How important are interviews MD/PhD?

[SeventhSon]

I have talked to a couple (well, 2) admissions deans at medical schools, and they both told me that pretty much, you're on equal footing for medical school once you get to the interview. Obviously, this is not the case at all MD/PhD.

I have had several schools where my interviews went really well and i got a big fat rejection. It's obvious that we're already kind of localized on a totem pole before we ever come visit. There's only so much we can move around.... i.e. no matter how well I interview i won't come out looking like titan . I feel like in some cases I got invited to interviews where I really didn't ever have a chance... there were just too many other people better on paper. Anyone feel the same way?

Maybe it's kind of different in my case... I have much less research experience than most MD/PhD applicants. When it comes time post-interview to pick the class, I think it's very obvious that my "personality" in the interview isn't going to stack up to somebody else who has multiple publications under their belt, etc. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[neoserenity333]

I had the same thought, especially with open-file interviews. I think it's hard to avoid bias on the part of the admissions officers after having seen your paperwork.

Further support for our theory: I did well/decent on an interview, but got a rejection letter in less than 2 weeks (ouch). At another interview, I got great feedback from my interviewers--saying they put in a good word for me--but still rejected. Yet, at another school, I said some stupid things during my interview (thinking I had lost my chances), but was accepted immediately.

What a crazy process

 

[soccerteez]

It seems to me like this whole process is a crap shoot. With so few slots available, programs have to work really hard on who to eliminate and who to accept. Looking at other people's stats it certainly does seems like those with more research experience and publications are generally more successful in this process, but many of us fall somewhere short of the 3+ years of research experience and multiple publications yet we still find success. And I am sure there are examples of people that don't look quite so good on paper but make a great impression on their interviews and just fit really well with the school. But who knows. Crap shoot. Just my two cents.

 

[JayQuah]

From experience, I can't support the crap shoot theory so much. I think what happened to me was that there was some things that, by convention, the committees had to give me an interview...maybe it was URM, maybe it was one of my letters, something...but these were some of the top programs in the country, and no matter how I interviewed, I was pretty much screwed before I got to these interviews. I just couldn't stack up...not enough spaces. So far, 3 have said no, with most likely a fourth coming later on this week (don't worry, I have faith though). Again, I am the luckiest guy in the world to be admitted somewhere, but personally, I got high back in November with the invites from Cornell and Harvard. But as far as the crapshoot theory...I'm not holding my breath for Harvard or UCLA.

 

[soccerteez]

Well, there is certainly always something that gets applicants foots in the door for the interview. And there is always a reason one applicant is accepted over another. But from our point of view as the applicants, there are many different factors which are not under our control (e.g. the mood of our reviewers/interviewers, the background of our reviewers/interviewers the applicant pool, and even sometimes our own situations and moods). It's these factors that I think make this process somewhat of a crap shoot. Now, there are also many many factors that are under our control and when in the right combination make us almost irresistable applicants. The only evidence we need for this is the success of those few we all agree should be successful. However, unless we are among those few with stellar, above-and-beyond applications who also interview well, we will be in the pile that the admissions committee must sort through in order to decide who gets in and who doesn't. It's a tough process. Excellent applicants get rejected every year simply because there are not enough positions and this is especially highlighted in the applicants to MSTPs.

 

[JayQuah]

Well, there is certainly always something that gets applicants foots in the door for the interview. And there is always a reason one applicant is accepted over another. But from our point of view as the applicants, there are many different factors which are not under our control (e.g. the mood of our reviewers/interviewers, the background of our reviewers/interviewers the applicant pool, and even sometimes our own situations and moods). It's these factors that I think make this process somewhat of a crap shoot. Now, there are also many many factors that are under our control and when in the right combination make us almost irresistable applicants. The only evidence we need for this is the success of those few we all agree should be successful. However, unless we are among those few with stellar, above-and-beyond applications who also interview well, we will be in the pile that the admissions committee must sort through in order to decide who gets in and who doesn't. It's a tough process. Excellent applicants get rejected every year simply because there are not enough positions and this is especially highlighted in the applicants to MSTPs.

I'll definitely agree with the fact that there are some things that are outside of our control. And as soon as the Harvard acceptance rolls in, I will drop everything and become Crap Shoot Theory's biggest supporter. So far, however, my situation isn't crap shoot. I have had great interviews where some of the interviewers have said they're really gonna push for me. Then, at the meeting with the director at the end, he lets me know that I don't have enough research experience and that my GPA is too low. These were under my control, so at the end of the day, I think you either got it or you don't.

 

[SeventhSon]

Yet, at another school, I said some stupid things during my interview (thinking I had lost my chances), but was accepted immediately.

What a crazy process

i'll assume that's Uwash.... I just e-mailed them today and they wouldnt give me my position on their waitlist because it is not ranked . Still hope to see ya there in april, but not holding my breath...

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

i just don't think the crap shoot makes that much sense. I think schools each have their own "personality" and they try to find a range of students that center around that personality. Of course you need some base range in numbers and you have to pay attention to the really good numbers, but I think you have to fit in with the culture of the school more than anything. i think it all works out in the end and i hope it does for everyone on the forums.

it's hard out here for a pimp.

 

[HebbianSynapse]

Seventh - After reading some of your posts on the official acceptances thread, I must say that you're not the only bitter one here! From my own experience with this admissions process, I've gotten pretty angry with the interview process because it doesn't seem to add anything tangible to one's application. At one of my schools, I interviewed with at least 10 people, most of whom asked me one of two things - "tell me about your research experience" and "what questions do you have about the program/school/my research, etc." (with an occasional "why do you want to come here?"). Some of the profs clearly didn't read my application, and I felt pressured to come up with as many questions as possible on the spot so as not to make myself appear uninterested. As much as I enjoy discussing science and medicine with professionals, the interview process needs to be a bit more of a distinguishing factor - especially when the school doesn't pay for transportation.

The primary element of the interview/application process that has me disgruntled is the misleading recruitment speeches. At one school's interview weekend, I only met with a few profs (not more than 4, if I remember correctly), one of whom spent the entire half-hour trying to convince me to attend the school. Well a few months later, I was met with the notorious thin envelope. (And I was very interested in the school).

Much worse, however, were the misleading comments by my top-choice school's director. For the last three summers, I had conducted research in an immunology lab at this school (first as a volunteer, then as an intern and finally as a Howard Hughes fellow) with a well-known prof. In the second summer, I met with the MSTP director to get some info on the program. After talking to him and having conducted research at the school, it was clearly my top choice. The following summer (2005), when I was ready to apply, I met with him again, went over my stats and reasons for wanting to come to the school. He even offered me an interview with the committee before the end of the summer before going back for my senior year. Unfortunately, as August came around, they weren't able to collect enough committee members and I hadn't completed my application. We agreed to meet in December. I essentially delayed all other secondary apps to work on this one - get it perfect - and I submitted in early October. Well, along came December.. and a rejection e-mail (not even an interview). Of course, I was furious.. after three summers in the same lab at the same school (after the second summer, I actually wanted to switch to a neuro lab but decided to stay to get a better letter from the immuno prof - the point was to get into the MSTP) and after a practical guarantee (or so I thought) for an interview, I was rejected. (To this day, he still hasn't responded to my phone calls or e-mails)

So... the point? Well, stories like these are testaments to the fact that there are only a few spots in each program and many applicants for those spots. Indeed, I'm convinced that there is a random element to the application process. In fact, I just got waitlisted at a school I thought I had no chance at, despite several other unexpected thin envelopes.

Although, now that I think about it, I think I did quite well at their interview. One of my interviewers - who is known to be a bit of a jerk - gave me a challenging pop quiz (with regard to his wife's research project) that I handled quite well. I have to say that although I was nervous in that interview, it probably helped me a lot.. I just hope a spot opens up!

 

[SeventhSon]

while i definitely disagree that this is a crap-shoot process, I have increasingly concluded that interviews are essentially worthless. I feel like if you were a marginal invite, which I am at top schools, there is nothing I can do to bump myself up to even a waitlist spot.... schools are really interviewing more people than they really would ever consider on paper, wasting our and their time and money.

To follow up on Hebbian's comments, i have had a couple of bad experiences on the interview trail. I have experienced the following statements from committee members during interviews at different schools... I have always taken them with a straight face and never believed them, and it's a good thing:

1. "we would love to have you"
2. " i hope you come here"
3. "when you come back for second look"
4. "you are interviewing us too, you are going to have multiple acceptances"
5. whole interview, person just talks about how great school is and hopes that i like it.

result between the 5: one acceptance, 2 rejections, and 2 TBA. How lame.

 

[rukh214]

4. "you are interviewing us too, you are going to have multiple acceptances"
QUOTE]

sadly, i took their words at face value. i mean, when they say "multiple acceptances" you are bound to think it means a good shot at their school. lo and behold, i got wait-listed at those schools. bleh. but i hate how mis-leading they are, intentionally or not.

 

[lundysd]

My mediocre thoughts on the matter...

I am a firm believer in the crap shoot theory. I've been incredibly lucky in this process and cannot complain whatsoever, but lately I've seen the crap shoot theory finally catch up with me at the two schools I was positive I'd be accepted to but wasn't. I think it all depends on things far out of our control and things we don't even think about. Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that but hope for the best and move on. I really think that where each of us ends up is not the biggest factor in our careers or our happiness (this is directly from my experiences in applying to undergrad schools).

 

[troszic]

The misleading interviews are a huge problem. I'm sure that all the interviewers receive instructions from the MSTP office to make a good impression on the interviewees and sell the school. It is really cruel, however, to sell the school to someone that has little chance of acceptance.

I'm beginning to agree with everyone that there actually ISN'T very much randomness in the process. The schools essentially know who they want before the interviews. Furthermore, it seems like you can't improve your chances of getting in by interviewing well. Similarly, it seems that you can have terrible interviews and still be accepted.

My bitter little example of a pointless interview was the one at UW-Seattle, which was one of my top choices. My weakness in the application process is that I have absolutely zero clinical experience. Every single question in my UW committee interview was clinic related.

"Your research is VERY impressive, but..."
"What clinical exposure do you have?"
"Why don't you have any clinical exposure?"
"How do you know you will like working with sick people?"
"How are you going to use your MD 15 years down the line?"

I was then rejected. I sent an e-mail asking the directors for the reason. They sent an e-mail back saying that my application was "outstanding, both in academics and research," but without any substantial clinical experience, they couldn't be sure that I would enjoy working with ill people.

So here's the thing. It is very, very clear from both my primary and secondary apps that I had no clinical experience. WHY did they invite me to interview if that was going to be the disqualifier?! I make no pretenses about knowing the medical profession. The MSTP is a research program, and I only want to go to a school that views it as such. It is a gross abuse of my time and hopes to give me an interview that I can't possibly get accepted off of.

 

[gaganheim]

My personal favorite example is that Harvard made me fill out a checklist of prereq's at the interview. I had all of them, but you'd think they'd check before the interview, no?

 

[SeventhSon]

My personal favorite example is that Harvard made me fill out a checklist of prereq's at the interview. I had all of them, but you'd think they'd check before the interview, no?

actually, the funny thing is i asked them about this, and they don't check until after you would matriculate, haha

 

[MrMunkily]

Actually, the one and only interview that I felt had a serious bearing on my admissions was the Wash U committee interview.

The worst was Michigan; meet with 12 faculty, hear great things like (this is exactly as said) "What can I tell you to make you come to Michigan*" - I'm waitlisted which is certainly something, but it's still a bit of a let-down.


* My Snappy Response: "You could start by letting me in!"

 

[neoserenity333]

I would like to clarify my own version of the "crapshoot theory," in case there is any confusion on the part of some who oppose it.

"Crapshoot theory" in a jist: One cannot absolutely predict by any objective equation whether or not an applicant will be admitted to a program. In other words, I doubt any one of us could take an applicant's GPA, MCAT, research, ECs, letters of rec, essays, interview performance, etc., and say that he/she will get in here, here, and here, but not there. To do so, we'd have to get into the minds of the admissions committee.

I do NOT think this process is literally random (which is why "crapshoot" might be a bit misleading). It may seem random from the perspective of the applicant, but that's because we can only predict so much. It's not random in the sense that the committee throws all of our applications into a huge pot and has a lottery fest with our destinies over wine and cheese. But the uncertainty arises from the fact that admissions officers are human, and are thus subject to the same biases and situational influences that we all experience. What if the person reading your file just had a fight with his or her spouse? What if they share your passion for photography? What if they just happen to like/dislike the way you present your ideas on paper? What if they just happen to like/dislike your personality during an interview? These are some of the types of variables for which we cannot control.

Maybe we can come up with a likelihood of acceptance, but that still leaves the process stochastic in that we're relying on probabilities. Every year, SDN forums are flooded with the "what are my chances" question. No one can give an exact % chance of acceptance, though like with gambling, there are safer bets than others. Just be ready for surprises

 

[gutonc]

I'm fortunate to have the benefit of time (not to mention a nearly completed MD/PhD) at this point but, at the time of my application a few years ago I was right with you all. I'll just share two experiences. One, the just annoying one, was at Einstein. I got the phone call after my interview saying they'd like me to come back for a second visit and who did I want to meet with. After I spent the weekend convincing my wife that moving to the Bronx wouldn't be the end of the world and deciding on who I wanted to meet with, I called them on Monday only to hear, "oh...sorry about that, your application was in the wrong pile, you're on the waitlist."

The second was with a school that will remain un-named on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. At the time, I was working at a nationally known cancer center across the street from said med school and had great letters from my boss and another faculty member. My PhD interviews (5 of them) went really well and included (inexplicably) an interview with one of my LoR writers, a collaborator I was working on a project with and the father of a friend of my wife's. I ended the day with my MD interview and the guy started off the interview with "MD/PhD's make bad doctors and bad researchers, why would you want to waste your career on that?". Good times.

The interview was on a Friday, my rejection letter arrived on Monday. Extra good times.

BE

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

One cannot absolutely predict by any objective equation whether or not an applicant will be admitted to a program. In other words, I doubt any one of us could take an applicant's GPA, MCAT, research, ECs, letters of rec, essays, interview performance, etc., and say that he/she will get in here, here, and here, but not there.

I completely agree.

Maybe we can come up with a likelihood of acceptance, but that still leaves the process stochastic in that we're relying on probabilities.

Time to break out my good friend, MATLAB. In the midst of my current procrastination, I'll try to whip something up. Variables will most likely include: MCAT, GPA, years of research experience, some publication parameter (something that will take into account number of pubs, but also placing a weight on each pub according to authorship: 6/10 being worse than 2/10), maybe I'll throw in ugrad institution ranking, sex (advantage women), race (advatange URM), #clinical experience months (from troszic's comments), ... any other ideas?

hopefully the equation will yield a likelihood of acceptance and that would stop the "how competitive" questions, or maybe it will be *poop. most likely the later, but let's think about it. then we could plug in titan's stats and check if we get 100% and if we don't we try again. ( , i love the constant titan comments that i've been seeing on random threads.)

 

[JayQuah]

The second was with a school that will remain un-named on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

OOOH! OOOH! I know I know! He's talking about Cornell, isn't he?

Rejectee here too. I say impeach Olaf.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I've been thinkindg a lot about this myself. I know that it's difficult to gauge our own interview skills, but I think I can realistically and honestly say that I interview pretty well, based on interviewer comments, and support from LOR writers who told me I would do well at the interview stage because they think I have good conversation skills, can explain my research, etc. (Any of you who met me at interviews and think I was a socially inept freak, feel free to disagree. ). And when I started getting interview invits to places I never thought would look at me (e.g. Cornell, UWash), I started to have hope that I'd fare better than expected in this process. I was invited to interview at 3/4 of the schools I applied to, which would lead me to believe that my app was convincing in some way that I'm qualified, and yet, out of the 8 interviews I attended, I have only 1 MSTP acceptance... 2 rejections, 3 waitlists, and 2 MD acceptances. And the only post-interview rejections I got were from those very same highly ranked schools (Cornell, UWash) where I was surprised to be invited for an interview. Did they invite me because I'm a URM woman, because they wanted to give me false hope and break my fragile heart into a million little pieces, or just for the fun of it? Who knows? But I honestly felt that the interview didn't make or break my chances. Especially when I think of the interviews that consisted solely of the interviewer praising the school or explaining their research. I find it curious that my only post-interview rejections were at the 2 highest-ranked schools where I interviewed. Is it really all that likely that I happened to interview worse at those 2 schools? I don't think so.

 

[ZenAlchemy]

I think I can realistically and honestly say that I interview pretty well

It seems the general consensus is that most people most of the time feel pretty good about their interviews. Especially the research ones.

I can't imagine you're necessarily hosed from the beginning if you have a slightly weaker application at a very competitive school, but you probably need to really knock an admission commitee member's socks off to get accepted. Interviewing "well" is probably not enough, because that's what most people do.

 

[MrMunkily]

Which is why I like it when it's a little more formal & challenging - It's hard to knock them into next week when it feels like they're recruiting you.

 

[r1oid]

Your file being presented to committee can be where some of the variation happens, at that point its your file and how your presenters sell you in comparison to your peers. At some schools there also is a "would you like this person to be your doctor/in your lab" question that the committees emphasize their interviewers to note either on your eval or at presentation. You may wow them but they might not be comfortable with you in that scence. You never know, I had one interviewer back in the day tell me at the end that he'd go to bat for me in committee and sure enough it was my first admit. Others told me they liked me and I got waitlisted.

Oh and the way you interact with non-interviewers can also get back to people. I've seen bad behavior outside the interview room get back to committee members.

 

[Mitro]

the way you interact with non-interviewers can also get back to people. I've seen bad behavior outside the interview room get back to committee members.

I think this one thing that a lot of people underestimate or don't realize. One person who you rub the wrong way really can deep six your application if they talk to the right people - and trust me - students know who to talk to. Better to be fake and nice than true to yourself and rude when you're interviewing.

 

[MrMunkily]

Sure, but how many of us behave that badly even when we're not being watched?

 

[Vader]

Applicants tend to regard the interviews as "make or break" in terms of admissions chances. This is simply not the case. The interviews are but one component of your application. When admissions commttees meet, they assess your application in its ENTIRETY. And it does matter very much how much the people who interviewed you advocate your case.

Another thing to remember is that your impression as an applicant does not necessarily correlate well with the impression of interviewers, no matter how well or badly you think the interview went. This can lead to apparent randomness in admissions, from the point of view of the applicant.

Admissions decisions are not random, but are dependent on many factors beyond the applicant's control. You should strive to present your application in the best possible light at each step and not worry about the other things that you can't control.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

In the midst of my current procrastination, I'll try to whip something up.

here it is. version 1 of the “Am I getting into an MD/PhD program” equation. It’s an excel file. Here are some trial runs (with unofficial information off of known mdapplicants sites. Hope they don’t mind being lab rats.)

Titan02=111% (this needs to be fixed.)
Chyln= 109%
Shatterstar=95%
Civic57=86%

The equation likes MCAT, GPA, 2 years research is the standard, it loves publications, gives you a little credit for clinical months over 8, and you get free points for being either female and/or URM.

Let me know what you think.

 

[JayQuah]

here it is. version 1 of the “Am I getting into an MD/PhD program” equation. It’s an excel file. Here are some trial runs (with unofficial information off of known mdapplicants sites. Hope they don’t mind being lab rats.)

Titan02=111% (this needs to be fixed.)
Chyln= 109%
Shatterstar=95%
Civic57=86%

The equation likes MCAT, GPA, 2 years research is the standard, it loves publications, gives you a little credit for clinical months over 8, and you get free points for being either female and/or URM.

Let me know what you think.

where do I find the undergrad rank?

 

[JayQuah]

where do I find the undergrad rank?

Found it...stanford's a 5 i guess.

JayQuah's score: 52.3%.

Gotta roll the dice.

 

[MrMunkily]

-Snipple/-

Let me know what you think.

I dunno, it gave me a 62%, and I got into 5 programs. The real issue here was pubs (0)

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

yea, it's not the best. how many programs did you apply to? does that percentage match up?

it still seems way low tho.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

Found it...stanford's a 5 i guess.

JayQuah's score: 52.3%.

Gotta roll the dice.

I would give yourself a 0.5 for the abstract, and maybe the gpa value needs to be adjusted (i gave you a 1 here.)

 

[JayQuah]

I would give yourself a 0.5 for the abstract, and maybe the gpa value needs to be adjusted (i gave you a 1 here.)

Maybe there should also be a "luckiness" factor. I don't mean to drag myself through the mud, but I suspect that my being admitted to CO's program had something to do with the fact that the PI that I worked under is the director of the program.

 

[MrMunkily]

yea, it's not the best. how many programs did you apply to? does that percentage match up?

it still seems way low tho.

Unsure. I applied to 16. If we go by that, my percentage ought to be closer to 30. Course, we have to establish whether we're try to predict getting into ANY school, or getting into one particular school.

When deciding how many to choose to apply to, I arbitrarily picked 20% as the chance of getting into "Anyschool USA" which is probably pessimistic, and then just solved

.9^n > .05

for n (14) and applied to at least that many on my ranked list.

 

[lundysd]

Looks pretty good, except that the pubs factor is way out of wack. I get a 1.80 (!), but when I drop my pubs i'm down to .8 Maybe cap the pubs section to a certain amount....

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

Looks pretty good, except that the pubs factor is way out of wack. I get a 1.80 (!), but when I drop my pubs i'm down to .8 Maybe cap the pubs section to a certain amount....

hmmm, i don't think i follow. for the pubs, you should just add your authorship values up for each paper. let's say you have a second author and an 8th author paper. that would give you a pubs parameter of 4.

ooooh, i think i see what you're saying. you're saying after you add in the publication factor, you get 180% for a final score. haha, i get it. to fix this problem, i would need to know an average number of publications that an accepted applicant has. then i could cap it off. anyone know a good number for this. I've heard once that the average applicant has 1.5 pubs. Is this reasonable?

 

[SeventhSon]

87.8% for me.

3 rejections, 1 waitlist

 

[shortyganoush]

67% For me, 1 pretty good acceptance, 4 waitlists, 1 interview left , 1 withdrawl, 8 pre-interview rejections

I'm going to let the 67% give me hope for the waitlists and the interview, but I think the number means that if this process isn't a crapshoot I'll just have the pleasure of staying on those waitlists and taking my acceptance.

 

[shortyganoush]

.... schools are really interviewing more people than they really would ever consider on paper, wasting our and their time and money.

I'ts funny how reading this makes me thankful that UCSD didn't interview me in the firstplace. That rejection (which would have come after seeing the UCSD thread) would have broken my heart!

 

[gaganheim]

Ok, I made Civic's spreadsheat a tad more user friendly, and I made it so it tells you for each school, and gives a little lower (more realistic?) percentage. Comments are appreciated, it's set for Titan getting into UCSF for the moment.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

Ok, I made Civic's spreadsheat a tad more user friendly, and I made it so it tells you for each school, and gives a little lower (more realistic?) percentage. Comments are appreciated, it's set for Titan getting into UCSF for the moment.

haha, nice! I love this forum.

question: the year's of research are not affecting my percentage, is it factored in?

also, M/F does not affect my score either. The original prog gave some credit for being female (more than a few programs stated their goals for increasing women.)

great job. it says 60% to get into hopkins so maybe the process is a crap shoot

 

[shortyganoush]

haha, nice! I love this forum.

question: the year's of research are not affecting my percentage, is it factored in?

also, M/F does not affect my score either. The original prog gave some credit for being female (more than a few programs stated their goals for increasing women.)

great job. it says 60% to get into hopkins so maybe the process is a crap shoot

Hey, 60% is better than flipping a coin.

Also, I'm having the same problems with the spreadsheat with M/F and with the full time year of research, but this may be cause the mac I use at work has issues with excel (My PI hates everything associated with microsoft).

 

[SeventhSon]

bust out a f(x) = 100 - exp(-x) so that it caps at 100.

 

[gaganheim]

Oops, just mislabeled a cell. One more time. If I had WAYYY more time and experience programming, I'd make it so you could enter all your schools and find out the chance of getting in somewhere given your application strategy, but alas, I leave that to someone else.

 

[SeventhSon]

i think a cell should be added that says:

Letters of rec:

(1=EXCELLENT, 2 = Just good.)

*sarcasm*

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

Oops, just mislabeled a cell. One more time. If I had WAYYY more time and experience programming, I'd make it so you could enter all your schools and find out the chance of getting in somewhere given your application strategy, but alas, I leave that to someone else.

nice. thanks. i think this makes the prog much better. what does everyone think about their numbers?

 

[gaganheim]

To answer a couple questions: Factor in as many years of research as you want, however, all values are capped. Therefore, I've made it so as soon as you have a certain number of research points, you can't get anymore. The log functions are obviously a little dubious, if you want to tinker with it, just unhide rows C&D. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. To Civic, 60 may seem a little low for Hopkins, but to be fair, they rejected you before they accepted you. Congrats on that btw. My disclaimer is that this is for entertainment purposes only.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

To Civic, 60 may seem a little low for Hopkins, but to be fair, they rejected you before they accepted you. Congrats on that btw.

haha, that's true. thanks man.

 

[MrMunkily]

Yeah, what's the deal with that, "oops we changed our mind zomg" anyway?