How can applicants have different results from very similar schools?

[Gaian]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been led to believe that medical schools are largely similar to each other and they select for mostly the same characteristics in their applicants. Apart from some schools with specific missions (HBCs, service focused schools, etc.), they all look for the same sorts of experiences and results from their applicants.

Some schools don't even have significantly different median statistics, different locations, or different secondary applications. Take NYU and Weill Cornell: both private, research focused schools with similar median statistics, located a couple dozen or so blocks from each other in NYC. Their secondaries aren't even that different from each other. A hypothetical applicant could send the same primary and LORs, and similar secondary responses to both schools. In that case, what would cause an applicant to get an interview invite from one school and not the other?

Is it just luck? Or are there significant differences in criteria between these medical schools that you would have to address in your application in order to get an interview?

 

[efle]

Luck is a big part. I know a lot of people who got a full ride recruitment offers from private research oriented schools, and denied interviews from schools ranked right next to them. For example, full ride to Northwestern yet denied interview at Cornell. A lot of the time it's just a matter of the initial screener who gets your app liking your narrative and your interviewer clicking with you on interview day.

 

[Goro]

I've been led to believe that medical schools are largely similar to each other and they select for mostly the same characteristics in their applicants. Apart from some schools with specific missions (HBCs, service focused schools, etc.), they all look for the same sorts of experiences and results from their applicants.

Some schools don't even have significantly different median statistics, different locations, or different secondary applications. Take NYU and Weill Cornell: both private, research focused schools with similar median statistics, located a couple dozen or so blocks from each other in NYC. Their secondaries aren't even that different from each other. A hypothetical applicant could send the same primary and LORs, and similar secondary responses to both schools. In that case, what would cause an applicant to get an interview invite from one school and not the other?

Is it just luck? Or are there significant differences in criteria between these medical schools that you would have to address in your application in order to get an interview?

For the same reason a world class tennis player may win the French Open, but come on fifth at Wimbledon

 

[Gaian]

For the same reason a world class tennis player may win the French Open, but come on fifth at Wimbledon

I think I see your point, but this analogy falls apart when it comes to getting an interview invite, right? I can totally see why variable performance at interviews can lead to different results, because you can perform worse at one interview than the other, just like it's possible to play worse at Wimbledon than at the French Open. However, for an interview invite, you're being judged on the same pieces of information, ostensibly by the same set of criteria, and against very similar competition. I guess it just comes down to the luck of the draw.

I had this same question when I was applying to undergrad colleges, and the answer I was given was that colleges will try to fill certain roles in their school that they feel are important based on who graduated i.e. "Our Jazz band's trombonist graduated, let's look for another trombonist in this class". I don't even know if this is really true for undergrad admissions, but does anything analogous to this occur in medical school admissions?

 

[efle]

I think I see your point, but this analogy falls apart when it comes to getting an interview invite, right? I can totally see why variable performance at interviews can lead to different results, because you can perform worse at one interview than the other, just like it's possible to play worse at Wimbledon than at the French Open. However, for an interview invite, you're being judged on the same pieces of information, ostensibly by the same set of criteria, and against very similar competition. I guess it just comes down to the luck of the draw.

The people judging you at the interview invite stage are going to have completely different ideas of what's impressive. Sometimes you just get lucky with a narrative that clicks, and then kill it at interview day with another person who likes your angle. I know one person who had a unique narrative, and is currently at a top 10 program, that was his only interview invite.

 

[Goro]

I think I see your point, but this analogy falls apart when it comes to getting an interview invite, right? I can totally see why variable performance at interviews can lead to different results, because you can perform worse at one interview than the other, just like it's possible to play worse at Wimbledon than at the French Open. However, for an interview invite, you're being judged on the same pieces of information, ostensibly by the same set of criteria, and against very similar competition. I guess it just comes down to the luck of the draw.

School's missions differ
School's requirements differ (CASPER? Sociology? Biochem?)
Secondaries differ
Screeners differ
YOU differ (try writing 30 secondaries and tell me if your first is the same as the last)
UG schools differ. Colleges are feeders to med schools and their grads are aknow product to Admissions deans.
Your competition differs Not everybody will be applying to Harvard, for example, although many of the same people will. But people who want to stay on the east coast will target those schools, and ignore Stanford, Keck, and UCSF.

To quote the wise gonnif: In sum, this is an Olympic class event where most who enter do not win. The simple fact is even a good applicant can lose simply by the level of competition

 

[mega_]

I went through last cycle and I want to believe that everyone is a little unique snowflake. Both an applicant and an adcom.

 

[Lucca]

Like I’ve said elsewhere, it’s pretty straightforward to predict which applicants are a slam dunk, but there’s too much competition and too many unpredictable elements to predict cycles at the level of individual schools. I do believe luck has a lot to do with it.

For example, three of my friends last cycle got into 1 mid tier school and one top 10 school each in spite of applying broadly. Why not more mid tiers? More top schools? Who knows!