How Disadvantaged Are Re-Applicants?

[Detective SnowBucket]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know a smaller portion of re-apps are admitted compared to the general first-time applicant pool but how much less likely are they to be accepted? Are they less likely to get accepted if given an interview? Eg if a re-app has 3 II's second cycle, is that person still less likely to be accepted than someone who has 3 II's on their first?

Also, I know the rule of thumb from Lizzy M is 3 II's before Thanksgiving, what are your thoughts on stretching that over 2 cycles? Eg, 2 II's before thanksgiving one year then 1 the next?

I'm not exactly sure how to succinctly word my question so I'm not sure how to look for numbers on it.

 

[and 99 others]

I know a smaller portion of re-apps are admitted compared to the general first-time applicant pool but how much less likely are they to be accepted? Are they less likely to get accepted if given an interview? Eg if a re-app has 3 II's second cycle, is that person still less likely to be accepted than someone who has 3 II's on their first?

Also, I know the rule of thumb from Lizzy M is 3 II's before Thanksgiving, what are your thoughts on stretching that over 2 cycles? Eg, 2 II's before thanksgiving one year then 1 the next?

I'm not exactly sure how to succinctly word my question so I'm not sure how to look for numbers on it.

That's not even the rule of thumb from LizzyM. You're combining two heurisitics, namely an II before thanksgiving is a good sign of a solid app and that 3 interviews in the cycle is a good sign that you'll be accepted somewhere.

More to the point, reapplications are detrimental when you haven't improved on what you were deficient in the first time you applied. It's hard to apply one of those "golden rules" and although they're a good general indicator, you shouldn't consider them the end-all, be-all.

 

[Goro]

I know a smaller portion of re-apps are admitted compared to the general first-time applicant pool but how much less likely are they to be accepted? Are they less likely to get accepted if given an interview? Eg if a re-app has 3 II's second cycle, is that person still less likely to be accepted than someone who has 3 II's on their first?

Also, I know the rule of thumb from Lizzy M is 3 II's before Thanksgiving, what are your thoughts on stretching that over 2 cycles? Eg, 2 II's before thanksgiving one year then 1 the next?

The bias against reapplicants is mostly SDN hype.

Each cycle is different from the previous. You can't think that way you're describing in bold.
The key thing is for one to have improved the app, or interviewing skills, or simply avoid applying late.

 

[calipremed5768]

The main thing you lose is 500k (if going into a speciality). Well maybe 480k if you consider the wages most gap year jobs pay

 

[gyngyn]

Re-applicants can be viewed as previously screened (out) by schools with the luxury to do so.
Many other schools get a significant number of their matriculants in this pool.
State public schools tend to be more forgiving of IS re-applicants.

 

[Detective SnowBucket]

Re-applicants can be viewed as previously screened (out) by schools with the luxury to do so.
Many other schools get a significant number of their matriculants in this pool.
State public schools tend to be more forgiving of IS re-applicants.

So you're saying that the simple fact that they are a reapplicant makes them less attractive

 

[Detective SnowBucket]

They have been evaluated and rejected before, therefore you start with that flag. Not good or bad but perhaps a slightly skeptical as in “lets see what they have to add”

In the other hand, schools can only offer acceptances to no more than 5% of applicants. So it is not uncommon for previously WL candidates to reapply. In that case, the school already though positive of you

I agree, that's a good way to put it. If the fact that they were WL before it a good point to have, how can you let schools know you got II's/WL's last cycle and don't have too big of red flags, even then. I imagine it's not such a great selling-point if the WL/II wasn't from that school though :/

 

[Catalystik]

State public schools tend to be more forgiving of IS re-applicants.

Some have even give extra "points" to reapplicants.

 

[candbgirl]

I agree, that's a good way to put it. If the fact that they were WL before it a good point to have, how can you let schools know you got II's/WL's last cycle and don't have too big of red flags, even then. I imagine it's not such a great selling-point if the WL/II wasn't from that school though :/

If you were on a school’s wait list and you reapply to that school they’ll know. There is probably no way to let another school know you were on someone else’s WL without it being very awkward. But maybe I’m wrong and it’s okay to share that piece of info in your secondaries. But I don’t see how.
Reread this thread. There is a very distinct theme running through the responses. Every school where you are a reapplicant will want to see significant improvement in your application. They will want any holes filled in and improvements in general throughout the whole thing.

 

[deleted1000960]

The main thing you lose is 500k (if going into a speciality). Well maybe 480k if you consider the wages most gap year jobs pay

You're not really losing the end-of-career physician salary though, since you didn't get in in the first place. It wasn't an option to begin with. If you got in, THEN decided to defer by 1 year some whatever reason, then you can consider it an opportunity cost. But if the opportunity wasn't there in the first place, then you can't factor it as a loss.

 

[gyngyn]

So you're saying that the simple fact that they are a reapplicant makes them less attractive

It does make them different. To some schools it will be a minus. To others, not so much.
If a school has just interviewed you a few months ago and didn't accept you, what could have changed in such a short time make them want to do it again? That is where being from a small state with a single med school can be an advantage.

 

[calipremed5768]

It’s like being the girl that gets asked to the prom by the guy who was already rejected by 30 other girls.

 

[LeaveNoTrace]

The bias against reapplicants is mostly SDN hype.

Why, then, do you recommend that almost all reapplicants, even ones with strong stats and solid ECs, have DO schools on their list?

 

[Goro]

Why, then, do you recommend that almost all reapplicants, even ones with strong stats and solid ECs, have DO schools on their list?

Insurance. There is a mindset of "why didn't this kid get accepted already?"

 

[993444]

My thing though is that there is a whole laundry list of things that can be improved in a short time:

-Lack of shadowing
-Poorly written application
-Interview skills
-LORs (maybe)
-Quality of secondaries
-MCAT score (3-4 months of studying)

All of these can be fixed starting January and done by June.

 

[gyngyn]

My thing though is that there is a whole laundry list of things that can be improved in a short time:

-Lack of shadowing
-Poorly written application
-Interview skills
-LORs (maybe)
-Quality of secondaries
-MCAT score (3-4 months of studying)

If one applied without these, then it becomes a judgement issue... that some schools will forgive!
...and others will not. Hence, this topic produces so many different opinions.

 

[993444]

If one applied without these, then it becomes a judgement issue... that some schools will forgive!
...and others will not.

....applicants are human?

 

[993444]

If one applied without these, then it becomes a judgement issue... that some schools will forgive!
...and others will not.

Also would like to point out that not everyone can necessarily see the holes in their application until after a cycle is half-way over.

 

[gyngyn]

Also would like to point out that not everyone can necessarily see the holes in their application until after a cycle is half-way over.

So true. And for some it takes much longer.

 

[993444]

So true. And for some it takes much longer.

Care to share some stories 😀

 

[gyngyn]

....applicants are human?

In this process, 60% of humans do not achieve an acceptance.
Our job is to maximize chances of success.

 

[gyngyn]

Care to share some stories 😀

I'm trying to forget.

 

[993444]

I'm trying to forget.

One man’s remembering of a dark stories can be the salvation of several young foolish pre meds.

Please save us from ourselves gyngyn.

 

[gyngyn]

One man’s remembering of a dark stories can be the salvation of several young foolish pre meds.

Please save us from ourselves gyngyn.

Very few can reach the depths I have seen.
The worst case I can recall is a dentist from the mid-west that took the MCAT over 40 times in an attempt to get into medical school.
The first and last scores were ...exactly the same.

 

[993444]

Very few can reach the depths I have seen.
The worst case I can recall is a dentist from the mid-west that took the MCAT over 40 times in an attempt to get into medical school.
The first and last scores were ...exactly the same.

Wow. That’s a nightmare.


But when looking at common reapplicants, what are some things you would say applicants refuse to change or improve? From my experience I have realized that several applicants refuse to gain more community service.

 

[gyngyn]

But when looking at common reapplicants, what are some things you would say applicants refuse to change or improve? From my experience I have realized that several applicants refuse to gain more community service.

The most common mistake I have seen is for applicants to continue to strengthen the strongest aspect of their application instead of the weakest.
For example, someone with a 518 retakes the MCAT instead of addressing the real flaws of their application.

 

[Goro]

....applicants are human?

Also would like to point out that not everyone can necessarily see the holes in their application until after a cycle is half-way over.

It's a seller's market, and med schools can pass on all too human candidates, especially those who aren't responsible right from the get go. Note my last sig line.

If one can't see the holes in one's app, that's why we always suggest that multiple eyeballs vet the apps.

 

[DNAJB6]

If one applied without these, then it becomes a judgement issue... that some schools will forgive!
...and others will not. Hence, this topic produces so many different opinions.

But couldn't it just as easily go the other way? A candidate may have been borderline and not totally out of left field on those metrics. It would be sketchier (to me at least) to not apply at all and potentially flush $200k-$300k+ down the toilet for the lost year of doctor pay when the candidate may have been viable but simply had a tough cycle. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[gyngyn]

But couldn't it just as easily go the other way? A candidate may have been borderline and not totally out of left field on those metrics. It would be sketchier (to me at least) to not apply at all and potentially flush $200k-$300k+ down the toilet for the lost year of doctor pay when the candidate may have been viable but simply had a tough cycle. Hindsight is always 20/20.

It's always your call. My recommendation is to apply once when you are confident of a successful outcome. Your first application (like a strong first MCAT) is always the best bet. Remember some schools don't consider more than two application submissions.

 

[Detective SnowBucket]

Also would like to point out that not everyone can necessarily see the holes in their application until after a cycle is half-way over.

Definitely myself, fortunately I had the rest of that year to work on the one major flaw 🙂

 

[deleted975457]

Anecdotal but I had 2 early II last year. Waitlisted both programs. This year I'm sitting on 7 II as of now (4MD/3DO). I did significantly improve my application and am being brought back by both schools that waitlisted me. My GPA and MCAT were solid last year. I haven't felt being a reapplicant has disadvantaged me thus far. I contacted both waitlisted programs and requested info on weaknesses in my app, and was advised that physician LOR would be helpful and to gain leadership experience (which I did)