How many high stat applicants do NOT get into any T20s?

[deleted1119806]

I've been wondering if there are any statistics or educated guesses from the community about high stat applicants (3.95+ and 522+) not getting into any T20 programs. I get that the admissions process is holistic and considers more than just these two numbers, but what are the reasons that high stat applicants do not receive II/A from any of these top programs? Many people that have received A's from top programs or work on adcoms have listed stats as the most important (but definitely not sole) factor in deciding who to interview. I can think of applying too late, too top heavy school list (but what even is top heavy if you have stellar stats), bad LOR, red flags not mentioned to others as reasons why, but what else is there?

TLDR: How many high stat applicants aren't receiving II/A's to T20 programs?

Would appreciate any discussion or input!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gyngyn]

Given the number of re-applicants in this range I have seen, quite a few.

 

[xDNA]

I'd imagine a significant amount.

 

[wysdoc]

Beyond the numbers you have to have medical profession experiences and a compatible essay with the schools you apply to.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

3.99/521 at a top school….will be going to lower mid to lower tier MD

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Did you have any red flags?

yes but just goes to show that high stat can’t waltz into top schools. I interviewed and got WLed at some top places but no cigar

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Some factors that you didn’t mention are plain bad luck, MCAT inflation (in the past maybe a 521 would be enough to be a positive at Vanderbilt, WUSTL, NYU but now maybe it’s a neutral), no charisma (more important factor if interviews are in person)

 

[KnightDoc]

Some factors that you didn’t mention are plain bad luck, MCAT inflation (in the past maybe a 521 would be enough to be a positive at Vanderbilt, WUSTL, NYU but now maybe it’s a neutral), no charisma (more important factor if interviews are in person)

What is this MCAT inflation you keep talking about? In 2018, AAMC reported a 521 as 99%-ile. In 2021, AAMC reported 522 as 99%-ile. Is that single point at the very top causing you to think that a 521 used to be earth shattering and now it isn't? The bigger factor isn't that everyone now has 521s. It's that schools are getting more and more holistic in their reviews, and high scores are just not compensating for deficiencies elsewhere in an application like they used to.

I think it was reported in the Duke thread this cycle that above something like 510, they just don't care. The fact that they are a T6 with a 511 10%-ile kind of confirms this. UCSF didn't even look at MCATs this cycle before issuing IIs. That means a lot more with respect to answering OP's question than the fact that test scores at the top have crept up a tiny bit since 2015, as more and better material is now available to help people prepare for the test.

I'm honestly not a big believer in "bad luck" when you have 20 (or to quote some on SDN) 30 shots at a T20. Lacking interpersonal skills, sure, that will be a killer, not just in med school admissions, but in life, unless you are absolutely brilliant and can find something to do that does not involve dealing with people. Certainly not the practice of medicine. Maybe research, again, assuming you are brilliant enough to get people to tolerate you in a lab.

 

[account4premed]

If you look at the MCAT percentiles of matriculated students on MSAR, I think there's actually a lot of non-T20 schools that have a decent amount of 522+ scorers, like Boston, Hofstra, USF, Cincinnati, Iowa, Rochester, etc

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

What is this MCAT inflation you keep talking about? In 2018, AAMC reported a 521 as 99%-ile. In 2021, AAMC reported 522 as 99%-ile. Is that single point at the very top causing you to think that a 521 used to be earth shattering and now it isn't? The bigger factor isn't that everyone now has 521s. It's that schools are getting more and more holistic in their reviews, and high scores are just not compensating for deficiencies elsewhere in an application like they used to.

I think it was reported in the Duke thread this cycle that above something like 510, they just don't care. The fact that they are a T6 with a 511 10%-ile kind of confirms this. UCSF didn't even look at MCATs this cycle before issuing IIs. That means a lot more with respect to answering OP's question than the fact that test scores at the top have crept up a tiny bit since 2015, as more and better material is now available to help people prepare for the test.

I'm honestly not a big believer in "bad luck" when you have 20 (or to quote some on SDN) 30 shots at a T20. Lacking interpersonal skills, sure, that will be a killer, not just in med school admissions, but in life, unless you are absolutely brilliant and can find something to do that does not involve dealing with people. Certainly not the practice of medicine. Maybe research, again, assuming you are brilliant enough to get people to tolerate you in a lab.

One breakpoint is 517. I’m using this because it is general thought of the cutoff for “highish” scores. In the new MCAT’s original iteration this was 96th percentile. Now it is 94th percentile. This may not seem like much but it’s a pretty significant shift. It has happened at other breakpoints too.

 

[KnightDoc]

One breakpoint is 517. I’m using this because it is general thought of the cutoff for “highish” scores. In the new MCAT’s original iteration this was 96th percentile. Now it is 94th percentile. This may not seem like much but it’s a pretty significant shift. It has happened at other breakpoints too.

Okay, but you mentioned 521, not 517, and we're talking about T20 and 522+, not generally decent 517, and the fact that 2% more test takers get it now than in 2015. At the very top, which is what we are talking about, nothing changed at all, at least not between 2018 and now, which is as far back as my table goes. At 522 and above, all the percentiles are exactly the same as they were (99%-ile for 522-23, 100%-ile for everything above).

Again, fascinating discussion, but the fact remains that the issue is not that so many more people have 521+ than in the past, so 522 is the new 521, and that's why so many people with 522+ don't find success at T20s. It's that the schools, other than a select few like NYU, just care about it a lot less than they used to.

 

[wysdoc]

You can just have a list that aims too high. I just read a question from someone who had a 521+ MCAT but only applied to 14 schools (all the sky high ones) and got zero interviews last year. No volunteering no shadowing. The number are a starting point.

 

[KnightDoc]

But the MCAT is quite literally designed so that the 50th percentile is right around 500-502. It’s inflation-proof.

Actually, it's not. It's normalized so that the same performance receives the same score no matter what form of the test you take. It is not normalized so that 500 is the 50%-ile from year to year. As everyone's performance improves, scores go up. The same thing happened with the SAT a number of years ago. When it gets out of hand, the publishers rescale the test. Yes, a 500 means the same thing now that it did 7 years ago. But, with increased familiarity with the test, and more and more effective material available to help us prepare, more people score above it each year.

This is one reason why they also publish percentiles, so schools (and applicants) can compare relative performance across years. In 2015, 500 was 50%-ile. By 2018, which is the earliest table I have, it was already 49%-ile. Last year, it was 45%-ile. @voxveritatisetlucis isn't wrong, in general. It's just that his point isn't relevant at the top, where so few people live, and where the percentiles don't move because they really have nowhere to go, since so few people are there.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I've been wondering if there are any statistics or educated guesses from the community about high stat applicants (3.95+ and 522+) not getting into any T20 programs. I get that the admissions process is holistic and considers more than just these two numbers, but what are the reasons that high stat applicants do not receive II/A from any of these top programs? Many people that have received A's from top programs or work on adcoms have listed stats as the most important (but definitely not sole) factor in deciding who to interview. I can think of applying too late, too top heavy school list (but what even is top heavy if you have stellar stats), bad LOR, red flags not mentioned to others as reasons why, but what else is there?

TLDR: How many high stat applicants aren't receiving II/A's to T20 programs?

Would appreciate any discussion or input!

For some top programs 3.95 and 522 is maybe just below average.

Brief variations of how I have answered this question:

1) I am often skeptical about how well applicants really understand resiliency. The 3.95/522+ applicants sometimes express a very exaggerated or very superficial perspective of what constitutes a real struggle and sacrifice. (A significant obstacle I overcame was avoiding a B+ in my class!).

2) In addition to holistic review, I heavily focus on "mission fit" with the school. Is this person really going to be happy going to THIS school, or is this just about having the T20/30 brand?

We still can point out AAMC table A-23 (though by now it's a bit dated if there is MCAT score creep), though admittedly they stop at 517 and won't breakdown by school.

 

[KnightDoc]

For some top programs 3.95 and 522 is maybe just below average.

Brief variations of how I have answered this question:

1) I am often skeptical about how well applicants really understand resiliency. The 3.95/522+ applicants sometimes express a very exaggerated or very superficial perspective of what constitutes a real struggle and sacrifice. (A significant obstacle I overcame was avoiding a B+ in my class!).

2) In addition to holistic review, I heavily focus on "mission fit" with the school. Is this person really going to be happy going to THIS school, or is this just about having the T20/30 brand?

Plus, believe it or not, some schools actually resource protect people out, even at that level. Then, if you can't close the deal at a T5 or T10, you are screwed. I saw it happen last cycle. The person actually did pretty well T5 and T10, but got very little love at T20, and none below it.

 

[LizzyM]

Let's say that there are really just 20 T20 schools (sometimes it seems like there are 30), and let's say that they average 120 students per school. That's 2,400 applicants that matriculate each year at a top 20. Over three years, that would be 7,200 matriculants.

AAMC Table 23 ( https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2021-11/2021_FACTS_Table_A-23.pdf) shows that over 3 cycles there were 10,473 applicants with GPA 3.8 or higher and MCAT 518 or higher and that 8,819 of them were admitted. So, we can assume that of the top stat applicants 1,654 were not admitted at all and 1,619 did matriculate but not at a top 20. It is likely that far more matriculated someplace other than a top 20, because it is likely that the T20s take at least a few applicants that are not at the tip top of the stats pyramid but I think that these rough estimates are a reasonable estimation of how it plays out.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

What all constitutes resiliency? For instance, are all three of these sample scenarios resilience?

1: Making a mistake that cost a close friend a very important opportunity (and obviously learning from it).

2: Coming to terms with your own mortality and the mortality of others after the death of a patient you frequently interacted with in hospice volunteering.

3: Overcoming a physical disability.

I'm just confused on how applicants who don't come from very underprivileged backgrounds can write a strong resilience essay.

Just quoting from the AAMC Entering Competencies (and Anatomy of an Applicant). Discuss.

Resilience and Adaptability: Demonstrates tolerance of stressful or changing environments or situations and adapts effectively to them; is persistent, even under difficult situations; recovers from setbacks.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Talk about bona fide struggles

 

[wysdoc]

What all constitutes resiliency? For instance, are all three of these sample scenarios resilience?

1: Making a mistake that cost a close friend a very important opportunity (and obviously learning from it).

2: Coming to terms with your own mortality and the mortality of others after the death of a patient you frequently interacted with in hospice volunteering.

3: Overcoming a physical disability.

I'm just confused on how applicants who don't come from very underprivileged backgrounds can write a strong resilience essay.

I kind of feel the same way. You make it sound, @Mr.Smile12, as if a person who grows up in a kind supportive family and is a good sincere student has no chance without a story of overcoming some trauma/obstacle.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Answer the original question: having high stats means you may have a chance at t20’s and that’s all. No one can count on getting into a top school even with a 4/528 combo.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I kind of feel the same way. You make it sound, @Mr.Smile12, as if a person who grows up in a kind supportive family and is a good sincere student has no chance without a story of overcoming some trauma/obstacle.

I just point it out.. It's on the list of competencies and should be something every admissions dean needs to answer on behalf of their committees. (How do you look for resiliency in your applicants? Is it really valued?)

If I were an advisor, this is perhaps one of the most challenging conversations I would have with advisees. The feedback is very valuable for any applicant going into the process... because as you point out there is a worry that someone who has been fortunate to be raised in privilege might not be able to address this.

Of course, the flip side (taking from social justice concepts), having the blind spot also makes it easy to deny that OTHERS have struggled and have to be resilient to be successful... something that may be more of an issue. This is one of the reasons why stretching out of one's comfort zone in community service to bear witness to those who have had to endure and be resilient is important (meaningful essay?).

It's in the AAMC Anatomy of an Applicant as an exercise for self-reflection. But it could be related to the original question of why those with top GPA's and MCAT's might not get an II or an A.

It is also more complicated because MMI format and the PREview probably won't ask the applicant to answer it directly, so we'll see...

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I kind of feel the same way. You make it sound, @Mr.Smile12, as if a person who grows up in a kind supportive family and is a good sincere student has no chance without a story of overcoming some trauma/obstacle.

This might be the case, unfortunately. Therefore there exists something called admissions coaching lol. It’s all this big BS when it comes to who gets in and who doesn’t. This country is so sold on underdog stories…

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I just point it out.. It's on the list of competencies and should be something every admissions dean needs to answer on behalf of their committees.

If I were an advisor, this is perhaps one of the most challenging conversations I would have with advisees. The feedback is very valuable for any applicant going into the process... because as you point out there is a worry that someone who has been fortunate to be raised in privilege might not be able to address this. Of course, the flip side on the social justice element, the blind spot also makes it easy to deny that others have struggled and have to be resilient to be successful... something that may be more of an issue.

It's in the AAMC Anatomy of an Applicant as an exercise for self-reflection. But it could be related to the original question of why those with top GPA's and MCAT's might not get an II or an A.

It is also more complicated because MMI format and the PREview probably won't ask the applicant to answer it directly, so we'll see...

This is the biggest baloney there is… that’s why med school admissions is such a sh@tshow.

 

[ujsc]

I kind of feel the same way. You make it sound, @Mr.Smile12, as if a person who grows up in a kind supportive family and is a good sincere student has no chance without a story of overcoming some trauma/obstacle.

Mr.Smile12 said:
Just quoting from the AAMC Entering Competencies (and Anatomy of an Applicant):

Resilience and Adaptability: Demonstrates tolerance of stressful or changing environments or situations and adapts effectively to them; is persistent, even under difficult situations; recovers from setbacks.

My thoughts:

Medical schools want to see if you are adaptable and resilient, not a surprise they they are emphasizing these traits more in the present COVID era. Doctors and nurses in the COVID era have been tested like never before. They want to make sure you are ready. You also need to have a good story something that makes them notice you where you showed these traits. You also need to write and articulate this well in your application and interview so you stand out. I am glad they are looking more at well rounded individuals. It will benefit us all.

 

[wysdoc]

I just point it out.. It's on the list of competencies and should be something every admissions dean needs to answer on behalf of their committees. (How do you look for resiliency in your applicants? Is it really valued?)

If I were an advisor, this is perhaps one of the most challenging conversations I would have with advisees. The feedback is very valuable for any applicant going into the process... because as you point out there is a worry that someone who has been fortunate to be raised in privilege might not be able to address this.

Of course, the flip side (taking from social justice concepts), having the blind spot also makes it easy to deny that OTHERS have struggled and have to be resilient to be successful... something that may be more of an issue. This is one of the reasons why stretching out of one's comfort zone in community service to bear witness to those who have had to endure and be resilient is important (meaningful essay?).

It's in the AAMC Anatomy of an Applicant as an exercise for self-reflection. But it could be related to the original question of why those with top GPA's and MCAT's might not get an II or an A.

It is also more complicated because MMI format and the PREview probably won't ask the applicant to answer it directly, so we'll see...

just because you have not struggled does not mean you don't see that others have. I don't see your circular logic here but I don't want to debate it further.

 

[deleted1119806]

Let's say that there are really just 20 T20 schools (sometimes it seems like there are 30), and let's say that they average 120 students per school. That's 2,400 applicants that matriculate each year at a top 20. Over three years, that would be 7,200 matriculants.

AAMC Table 23 ( https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2021-11/2021_FACTS_Table_A-23.pdf) shows that over 3 cycles there were 10,473 applicants with GPA 3.8 or higher and MCAT 518 or higher and that 8,819 of them were admitted. So, we can assume that of the top stat applicants 1,654 were not admitted at all and 1,619 did matriculate but not at a top 20. It is likely that far more matriculated someplace other than a top 20, because it is likely that the T20s take at least a few applicants that are not at the tip top of the stats pyramid but I think that these rough estimates are a reasonable estimation of how it plays out.

I see why you are called the queen of numbers now 🙂

 

[Goro]

What all constitutes resiliency? For instance, are all three of these sample scenarios resilience?

1: Making a mistake that cost a close friend a very important opportunity (and obviously learning from it).

2: Coming to terms with your own mortality and the mortality of others after the death of a patient you frequently interacted with in hospice volunteering.

3: Overcoming a physical disability.

I'm just confused on how applicants who don't come from very underprivileged backgrounds can write a strong resilience essay.

#3

o by AAMC definition, all three would qualify. But how does an applicant avoid sounding very privileged in their essay, to avoid a situation like the one you described "Oh I got a B in Orgo boohoo"

Well, they have to be capable of introspection, which is a required trait for a doctor.

 

[Goro]

Answer the original question: having high stats means you may have a chance at t20’s and that’s all. No one can count on getting into a top school even with a 4/528 combo.

Indeed. Stats get you to the door, but ECs get you through.

 

[LizzyM]

You can have had the benefits to a stable home life and all the opportunities that money can buy but when you lose your phone, passport and your credit cards after hours in a foreign city and have to live by your wits for the next 12 hours, how do you bounce back?

There are certainly other challenges that don't discriminate: a car that breaks down, a wildfire or other disaster/calamity, a roommate with a mental illness that puts your wellbeing in jeopardy. There are plenty more but those are just a few thoughts of the kinds of things that are not uncommon and that put stress on young adults.

 

[LizzyM]

You can just have a list that aims too high. I just read a question from someone who had a 521+ MCAT but only applied to 14 schools (all the sky high ones) and got zero interviews last year. No volunteering no shadowing. The number are a starting point.

Numbers alone are not enough as this anecdote shows.

Just under 16% of "top" applicants (measured by numbers alone) do not matriculate anywhere.

Assuming shadowing, clinical experience, research (expected of applicants to the top research schools), teamwork/leadership, and a lack of serious transgressions (either criminal or institutional), which could result in no interview invites, you get the folks who do get an interview and turn off the adcoms by being rude, scary, or exceptionally poor at reading social cues. There are also the folks who either have or don't have interviews but who applied to such a short list of schools that they limited their chances for success and lost out on the opportunity that might have been there if they had applied more widely and broadly. (e.g. applicant who applies only to programs in Manhattan.)

 

[KnightDoc]

Numbers alone are not enough as this anecdote shows.

Just under 16% of "top" applicants (measured by numbers alone) do not matriculate anywhere.

Assuming shadowing, clinical experience, research (expected of applicants to the top research schools), teamwork/leadership, and a lack of serious transgressions (either criminal or institutional), which could result in no interview invites, you get the folks who do get an interview and turn off the adcoms by being rude, scary, or exceptionally poor at reading social cues. There are also the folks who either have or don't have interviews but who applied to such a short list of schools that they limited their chances for success and lost out on the opportunity that might have been there if they had applied more widely and broadly. (e.g. applicant who applies only to programs in Manhattan.)

With all due respect, while that 16% figure is certainly scary, it really does not paint a complete picture. No offense to anyone, but we are strictly speaking about "top" candidates here.

In a world where the top schools have median MCATs of 520+ and median GPAs of 3.9+, 3.8+/518+ really is not "top" any longer. NYU might be an outlier, but those numbers would place an applicant in its bottom 10%. Same for Penn. In fact, those stats wouldn't put an applicant anywhere near the median at most of the T20s, so it's really irrelevant to cite them in response to the OP.

While AAMC refuses to publish above that threshold, I have little doubt that the corresponding number for 3.9+/520+ would be far below 16%, so the situation for those truly at the top, which is what OP asked about, is far less dire than you portray.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't believe that 16% is that dire when we tease out all the possible things that go into that 16% which would include no shadowing, no clinical exposure, super-late application, only applying to two or three schools, a serious criminal record, etc.

Your argument that there are too many "lesser" applicants in the cell at the far top right of Table 23 does not negate, and in fact, only emphasizes the likelihood that almost all T20 matriculants are included in that cell to the exclusion of other cells.

If someone is trying to parse out the likelihood of going too top heavy with a school list and not getting any offers, the "16% of all applicants like yourself, including some who have scores below your own who don't get in anywhere" could be comforting as it suggests that the odds really quite good (almost 7 out of 8).

 

[KnightDoc]

I don't believe that 16% is that dire when we tease out all the possible things that go into that 16% which would include no shadowing, no clinical exposure, super-late application, only applying to two or three schools, a serious criminal record, etc.

Your argument that there are too many "lesser" applicants in the cell at the far top right of Table 23 does not negate, and in fact, only emphasizes the likelihood that almost all T20 matriculants are included in that cell to the exclusion of other cells.

If someone is trying to parse out the likelihood of going too top heavy with a school list and not getting any offers, the "16% of all applicants like yourself, including some who have scores below your own who don't get in anywhere" could be comforting as it suggests that the odds really quite good (almost 7 out of 8).

I see what you are saying, and they are, as usual, all excellent points! 🙂

 

[Lifeblood_20]

.

 

[LizzyM]

It's got to be way more than those numbers that did not matriculate at a "top 20."

For reference, I go to Northwestern and the median MCAT of my class is 520. That means half of us are above and half are below.

I know what a median is. The median at your school can be 520 and the floor can be 518. Thus it is possible that every single student at Northwestern falls in the >517/>3.79 cell of Table 23. It is also likely and not incompatable with a median MCAT of 520 that a handful fall outside of that tip-top cell.

The point of this exercise is that all of the matriculants at all 20 of the T20 schools could come from that single cell of Table 23 and there would still be some who did not matriculate at a T20 (because the number of seats was limited over 3 years to about 7200) and some who did not matriculate at all.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Yes, I would argue that measures of spread are almost as important when trying to make a list. If the median is 520 and the 25percentile is 515 lower scorers may have a much better chance than if the 25percentile is 518

 

[Lifeblood_20]

I know what a median is. The median at your school can be 520 and the floor can be 518. Thus it is possible that every single student at Northwestern falls in the >517/>3.79 cell of Table 23. It is also likely and not incompatable with a median MCAT of 520 that a handful fall outside of that tip-top cell.

The point of this exercise is that all of the matriculants at all 20 of the T20 schools could come from that single cell of Table 23 and there would still be some who did not matriculate at a T20 (because the number of seats was limited over 3 years to about 7200) and some who did not matriculate at all.

Ah I missed your point, I apologize for my imprudence, my brain is mush after anatomy lab

 

[LizzyM]

Yes, I would argue that measures of spread are almost as important when trying to make a list. If the median is 520 and the 25percentile is 515 lower scorers may have a much better chance than if the 25percentile is 518

But for someone with a 522, the better chance might be at the school that so highly values the MCAT that its 25th percentile is 518.

 

[deleted1123321]

From my own experience, I've seen a lot of 520+, 3.9+ students who don't get into MD schools at all, let alone T20 lmao

 

[fdwy13]

From my own experience, I've seen a lot of 520+, 3.9+ students who don't get into MD schools at all, let alone T20 lmao

Do you think there were any clear reasons why for the students you know?

 

[deleted1123321]

Do you think there were any clear reasons why for the students you know?

It's hard to know exactly why as I can't see how they interviewed etc or get specific feedback from schools but I'm sure there was something or the other wrong with their app. It's hard to get all the ingredients just right at the end of the day, but it's possible. The kids who I knew in undergrad who really seemed like they had a passion for medicine ultimately ended up getting in while the kids who were really smart but just treated everything like a check in the box didn't end up getting in (given, the ones who were passionate were also smart and had very good to good stats too). I just think if you really make a good case and story for yourself and are able to express it well and have good interpersonal skills + good grades, you'd get in.

We graduated from a T25 undergrad and of the 10 people I know who I applied with, 3 got in (small sample size, but pretty similar to overall acceptance rate for MD programs). The ones who got in for the most part were always looking at how to strengthen their app and were always trying to get patient interaction/research/volunteering/build their story while focusing on their grades + having fun vs. the ones who used to complain about how they could make more doing stuff like CS and just grind out whatever classes they were taking and then check in the box for various activities.

It's totally doable, and if you're truly into medicine, are able to balance your activities and are smart, and are enjoying the process, I don't see how you wouldn't get in.

 

[proudofmykids]

Given the number of re-applicants in this range I have seen, quite a few.

What would you say are the top three or four reasons these high stat app ppl are reapplicants? ECs? LORs? Interview issue? Poor application PS/theme?

 

[proudofmykids]

yes but just goes to show that high stat can’t waltz into top schools. I interviewed and got WLed at some top places but no cigar

The WL ‘fatlady’ has not sung yet.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

The WL ‘fatlady’ has not sung yet.

True but at some of the higher ranked schools I was placed on the “low priority waitlist”

So basically I’m gearing up to attend the low tier school but will avoid signing a lease until June/July just in case.

 

[gyngyn]

What would you say are the top three or four reasons these high stat app ppl are reapplicants? ECs? LORs? Interview issue? Poor application PS/theme?

1. Weak strategy. We don't see where they applied, many folks seem to think that applying to schools where their stats are much higher than the median for the school increases their odds. This only works at (most) state public schools or for high stats applicants with a red flag.

2. If they had a strong strategy, we have to presume they got interviews which were not sufficient to get them accepted.

3. LoE's are rarely the issue.

 

[MooseAndMe99]

I had 3.99 and 519 but didn’t get into any T20s. Got interviews from 4 T20s (two being T10s) but got waitlisted by two t20s and rejected by the two 10s. I got into one T25 though but don’t plan to go because it’s way too expensive and didn’t get any money from them. I still plan to go to a T50 though.

 

[proudofmykids]

I know what a median is. The median at your school can be 520 and the floor can be 518. Thus it is possible that every single student at Northwestern falls in the >517/>3.79 cell of Table 23. It is also likely and not incompatable with a median MCAT of 520 that a handful fall outside of that tip-top cell.

The point of this exercise is that all of the matriculants at all 20 of the T20 schools could come from that single cell of Table 23 and there would still be some who did not matriculate at a T20 (because the number of seats was limited over 3 years to about 7200) and some who did not matriculate at all.

Looked at another way… that cell is approximately the 93rd percentile if we use about 40k applicants per year, or approximately the 85th percentile of all matriculants (approx 20k/yr). I think this is why the OP although implied and as @KnightDoc indicated, should have said the Very Top stats. So if the 52x/3.9+ is used and we estimate the pair at 98% equivalent to 800 applicants/year which is way under the 2400 matriculants/yr at T20s, I would speculate the non accepted applicants to at least one T20 to be much smaller than the right top cell of the table indicating 13% non-accepted.

 

[proudofmykids]

I had 3.99 and 519 but didn’t get into any T20s. Got interviews from 4 T20s but got waitlisted by them. I got into one T25 though but don’t plan to go because it’s way too expensive and didn’t get any money from them. I still plan to go to a T50 though.

Way too early to say you won’t get off a waitlist at a T20, see my previous post.

 

[MooseAndMe99]

clinical and nonclinical hours? research?

700 Clinical, 450 non clinical, 1000 research. Most being over 3-4 year span. I’m ORM too. I’m really happy with how my cycle went though and am super happy that I will be attending a very well respected T50 for a cheaper cost. I’ve had 14 interview invites, 13 interviews accepted, and got into 6 of the schools. I might choose this T50 over the T20s if I get off the waitlist, I already am choosing it over the T25.

 

[KnightDoc]

Looked at another way… that cell is approximately the 93rd percentile if we use about 40k applicants per year, or approximately the 85th percentile of all matriculants (approx 20k/yr). I think this is why the OP although implied and as @KnightDoc indicated, should have said the Very Top stats. So if the 52x/3.9+ is used and we estimate the pair at 98% equivalent to 800 applicants/year which is way under the 2400 matriculants/yr at T20s, I would speculate the non accepted applicants to at least one T20 to be much smaller than the right top cell of the table indicating 13% non-accepted.

One big correction to your assumptions -- the number of applicants is now over 60K, a far cry from 40K! 🙂