end up being unlucky and not selected by anyone.

You are correct.
We presume that a strong application will result in an acceptance at their state public school or at a fine private school.
The pool of applicants that does not matriculate with an otherwise stellar application tends to be different compared to a similar group that did.

 

[Goro]

For the second application?
When I check on the actual timing of these "late" applications, they are usually not late at all (especially given the quality of the application).

Interesting!

 

[Goro]

You are correct.
We presume that a strong application will result in an acceptance at their state public school or at a fine private school.
The pool of applicants that does not matriculate with an otherwise stellar application tends to be different than a similar group that did.

Spandex ice skating suits at interviews notwithstanding!

 

[gyngyn]

Spandex ice skating suits at interviews notwithstanding!

She matriculated!...elsewhere.

 

[Goro]

She matriculated!...elsewhere.

Normal dress at that school, I suppose.

 

[LizzyM]

So, when I see a reapplicant, I ask "why?". Self-reflection is very important and the applicant should be able to give a few reasons for the lack of success in the previous cycle, and be able to describe what the applicant has done since the previous application cycle to correct any deficiencies or missteps. An applicant who is lucky will get to talk about that in an interview with me or another interviewer at my school. The explanation (self-reflection) and the action taken since the last application will push the applicant up or push them out of the running for a seat in the next class.

 

[Dilemma33]

So, when I see a reapplicant, I ask "why?". Self-reflection is very important and the applicant should be able to give a few reasons for the lack of success in the previous cycle, and be able to describe what the applicant has done since the previous application cycle to correct any deficiencies or missteps. An applicant who is lucky will get to talk about that in an interview with me or another interviewer at my school. The explanation (self-reflection) and the action taken since the last application will push the applicant up or push them out of the running for a seat in the next class.

If a reapplicant to your school, who got waitlisted after the interview but didn't make it to the class, "thinks" that the lack of success in the previous cycle was the interview, how would you like him/her to show self-reflection if they were re-interviewed in the next cycle? How would you want them to show that they took the right steps to improve any deficiencies?

I'm asking this because back in June, I called a few schools that eventually rejected me after I was put on a waitlist, and they told me that my application was fairly strong, but I was simply beaten by the competition against other strong applicants. They didn't specifically advise me on what I needed to do because they thought I was a strong applicant, but it seemed like they wanted to keep things confidential to avoid friction. If this is the case, I would like to assume that my interview wasn't as strong enough to seal the deal, but I could be wrong.

If I were fortunate enough to be re-interviewed this cycle from the same schools and the interviewer asked me, "why I think I got rejected," how should I answer this question without sounding like I lack self-reflection and self-awareness?

 

[DameJulie]

thought I was a strong applicant, but it seemed like they wanted to keep things confidential to avoid friction. If this is the case, I would like to assume that my interview wasn't as strong enough to seal the deal, but I could be wrong.

There's always room to improve for a re-applicant. Have you discussed with your pre-health advisers? As someone who's going through that self-reflection now I must say it takes a lot of courage/critical thinking to come up with a good answer to why I got rejected/how I improved/why I would apply again.

 

[Dilemma33]

Being on a waitlist means you have been accepted by the adcom but lower priority for a seat. So you may want to enhance your application just move up in priority. This is why I reiterate to all applicants, that from that the moment they submit AMCAS, must assume rejection and therefore immediately continue to enhance your application from the start

Thank you for the response. Hmm... This is a different question, but how likely is it that the waitlisted reapplicants are re-interviewed in the next cycle? I'm aware that every school's policy is different, and the reason behind their decision heavily depends on it too, but in general, would the ADCOMs usually view them differently than the traditional first-time applicants? This is probably a dumb question and I know it's totally out of my hand, but any insight would be very helpful. Thank you again.

 

[gyngyn]

Thank you for the response. Hmm... This is a different question, but how likely is it that the waitlisted reapplicants are re-interviewed in the next cycle? I'm aware that every school's policy is different, and the reason behind their decision heavily depends on it too, but in general, would the ADCOMs usually view them differently than the traditional first-time applicants? This is probably a dumb question and I know it's totally out of my hand, but any insight would be very helpful. Thank you again.

One of the reasons to avoid an immediate re-application is that so little can have been remediated within mere months of an interview.
Some schools waitlist everyone after interview...

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

so i am assuming that reapplicants get put on a lower priority then. last cycle i was instructed I needed to apply earlier ... at the time i didn't know about the timeline for applying and didn't even submit my primary in until late September with some secondaries completed in November. but a few schools i had to withdraw because i could not complete the biochemistry requirement and would be unable to take the class before matriculation due to military obligations. would i still be considered a re-applicant under those situations where i withdrawer? i have some success this year and already have one II from a school that rejected me last year but curious how withdrawing looks

 

[mariposas905]

For the second application?
When I check on the actual timing of these "late" applications, they are usually not late at all (especially given the quality of the application).

Can you please elaborate what you mean by this?

 

[mariposas905]

so i am assuming that reapplicants get put on a lower priority then. last cycle i was instructed I needed to apply earlier ... at the time i didn't know about the timeline for applying and didn't even submit my primary in until late September with some secondaries completed in November. but a few schools i had to withdraw because i could not complete the biochemistry requirement and would be unable to take the class before matriculation due to military obligations. would i still be considered a re-applicant under those situations where i withdrawer? i have some success this year and already have one II from a school that rejected me last year but curious how withdrawing looks

Did you get any IIs?

 

[Catalystik]

1) so i am assuming that reapplicants get put on a lower priority then.

2) a few schools i had to withdraw because i could not complete the biochemistry requirement and would be unable to take the class before matriculation due to military obligations. would i still be considered a re-applicant under those situations where i withdrawer?

1) Not necessarily. You can't make a generalization across all schools.

2) You are still a reapplicant, as you withdrew after your transcripts were verified, for those schools.

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

Did you get any IIs?

yes i got a II so far from Tulane which rejected me last year

 

[mariposas905]

yes i got a II so far from Tulane which rejected me last year

I meant last year did you get any IIs?

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

I meant last year did you get any IIs?

only one II which i got waitlist and looking back I was extremely lucky to get that.

 

[mariposas905]

only one II which i got waitlist and looking back I was extremely lucky to get that.

Ah okay, would you be willing to share which school it was? and when u were complete/IIed? Was it also a school you were complete at in November?

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

pm you

 

[ovege]

pm you

Please Pm me the school name please?

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

Please Pm me the school name please?

it won't let me

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

just a fair warning my experience with II last cycle won't reflect a typical applicant who applied after labor day. i am a re-inventor with a cGPA of 3.05 and a LM of 62.5.

 

[gyngyn]

Can you please elaborate what you mean by this?

The most common reason given for being a re-applicant is "late submission."
Although this might have had an influence on the greater pool of applicants, it had no influence on the re-applicants to our school.
It is interesting that almost half of those who listed a late application as a significant contributor to their outcome submitted at the same time or later than the first submission!

 

[wysdoc]

The most common reason given for being a re-applicant is "late submission."
Although this might have had an influence on the greater pool of applicants, it had no influence on the re-applicants to our school.
It is interesting that almost half of those who listed a late application as a significant contributor to their outcome submitted at the same time or later than the first submission!

Meaning they are still suffering from procrastination

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

haha that's hilarious. well i submitted mid oct-late nov last year and this year early july to mid august this year. i am fine making a mistake, but if i make the same one twice ...