How Classes Are Decided?

[russellang]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have been on here for a while now and one thing becomes clear to me: vet schools look at the entire application and there is no definitive credentials an applicant must have to get in. Based on the successful applicant thread, strong areas that some applicants have can outweigh weaker areas in their application. I have seen students get into schools with much lower gpa's then the stated average statistics for successful applicants from the school state.

In addition, I have seen students get in with lower credentials who did very well on their interviews and/or have unique experiences that make them stand out. I have also come across schools who will state "25% of the decision is GPA, 25 % is experience etc..." and then see people still get in as I said with low gpa compared to the average. Am I just looking at this wrong? At the end of the day, do schools follow any sort of guidelines other then their stated minimum gpa scores etc? It just seems like the admissions process is maybe not random but pretty much there is alot of factors at play.

When picking out schools should I believe them when they give explicit weights that they calculate (again, if they say 25% of their decision is GPA/GRE, 25% is experience etc)? Im just thinking if you have two similar applicants with one having a higher percentage score out of 25% for example from the academic review but one has unique experiences that they will abandon their percentage calculations and possibly pick the latter. I am not saying I am a weak applicant, but I am a bit confused as to what to believe when I research a school, especially when the school explicitly states how much each area is worth in admissions decisions.

Thank you

 

[tuckervet]

First, I'd like to say that you did a great job summarizing the fact that there is no way to look at someone's stats and say definitively whether they'd be accepted or not...there are absolutely a lot of factors involved. From my experience, it seems like different schools (and probably also different adcoms in the same school) give different weight to different factors.
I'd believe a school if they say they give more weight to GPA than experience, for example, and I would use those guidelines when deciding where to apply. But I also think there is flexibility...a school that weighs GPA more significantly might read an application where the personal statement, or ELORS, or something in the experience just really makes that person stand out enough that they'd make an exception and decide to interview the person despite having an unusually low GPA for that school.

 

[StartingoverVet]

There are only a couple of schools that rely on a truly "mathematical formula"admissions process.

In general, when a school says they weight something 25%, they don't necessarily mean that there is a quantitative number assigned for each area. It is just for you to understand what factors are more or less important. So if academics are weighted 50% and extracurriculars are 5%, guess which one is more important.

So, yes, strength in one area usually can balance out relative weakness in another.

But a hole in an application becomes much harder to overcome (i.e. no experience, horrible academics, etc).

In conclusion, you seem to have a good handle on it.

 

[Whyevernot55]

Personally, my favorite explanation is that there are monkeys throwing darts at all the applications pinned up on a board in the back room.


Really, there is no way to predict what your chances are at each school for certain. You also have to remember that part of it depends on the rest of the applicant pool that year - how strong or weak they are, and how that affects the adcoms' view of your application relative to the rest of the pool.

 

[moosenanny]

I have seen students get into schools with much lower gpa's then the stated average statistics for successful applicants from the school state . . . and then see people still get in as I said with low gpa compared to the average. Am I just looking at this wrong?

I think you are missing the point of what the word "average" means. If a school's average GPA of accepted students is a 3.5, that doesn't mean most accepted students need to have a GPA that hovers right around a 3.5. There are many GPA's that go into calculating that average. Plenty of accepted people will have 4.0's, and those will counter-balance people who get accepted with 3.0's or lower. Of course an average gives you a ballpark estimation to see where you stand, but beyond that they don't relay anything definitive.

 

[Dye It Purple]

Hey russellang! Two points I want to directly address from your comment here.
1) You mention, as a for instance, that students had really good interviews and this may have offset other elements in their application. Keep in mind this is most likely the opinion of that student. You can't be sure in all cases that the feelings of the admissions committee were the same.
2) You also talk about how schools designate percentages/weight to certain elements of the application. Here you must realize they are JUST percentages. You are absolutely right that other application elements might be able to outweigh them, because they are only a part of the total information those schools are evaluating. The schools aren't being dishonest or anything. It's just that those factors aren't everything.

I think you have to be careful when you're analyzing those statistics on the admitted students thread, because you never can really know what the major deciding factor(s) was/were in the end. This makes it very difficult to conduct a reliable analysis of those student stats as someone on the outside.There may be things the applicants themselves failed to include in their posts that may have seemed minor to them, but very important to the adcoms. I think what I'm trying to say is, the only real accurate information you have to go off of is the information on the school's website. Focus on the schools you are most interested in and try to satifsy their expectations. This includes not only the big, clearly stated stuff like GPA and GRE scores, but the smaller things such as recommended coursework and diversity of experience. They wouldn't list it if they didn't care and yet many fail to even pay attention to this type of information. Also, make yourself familiar with the school's philosophies and see how they match with your own life experiences. Try to fit yourself into the mold those schools are presenting. Fine print, my friend. Fine print. It's everywhere and it matters. That's all I got. Best of luck!

 

[Minnerbelle]

I think you have to be careful when you're analyzing those statistics on the admitted students thread, because you never can really know what the major deciding factor(s) was/were in the end.

👍 very true.

 

[LetItSnow]

I have seen students get into schools with much lower gpa's then the stated average statistics for successful applicants from the school state.

Also true, but remember, that's what makes an average an average.

In addition, I have seen students get in with lower credentials who did very well on their interviews and/or have unique experiences that make them stand out.

I think very, very few students have a reliably accurate estimate of how well they did on their interview. They may think they did well, or poorly, but they rarely actually KNOW. I was absolutely certain I completely botched mine; I happen to know otherwise because I met with one of the interviewers a few months after I got accepted and she gave me interview feedback. In general, though, when someone says they did well (or poorly!) on their interview, I think you should take it with a grain of salt.

I am not saying I am a weak applicant, but I am a bit confused as to what to believe when I research a school, especially when the school explicitly states how much each area is worth in admissions decisions.

I think the value in knowing how much an area is worth for you is this: If you have (a) the luxury of being able to go anywhere (i.e. you're not really tied to your IS school or any other particular school), and (b) weaknesses in your overall application, then you can use that information to narrow your list of schools to which you want to apply. If your GPA is weak, don't apply at a place that weighs academics very heavily! If your experiences are weak, look for a school that values academics more. Etc. If you believe that you are a strong candidate overall without any specific weaknesses, then I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about how the schools specifically evaluate candidates.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

It's really, really hard to gauge what the adcoms thought of your interview.

I thought mine were both horrible. The first was downright bizarre, and while the interviewers seemed amused by the quirky experiences I was discussing, I was certain I'd flubbed it big time. I'd planned out all the standard self-glorifying topics I was going to bring up, and they asked all the wrong questions... (my answers to which were decidedly not self-glorifying).

During the second, I managed to forget all the relevant terminology associated with the research project I'd worked on... and proceeded to drop all the stuff I was carrying on one of the interviewers. (Oops.) FAIL.

Both schools waitlisted me... one offered me a spot a couple of months later.

Because my GPA was less-than-stellar, there's no way I could have gotten into the first school if the interview had been a total bust. At the second, in order to make it into waitlist (or acceptance) territory, you have to receive the "👍" from both interviewers... so all things considered, they couldn't have been totally appalled or my application never would've made it to the dean's desk.

 

[Mohorsegirl]

They follow the rules of eenie- meanie- minie- moe


But really, it's all relative, depending on the applicant pool that year.

 

[LetItSnow]

They follow the rules of eenie- meanie- minie- moe

The only real difference is whether they use the addendum "My mother told me to pick the very best one and you are it"?

 

[Breezyte]

Except for the cut and dried "we don't let anyone who gets below a (insert score here)", I don't think you can do much more than research values. I noticed that K state let in a bigger proportion of OOS so I applied there, for instance.

My boyfriend's father told me once that anyone can get into any professional school with the right factors, and get straight out denied with the wrong ones. I kinda agree, which made me feel both better and worse when applying 🙂

 

[lostbunny]

I have been on here for a while now and one thing becomes clear to me: vet schools look at the entire application and there is no definitive credentials an applicant must have to get in.

Alot has been covered, but I just wanted to throw something out there in regards to your first statement.

I've done quite alot of research on OVC, and their admissions policy is quite straight forward. (this may have changed in the last few years but my last application cycle was 2009).

Basically, they take the top 200 students for interviews completely based on marks and marks only. This is generated by a combination of your pre recs, you last 2 semesters (or years I don't quite remember) and your MCAT. Its something like 60:20:20. If you have the wrong pre-recs or you don't make the top 200 cut then you're out in the first round, and nothing else in your application is considered.

Then, the next round is the interviews. This is where it can get really subjective in a way because it depends on a lot of factors, as you say. So assuming you are a sociable person, with good communication skills and you come off well to the interviewers, then you will get few 'red flags' and will be submitted for further review.

The final round is when they look at your experience and reference letters, and really scrutinize your suitability for the program. These people have no access to your grades, and can only either admit or reject you based on what they have in their hands (your reference letters and background info, and how you did in the interview).

With International schools they tend to look at the overall application, however there are still mark cut offs. For example, U Melbourne recommends a B+ average is competitive, and U Sydney requires an average of at least 2.8. Both of these schools require pre-requisites and Sydney expects you to have experience in the field. At Murdoch, your application is first reviewed by the international office to make sure you meet the minimum requirements, and is then sent off to the faculty for further review.

So these are just some examples that YES there are definitive credentials you need to have in order to be a competitive or successful applicant.

Your best bet is to find schools that fit you best, since they are all different there may be one that you aren't eligible for application, but another where you will be very competitive. Choose wisely, do your research and don't just send your application to every school. If you're unsure about something on the website then call the school and ask them. They will have the most up to date answer you will be able to find.

 

[sunnyshine]

While it is important to understand the factors that lead to a school's acceptance/denial of applicants, I feel that you may be over analyzing the whole process. As long you meet the minimum qualifications for admission (pre-reqs, stated GPA cutoffs, etc.) I would just apply to any and all the schools that you are interested in and let the adcoms worry about the rest. In the end no one on SDN is going to be able to tell you what these schools are specifically looking for and to be honest I think alot of it has to do with just random chance, ex: your file was reviewed by a member of the adcom who is, for whatever reason, in a particularly bad or particularly peachy mood. Just work hard to keep pumping up your app, apply where your interested, and hope for the best. Afterall, in the end that's pretty much all you or anyone else can do.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

In the end no one on SDN is going to be able to tell you what these schools are specifically looking for and to be honest I think alot of it has to do with just random chance, ex: your file was reviewed by a member of the adcom who is, for whatever reason, in a particularly bad or particularly peachy mood.

This was actually mentioned in a couple of books I purchased about applying to medical programs. Since so much of the evaluation process is subjective, there's a certain amount of dumb luck involved. Based on their own personal experiences, different committee members are going to be impressed by (or more forgiving of) different things. One reviewer may love an applicant the person sitting next to her wouldn't have given a second thought.

This is the stuff that you can't prepare for. At the end of the day, you kind of have to put together the best application you possibly can, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.

 

[racccjlm]

Since so much of the evaluation process is subjective, there's a certain amount of dumb luck involved. Based on their own personal experiences, different committee members are going to be impressed by (or more forgiving of) different things. One reviewer may love an applicant the person sitting next to her wouldn't have given a second thought.

Exactly! I hit it off with the K-State interviewers because of research on African American history and love of Gershwin. One interviewer was an amateur historian, another was a pianist. I lucked out. Try to reveal as many facets of yourself as you can. You never know what will "strike a chord" with your interview committee.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Exactly! I hit it off with the K-State interviewers because of research on African American history and love of Gershwin. One interviewer was an amateur historian, another was a pianist. I lucked out. Try to reveal as many facets of yourself as you can. You never know what will "strike a chord" with your interview committee.

So true! I bonded with one of mine (who initially seemed to be a harder sell) over martial arts and ceramics.

 

[LetItSnow]

So true! I bonded with one of mine (who initially seemed to be a harder sell) over martial arts and ceramics.

What a perfect combo. You can spin a pot and then break it with your forehead!

 

[Minnerbelle]

At the end of the day, you kind of have to put together the best application you possibly can, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.

And apply broadly (but smartly)! If you have a decent application package, you're pretty much entering a lottery. The more tix you have, the higher the chance. But for vet school, you just have to win one and the amount doesn't matter. So don't go just for the megamillions (OOS for Georgia, Florida, Davis, etc...) and buy a scratch instead. Or even better, your local school fundraiser raffle (your IS).

 

[lareinesoleil]

This was actually mentioned in a couple of books I purchased about applying to medical programs. Since so much of the evaluation process is subjective, there's a certain amount of dumb luck involved. Based on their own personal experiences, different committee members are going to be impressed by (or more forgiving of) different things. One reviewer may love an applicant the person sitting next to her wouldn't have given a second thought.

This is the stuff that you can't prepare for. At the end of the day, you kind of have to put together the best application you possibly can, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.

This is so true. I spent like half my time talking about dog agility and my experiences in France. Then I had a lucky hit when they asked me what my favorite science classes were and I (truthfully) responded Genetics and O-Chem...turns out one of my interviewers was an O-Chem guy. They want to know interesting things about you...because once we get to the interview process, don't we all have good grades and a fair number of experience hours? This kind of thing can help you stand out.

 

[primatevetjess]

This is so true. I spent like half my time talking about dog agility and my experiences in France. Then I had a lucky hit when they asked me what my favorite science classes were and I (truthfully) responded Genetics and O-Chem...turns out one of my interviewers was an O-Chem guy. They want to know interesting things about you...because once we get to the interview process, don't we all have good grades and a fair number of experience hours? This kind of thing can help you stand out.

Just adding my experience to agree with what others are saying. At my Ohio interview they asked me to talk about an important current issue in vet med. At the time, prop 2 had just passed in California (where I lived), so I talked about that. Turns out the dean is a poultry person, and absolutely agreed with my stance. We spent the rest of the interview talking about prop 2! The interview ran late because of it, and as I was leaving the other interviewer said he had more questions for me but we ran out of time talking about chickens. That was a Friday and they called me the following Monday to offer me a seat.

Now who knows, I may have been accepted anyway, but I'm absolutely sure that conversation increased the dean's opinion of me and my chances, even though it was purely based on my opinion. So really... you just never know. Like lareinesoleil said, once you're to the interview, you've passed all of the other hurdles.

 

[vacavet]

Each school has its own specific criteria that they weigh more heavily than other schools. However from my experience and observations there appears to be general trends that I'm sure most know. The GPA has always seemed to have more weight than experience hours unless the applicant had a really unique experience. And the strength of the applicants personal statement and letters of recommendation can turn a borderline application to a definite in. Like most have been saying there are lots of factors that are involved. I've talked to someone on the adcomms and aside from all the statistics the best thing you can do is show how unique you are so that you stand out from the sea of applicants. As for the interviews I can say the two I thought I did amazing in, I got on the waitlists and the two I felt terrible about, I got in. Give the adcoms the best representation of yourself that you can and there's
not much more you can worry about.