How many "high stat" applicants didn't get into T20's?

[977968]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Who gave you this advice? I feel for you.

I was given bad advice in high school by a high school advisor that hurt my college admissions process so I feel for you.

Gunners at my school who I thought were trying to be helpful :/

 

[blurb_123]

Gunners at my school who I thought were trying to be helpful :/

Ugh. Too many unqualified idiots out there giving advice. Personally, I've heard similar stuff and not bought in, but only because I've had access to more informed individuals.

For what it's worth, everyone looks back on their own work somewhat harshly. It's a sign of true stupidity to be unable to cast a critical/honest eye on one's own work. Clearly, your introspection proves that you don't fall into that category.

I think you're fine. Maybe it won't go as well as it could have (this is even speculation), but if your EC's are compelling and your essay was genuine, even if it isn't your best work, your stats will get you some good looks.

Just kill the interviews you get and don't look back.

 

[nurse2doc2367]

Because most of the time that's why they don't get in..... and a bad school list.


No it hasn't.


Because schools will wonder why they didn't get in the first time. If someone has a 3.7/513 it's easy to say, looks like they just slipped through the cracks because this is competitive, whereas with 3.9/520 schools will wonder why other schools didn't want them.

I don’t believe that at all, a bad school list?? What schools are people with high stats. + great ecs + clinical experience supposed to apply? Top 20’s have nothing but competitive applicants & low/ mid tiers think you’ll go somewhere else. What’s the middle ground??

 

[nurse2doc2367]

@nurse2doc2367 -- I hear what you're saying about the process becoming more and more competitive every year, and while it may seem (especially on SDN!🙂) that "every other applicant has 520+ and 3.9," the reality is that less than 5% of applicants have those stats (4.96% have 518+ and 3.8+), and 89% of them are successful, so something other than bad luck is going on with the 11% -- their lack of success is not due to "competition," because they are literally at the top of the statistical pool! It also has nothing to do with rolling admissions, since, again, something other than bad luck or bad timing is going on if someone complete in mid-July with those stats is not interviewed until February/March.

I think rolling admissions has a lot to do with it, some classes are filled by December yet still have 10+ interview dates left.

 

[Typeracer]

You obviously didn't read any of the other replies where I addressed this. I was given bad advice, both about how admissions work for your state school and how much these essays matter. In addition, I had significant personal issues at the time. I'm not an arrogant toerag, although I'm sure you'll be annoyed to hear that. It was the result of bad advice. I came here to hear if anyone might be able to give me an unbiased opinion of where I stand, not to be admonished for the third or fourth time in a single thread. Nothing in your reply was beneficial to me at this time to be perfectly honest. My genuine apologies if I misinterpreted any of that, but that was fairly insulting to read when I've already addressed parts of that and am not an arrogant jerk. Had that been the case I wouldn't have been able to post here for advice while admitting my mistake.

I've read the whole thread. I am not saying you're anything. I'm just pointing out how bad what you said sounds. A lot of it seems like common sense to me. Why would med schools ask for multiple X-word essays if they didn't care about them? Why would you not proofread an essay? It wouldn't have delayed your submission more than 30 minutes. It's also very common to see people on SDN who seem to only care about getting into T20s, and that definitely seems like an arrogant toerag trait.

To answer your ultimate question, I think if your essays aren't actually that bad and don't showcase arrogance or a dismissiveness of the process, you'll likely have success.

 

[977968]

Ugh. Too many unqualified idiots out there giving advice. Personally, I've heard similar stuff and not bought in, but only because I've had access to more informed individuals.

For what it's worth, everyone looks back on their own work somewhat harshly. It's a sign of true stupidity to be unable to cast a critical/honest eye on one's own work. Clearly, your introspection proves that you don't fall into that category.

I think you're fine. Maybe it won't go as well as it could have (this is even speculation), but if your EC's are compelling and your essay was genuine, even if it isn't your best work, your stats will get you some good looks.

Just kill the interviews you get and don't look back.

Thanks a bunch. Best of luck to you too mate, I hope you kill this cycle 🙂

 

[977968]

I've read the whole thread. I am not saying you're anything. I'm just pointing out how bad what you said sounds. A lot of it seems like common sense to me. Why would med schools ask for multiple X-word essays if they didn't care about them? Why would you not proofread an essay? It wouldn't have delayed your submission more than 30 minutes. It's also very common to see people on SDN who seem to only care about getting into T20s, and that definitely seems like an arrogant toerag trait.

To answer your ultimate question, I think if your essays aren't actually that bad and don't showcase arrogance or a dismissiveness of the process, you'll likely have success.

Totally get what you're saying. I mean many schools ask for CASPer and yet don't really base admissions decisions off of it; I was told something similar for the essays. I get what you're saying about common sense, but there was also misplaced trust in some friends lol.
P.S. I'm very touched you also used "arrogant toerag." Hats off to any fellow Brits out here

 

[blurb_123]

Thanks a bunch. Best of luck to you too mate, I hope you kill this cycle 🙂

We’re all gonna make it!

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

I don’t believe that at all, a bad school list?? What schools are people with high stats. + great ecs + clinical experience supposed to apply? Top 20’s have nothing but competitive applicants & low/ mid tiers think you’ll go somewhere else. What’s the middle ground??

You can "not believe it" all you want but that doesn't make it any less true... @gyngyn has stated as much, as have other adcoms. And people with great apps are most definitely not restricted to only applying to top 20s....

 

[907914]

You can "not believe it" all you want but that doesn't make it any less true... @gyngyn has stated as much, as have other adcoms. And people with great apps are most definitely not restricted to only applying to top 20s....

I don’t believe that at all, a bad school list?? What schools are people with high stats. + great ecs + clinical experience supposed to apply? Top 20’s have nothing but competitive applicants & low/ mid tiers think you’ll go somewhere else. What’s the middle ground??

I am applying to 14 T20s, my 2 state schools, and 5 “I like the area and high enough that I will not be yield protected” schools. I think that is a good school list strategy for highly competitive applicants.

 

[KnightDoc]

That bracket has an 89% acceptance rate... how much more added confidence do you need?

11%. 🙂 -- I admit that it would be better to be in that group than any other, but you have to admit, if you busted your butt to make it into that group, the reality that 1 in 10 with the same stats are going to be unsuccessful is unnerving, without knowing exactly what differentiates the 11% from you (which is unknowable until you have gone through a cycle, and that assumes you are not in the 11%!). It would sure make me feel better to learn, for example, that 75% of that 11% are reapplicants, and the success rate for first timers is way higher than 89%.

 

[KnightDoc]

I think rolling admissions has a lot to do with it, some classes are filled by December yet still have 10+ interview dates left.

@nurse2doc2367 -- I think you misunderstood me. I am very aware that early interviews are waaay better than later ones. I tried (unsuccessfully, apparently! 🙂) to say that something else has to be going on with an application that is complete by mid-July with super stats if the applicant is not offered an interview until late in the cycle. That is NOT accidental or luck of the draw; that is an intentional pushing to the bottom of the pile by the adcom.

 

[gyngyn]

I think rolling admissions has a lot to do with it, some classes are filled by December yet still have 10+ interview dates left.

Just about all schools have offered (or identified) the number of acceptable applicants as number of seats by December. Most schools need to offer at least twice that number, however.
The only difference between rolling and non-rolling is that one method lets the candidate know that they are acceptable before Spring.

 

[freelancePsychic]

Don’t worry about not getting IIs yet. I didn’t get any till the end of August. I’m at a T10, but I didn’t get invited to interview here till mid December. It’s waaay too early to be worried

 

[swiftimpetuous]

Can't wait to see how this pans out

 

[capriccio]

.

 

[907914]

I only accept 95% confidence as that is a statistically significant shot.

After looking in to it further, it looks like around 27% of all applicants are reapplicants. This means that of the 60% that don’t get in, a little less than half choose not to apply....I cannot find any data on the ratio of where these applicants fall on the spectrum, but let’s assume that it remains consistent and half of the high stats that don’t get in reapply. This means that 5.5% of high stats applicant pool is a reapplicant. Now we know there is a stigma, but how high is it? I will be conservative and say that 70% of the high stat reapplicants get in. This means that 1.65% of the high stats pool is reapplicants who do not get in, giving our grand total of first-time high stats applicants getting in to be around 91%? What do y’all think, any issues with this? Am I being too conservative with 70% of high stats reapplicants getting in? Is the stigma greater or weaker?

Note* None of this matters and you should still always anticipate not getting in and have a backup plan. Just a fun thought experiment.

 

[KnightDoc]

After looking in to it further, it looks like around 27% of all applicants are reapplicants. This means that of the 60% that don’t get in, a little less than half choose not to apply....I cannot find any data on the ratio of where these applicants fall on the spectrum, but let’s assume that it remains consistent and half of the high stats that don’t get in reapply. This means that 5.5% of high stats applicant pool is a reapplicant. Now we know there is a stigma, but how high is it? I will be conservative and say that 70% of the high stat reapplicants get in. This means that 1.65% of the high stats pool is reapplicants who do not get in, giving our grand total of first-time high stats applicants getting in to be around 91%? What do y’all think, any issues with this? Am I being too conservative with 70% of high stats reapplicants getting in? Is the stigma greater or weaker?

Note* None of this matters and you should still always anticipate not getting in and have a backup plan. Just a fun thought experiment.

You lost me -- if 27% of all applicants are reapplicants, and you are assuming that is consistent across the pool, why aren't 27% of the high stat applicant pool reapplicants?

 

[907914]

You lost me -- if 27% of all applicants are reapplicants, and you are assuming that is consistent across the pool, why aren't 27% of the high stat applicant pool reapplicants?

I am assuming that half of all people who fail to get in reapply. Simply put, high stats does well enough that they don’t have 27% of them who need to reapply.

 

[DirtyNewYorker]

After looking in to it further, it looks like around 27% of all applicants are reapplicants. This means that of the 60% that don’t get in, a little less than half choose not to apply....I cannot find any data on the ratio of where these applicants fall on the spectrum, but let’s assume that it remains consistent and half of the high stats that don’t get in reapply. This means that 5.5% of high stats applicant pool is a reapplicant. Now we know there is a stigma, but how high is it? I will be conservative and say that 70% of the high stat reapplicants get in. This means that 1.65% of the high stats pool is reapplicants who do not get in, giving our grand total of first-time high stats applicants getting in to be around 91%? What do y’all think, any issues with this? Am I being too conservative with 70% of high stats reapplicants getting in? Is the stigma greater or weaker?

Note* None of this matters and you should still always anticipate not getting in and have a backup plan. Just a fun thought experiment.

i would say of the 11% who don’t get in, it would be higher than half because they’re less likely to apply to DO schools. So prObably like 8-10%

 

[KnightDoc]

I am assuming that half of all people who fail to get in reapply. Simply put, high stats does well enough that they don’t have 27% of them who need to reapply.

Yeah, but I think your logic is a little flawed. I get where you calcuated half of 60% is approximately 27%, but that means 27% of a prior pool reapplied. It doesn't account for the fact that people skip cycles and people reapply more than once. You are then assuming that half of each unsuccessful GPA/MCAT combination in the grid reapplies, which is probably also untrue. I'll bet a lot less than half of people at the bottom reapply, and a lot more than half of those at the top do. How do you account for that? (Why would only half of the 11% reapply if their stats are so good? Also, why would half of the virtually 100% who are unsuccessful in the lower portion of the chart waste more time and money reapplying?)

In the absence of any better data, I think you probably have to just stick with 27% of the current pool is reapplicants, across the entire grid, since there is really no logic behind an assumption that half of all unsuccessful candidates reapply across the board. This is an example of what they say about "lies, damn lies and statistics"! 🙂 The truth is probably that the 27% is not spread evenly throughout the chart, but without more information we have no way to know how to distribute it. It's probably concentrated around GPAs between 3.2 and 3.6, and MCATs between 498 and 506, but that's just a guess!

With all due respect, I think the better assumption, building on the number you unearthed, is that virtually all of the unsuccessful 11% reapply, and they constitute 27% of that pool (with a little help from people who increase their GPAs and/or MCATs and move into the pool for their reapplications, and people who are reapplying more than once). The actual number is probably something less than 27% at that end of the chart, but it is impossible for us to quantify based on the data we are looking at, and it is almost certainly more than 5.5%, or even 11% -- I'd guess high teens or low twenties.