How many MD applications for top schools are actually realistic?

[NJ98]

Hello everyone, i dont know what verified applications means on MSAR, but i was wondering how many applications received from top 25 schools are legitimate? by that i mean lowest GPA is at most 0.3 behind the average, and MCAT is out of the 10th percentile range for that school? just wondering because i know technically no one cans top you from applying to places like harvard or stanford if you have a 505 MCAT or 3.0 gpa. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Davidfromcali]

I knew a girl who applied to Harvard with 3.5 and 509. Those applicants exists but I doubt there’s very many

 

[907914]

Hello everyone, i dont know what verified applications means on MSAR, but i was wondering how many applications received from top 25 schools are legitimate? by that i mean lowest GPA is at most 0.3 behind the average, and MCAT is out of the 10th percentile range for that school? just wondering because i know technically no one cans top you from applying to places like harvard or stanford if you have a 505 MCAT or 3.0 gpa. Thanks!

There are 2750 applications every year with >3.6 and >517. Let’s say that each of those applicants will, on average, apply to 15 t25 schools. This means that, on average, right at ~1700 applicants to each of the top schools will be high stats. Now, some schools will get more than others (ie. Everyone is thirsty for that NYU free tuition). But just to give you an idea.

Theoretically, the maximum high stats applications to a school is 2750.

 

[907914]

I knew a girl who applied to Harvard with 3.5 and 509. Those applicants exists but I doubt there’s very many

Statistically, more than 2/3 of Harvard applicants will be <517 MCAT.

 

[993444]

Statistically, more than 2/3 of Harvard applicants will be <517 MCAT.

The relatively large discrepancy between Harvard's median and that of other top schools probably indicates they don't really care about your MCAT after a certain point...

 

[Kardio]

I knew a girl who applied to Harvard with 3.5 and 509. Those applicants exists but I doubt there’s very many

I tend to disagree. I would bet many sub 3.5/510'ers make their Harvard donation every year because 'if you don't play, you can't win!'.

 

[NYCVillain]

The relatively large discrepancy between Harvard's median and that of other top schools probably indicates they don't really care about your MCAT after a certain point...

Harvard definitely places a lot of emphasis on extraordinary ECs and life experiences, but their median accepted MCAT is right up there with other top schools. It’s one of the 12 schools who’s median accepted is 520+

 

[993444]

Harvard definitely places a lot of emphasis on extraordinary ECs and life experiences, but their median accepted MCAT is right up there with other top schools. It’s one of the 12 schools who’s median accepted is 520+

My apologizes, I don't have the latest version of MSAR. On the previous one, WashU was about 5 points higher than Harvard.

 

[Moko]

There are a lot of hail Mary's each cycle, but still way more than enough qualified applicants to fill each class.

I would also mention that plenty of high GPA/MCAT applications are unrealistic as well. Insufficient ECs, sloppy applications, etc.

 

[efle]

A few years back when they first updated the MCAT scoring scale, the MSAR for that year showed two box-and-whisker plots per school. The first was matriculant MCATs from the prior cycle on the 45 scale, the second was applicant MCATs on the 528 scale.

There was a SHOCKING degree of difference between these ranges for top programs. The majority of applicants to the top schools had scores below their 25th percentile, sometimes even a majority below 10th percentile.

So from history I can confirm that a huge number / majority of apps to the top programs are throwaways.

But, competition is so insane that even after throwing out the majority of the app pool, it's tough to get interviewed. So don't bank on this too much

 

[Engrailed]

The relatively large discrepancy between Harvard's median and that of other top schools probably indicates they don't really care about your MCAT after a certain point...

And what point is that exactly... haha

 

[NYCVillain]

A few years back when they first updated the MCAT scoring scale, the MSAR for that year showed two box-and-whisker plots per school. The first was matriculant MCATs from the prior cycle on the 45 scale, the second was applicant MCATs on the 528 scale.

There was a SHOCKING degree of difference between these ranges for top programs. The majority of applicants to the top schools had scores below their 25th percentile, sometimes even a majority below 10th percentile.

So from history I can confirm that a huge number / majority of apps to the top programs are throwaways.

But, competition is so insane that even after throwing out the majority of the app pool, it's tough to get interviewed. So don't bank on this too much

I wish they would have kept that feature. That seems incredibly useful for helping to design a school list.

 

[efle]

I wish they would have kept that feature. That seems incredibly useful for helping to design a school list.

I think it's incredibly helpful if you know how to interpret the data you're looking at. For a lot of people it would be catastrophically misleading ("oh wow, the average applicants to Hopkins, Harvard and Stanford only have a 510 MCAT? Well jeez with my 512 I can safely apply to mostly top programs...")

Leaving only the matriculant data helps you know where you actually stand

 

[Engrailed]

I wish they would have kept that feature. That seems incredibly useful for helping to design a school list.

Isnt this the same as the percentile breakdown they show for each school? For matriculants etc. They have a series of dropdowns for matriculants, accepted applicants... but I may be missing something here

 

[efle]

Isnt this the same as the percentile breakdown they show for each school? For matriculants etc. They have a series of dropdowns for matriculants, accepted applicants... but I may be missing something here

It no longer shows the applicant pool, only accepted applicants. It used to show everyone who was applying. The majority were not competitive at the top schools.

 

[Engrailed]

It no longer shows the applicant pool, only accepted applicants. It used to show everyone who was applying. The majority were not competitive at the top schools.

Gotcha
So safe to assume that when a school gets 6000 applications, a lot of those are hail marys....

 

[Lucca]

Gotcha
So safe to assume that when a school gets 6000 applications, a lot of those are hail marys....

Yes. I remember looking at this data with @efle and it was very surprising. Probably greater than half of all applications were not seriously competitive by stats alone and obviously top schools receive more Hail Mary apps than most.

At the same time, the trend of always applying to more and more and more schools itself drives selectivity and majorly bogs down the application cycle since the top 10% of applicants are basically competing against only each other for half the year but they will not, in the end, seriously consider a significant number of the schools they are applying for.

#capApps

 

[Goro]

Hello everyone, i dont know what verified applications means on MSAR, but i was wondering how many applications received from top 25 schools are legitimate? by that i mean lowest GPA is at most 0.3 behind the average, and MCAT is out of the 10th percentile range for that school? just wondering because i know technically no one cans top you from applying to places like harvard or stanford if you have a 505 MCAT or 3.0 gpa. Thanks!

I've asked several Adcom members who are at Really Top Schools, and the number ranges from 10-50%!

The mindset is (based upon actual SDN quotes):
You miss all the shots you don't take
Hey, you never know
A guy/gal can dream, right?
It's my dream school
I've always wanted to live in [X city]

 

[deleted972488]

To be fair, GPAs and MCAT scores are not everything. And by definition, 10% of acceptees have stats below the 10th percentile.

 

[Kardio]

To be fair, GPAs and MCAT scores are not everything. And by definition, 10% of acceptees have stats below the 10th percentile.

Said acceptees likely attached a photograph of their spacesuit packed with $10m for their secondary headshot

 

[LizzyM]

I figure that at least 1,000-2.000 applications are outstanding at the top schools... More than can be interviewed and certainly more than can be admitted.

 

[907914]

Said acceptees likely attached a photograph of their spacesuit packed with $10m for their secondary headshot

Nah, but 10% applicants are likely URM, LGBT, Military, outstanding ECs, from the city the school is in, and things of that nature. Or just lucky.

 

[Engrailed]

Nah, but 10% applicants are likely URM, LGBT, Military, outstanding ECs, from the city the school is in, and things of that nature. Or just lucky.

I think URMs account heavily for the lower range

 

[907914]

I think URMs account heavily for the lower range

Very heavily and likely the majority, yes.

 

[Kardio]

Nah, but 10% applicants are likely URM, LGBT, Military, outstanding ECs, from the city the school is in, and things of that nature. Or just lucky.

In general I agree, though sharing a last name with the new library never hurt.

 

[Engrailed]

In general I agree, though sharing a last name with the new library never hurt.

Or if you survived a brain tumor. Know someone who got into a T10 with below median mcat but they survived a tumor so... that ought to stand out

 

[Kardio]

Nah, but 10% applicants are likely URM, LGBT, Military, outstanding ECs, from the city the school is in, and things of that nature. Or just lucky.

Or if you survived a brain tumor. Know someone who got into a T10 with below median mcat but they survived a tumor so... that ought to stand out

For the record, when I said "spacesuit," I'm just implying someone who has some extraordinary quality to them. That could be a cancer/earthquake/genocide survivor, 2 1st author Nature publications in Freshman year of college, author of NYT-bestselling self-help book, etc.

I don't know if someone can rely on LGBT/Military status alone, be academically below-average, and still secure that acceptance. I'm speculating, but I would assume there are enough (academically or otherwise) distinguished members of both those classes that they will not get leeway for their grades.

 

[Engrailed]

For the record, when I said "spacesuit," I'm just implying someone who has some extraordinary quality to them. That could be a cancer/earthquake/genocide survivor, 2 1st author Nature publications in Freshman year of college, author of NYT-bestselling self-help book, etc.

I don't know if someone can rely on LGBT/Military status alone, be academically below-average, and still secure that acceptance. I'm speculating, but I would assume there are enough (academically or otherwise) distinguished members of both those classes that they will not get leeway for their grades.

APparently harvard med school has students with 60 publications. Not even sure how that is possible as even the best PIs take years to publish 1 quality paper.. but I guess it happens ..!

 

[907914]

That could be a cancer/earthquake/genocide survivor, 2 1st author Nature publications in Freshman year of college, author of NYT-bestselling self-help book, etc.

Wal....Walter...?

don't know if someone can rely on LGBT/Military status alone, be academically below-average

Lol this is what I am doing. My sGPA is 90%, my MCAT is median or slightly above, and be cGPA is <25% and I am banking on the high MCAT, high sGPA, and military to make up for the low cGPA...

 

[Kardio]

APparently harvard med school has students with 60 publications. Not even sure how that is possible as even the best PIs take years to publish 1 quality paper.. but I guess it happens ..!

That's suspicious af. I can't imagine any of them being very impactful - but I'm just some hater from the internet.

Wal....Walter...?


Lol this is what I am doing. My sGPA is 90%, my MCAT is median or slightly above, and be cGPA is <25% and I am banking on the high MCAT, high sGPA, and military to make up for the low cGPA...

Brooo you're dunzo - highly recommend withdrawing everywhere and then postbac/SMP (this is a joke)

 

[Engrailed]

That's suspicious af. I can't imagine any of them being very impactful - but I'm just some hater from the internet.

You know what they say, if you can't beat them, join them. The choice is yours. haha

 

[MyOdyssey]

In general I agree, though sharing a last name with the new library never hurt.

How hard can it be for applicants to change their last names before applying?

 

[Kardio]

How hard can it be for applicants to change their last names before applying?

Not sure but it's probably easier than scoring 520+

 

[deleted972488]

Or if you survived a brain tumor. Know someone who got into a T10 with below median mcat but they survived a tumor so... that ought to stand out

That moment when life writes your PS for you...

I’m a cancer survivor and it isn’t an instant ticket to medical school acceptances... nor was it worth it even if it were.

 

[Kardio]

I’m a cancer survivor and it isn’t an instant ticket to medical school acceptances... nor was it worth it even if it were.

I believe it adds an element to your application that catches the eye of readers. There are probably very few physicians who have as intimate an understanding of the experiential component of cancer as you or other survivors. If I was reading applications, that is how I would see it.

As a caveat, just because you have a unique story to tell doesn't make it worth the hell you went through. The same would be true for others who suffered and survived other tragedies.

 

[ObjectiveBoba]

APparently harvard med school has students with 60 publications. Not even sure how that is possible as even the best PIs take years to publish 1 quality paper.. but I guess it happens ..!

At that point why not just become an associate professor with tenure? If you're young and with 60 pubs, most schools are more than happy to give you a million in start-up funds to be on their faculty...

 

[stayathomemom]

How hard can it be for applicants to change their last names before applying?

Not sure but it's probably easier than scoring 520+

I've done both and they were both a pain in the ***.

 

[Biscuitboy11]

Regarding applicant/matriculant data, U Michigan has theirs on the admissions page. Granted, 5 yr average, and stats likely trend upwards. Looks like an average of 6k applications, and for OOS, MCAT of applicants 83% (~511), admission offers 95% (~517). Another page gives incoming class data, lists MCAT average of 91% (~515?).

Given the shock and awe numbers thrown around, and Michigan’s great ranking/reputation, was surprised at the “modest” numbers. An interesting topic concerning med schools would be bang for the buck- meaning “best” school/system/ranking a person can get into given their stats. Have always pondered the concept of the “best” schools- Harvard undergrad gets ridiculous students- this group would excel anywhere. Who knows if they really get a better education than elsewhere? A question for Adcoms- any favorite underdog medical schools?

 

[gyngyn]

A question for Adcoms- any favorite underdog medical schools?

Howard

 

[Biscuitboy11]

Howard

Funny! The exact school I use as an example for great undergrad institution- as in the best school is the one that takes the most students from “here” to “there”.

 

[Lucca]

Regarding applicant/matriculant data, U Michigan has theirs on the admissions page. Granted, 5 yr average, and stats likely trend upwards. Looks like an average of 6k applications, and for OOS, MCAT of applicants 83% (~511), admission offers 95% (~517). Another page gives incoming class data, lists MCAT average of 91% (~515?).

Given the shock and awe numbers thrown around, and Michigan’s great ranking/reputation, was surprised at the “modest” numbers. An interesting topic concerning med schools would be bang for the buck- meaning “best” school/system/ranking a person can get into given their stats. Have always pondered the concept of the “best” schools- Harvard undergrad gets ridiculous students- this group would excel anywhere. Who knows if they really get a better education than elsewhere? A question for Adcoms- any favorite underdog medical schools?

The funny thing I’ve come to realize about Higher Ed is that Elite universities (and Med schools for that matter) are not really in the business of training people. Rather, they look for people that are 90, 95, 99% of the way there and throw resources at them to continue on the treadmill of achievement.

This point has been made several times on the physician scientist board. If your entire MSTP class has an MCAT >518, >3.9 GPA, the equivalent of 3-4 full-time years of research experience then what exactly are you offering those students in terms of training? Very little. What you offer is the best possible resource base for them to continue being excellent. The same is true to a lesser extent of undergrads. If you have a crop of Extremely Excellent Sheep that have been raised since birth in the best schools in the country to be high achievers by the standards of academia then they will continue doing just that. Most educational development is going to happen pretty early on and it’s a rare bird that is a true late bloomer (a la the author of Educated, or myself to an extent).

That said, I am extremely skeptical of the “more selective UGs just produce better students” argument. They certainly appear to produce more accomplished students, by conventional academic and EC metrics but are the students themselves, in terms of raw intelligence, intuition, and ability, simply better? I’m extremely skeptical. I went to a state flagship school for UG and an elite institution for my gap years where I taught UGs in the dept on occasion. I can tell you I did not perceive any real difference in ability between my UG colleagues and the students at the elite school. Elite students were better groomed and were perfectionists who were absolutely paranoid by the concept of failure. The students at my UG were also perfectionists that were scared of failure. I’m a perfectionist who is afraid of failure to some degree. So there are certainly some commonalities and some differences but overall I wouldn’t say one group is “better” than the other in any significant way. What elite institutions give you is a very powerful network and resource base, but in terms of education they don’t offer anything special you couldn’t get from anywhere else; they may even offer less than institutions which are actually invested in helping underperforming students achieve their full potential.

 

[efle]

^ my impression is the same as Lucca.

Top schools dont imbue some special magic upon their matriculants. They cheat and admit people who are already destined for success. Makes the institution look great, but the dirty secret is that all they do is provide the standard education to a bunch of especially hardworking and capable students. The real work is done at admissions.

 

[efle]

Sadly they do, with respect to admissions to the top ranked medical schools, where graduates of no more than a dozen schools are disproportionately, by large margins, represented.

I agree completely with Lucca on academic preparedness but this appears lost on many top medical schools. They could, if they wished, distribute admissions across a wider array of UG schools, but they don't.

I can see why this engenders bitterness.

I think their favoritism of elite undergrads is defensible. A 3.95 GPA earned at Columbia is simply harder to do than at a SUNY. Not to mention that the frequency of 520+ MCATs is much higher at the former and will confound the apparent favoritism even further.

But I was talking about the medical education provided at elite MD programs rather than about colleges.

To give an example with Johns Hopkins SOM, the preclinical education is mediocre to poor, with a lot of lectures devoted to niche areas of professors' research and many USMLE topics entirely skipped. This was keeping the class Step1 average very low until recent years, as low as 235-237 a couple years back which is only a few points above the national average.

The clinical rotations are also not in some elite tier of their own. I just finished a core medicine rotation which was split in two halves. First 50% was on the Osler firms at the main John's Hopkins Hospital, which is widely regarded to be one of the best medicine services and residency programs in the world. Latter 50% was at the satellite site (Hopkins Bayview) which is an entirely separate hospital and much less competitive residency program. The med student experience was much better at the satellite site, where they had a lot more time to teach us and keep us involved in what was happening with patients.

And yet the Hopkins match list is fantastic every year, and it tops the program director survey every year. It's certainly not because the preclinical years make us especially knowledgeable and its certainly not because the JHH ivory tower makes rotations much better. It's because the students admitted have the traits that make for a good resident, and had those traits before ever arriving in Baltimore. They would've been just as good as interns if they went to U Maryland SOM instead, but they get a big boost to their residency app because some admissions committee members decided they were especially impressive at the end of college and allowed them to wear the Hopkins label.

It's a bizarre process really. And only going to get a lot more high stakes and problematic if Step1 switches to Pass/Fail or Quartiles like they're currently considering.

TL;DR the big name MD programs dont teach you especially well in preclinical and a big name hospital doesnt necessarily have the best rotations. If PDs find [Top X] graduates to be particularly great residents and favor them in residency selection process, it's a result of the traits the students already had that made admissions select them, not anything special the elite institution imbued them with.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I think their favoritism of elite undergrads is defensible. A 3.95 GPA earned at Columbia is simply harder to do than at a SUNY. Not to mention that the frequency of 520+ MCATs is much higher at the former and will confound the apparent favoritism even further.

But I was talking about the medical education provided at elite MD programs rather than about colleges.

To give an example with Johns Hopkins SOM, the preclinical education is mediocre to poor, with a lot of lectures devoted to niche areas of professors' research and many USMLE topics entirely skipped. This was keeping the class Step1 average very low until recent years, as low as 235-237 a couple years back which is only a few points above the national average.

The clinical rotations are also not in some elite tier of their own. I just finished a core medicine rotation which was split in two halves. First 50% was on the Osler firms at the main John's Hopkins Hospital, which is widely regarded to be one of the best medicine services and residency programs in the world. Latter 50% was at the satellite site (Hopkins Bayview) which is an entirely separate hospital and much less competitive residency program. The med student experience was much better at the satellite site, where they had a lot more time to teach us and keep us involved in what was happening with patients.

And yet the Hopkins match list is fantastic every year, and it tops the program director survey every year. It's certainly not because the preclinical years make us especially knowledgeable and its certainly not because the JHH ivory tower makes rotations much better. It's because the students admitted have the traits that make for a good resident, and had those traits before ever arriving in Baltimore. They would've been just as good as interns if they went to U Maryland SOM instead, but they get a big boost to their residency app because some admissions committee members decided they were especially impressive at the end of college and allowed them to wear the Hopkins label.

It's a bizarre process really. And only going to get a lot more high stakes and problematic if Step1 switches to Pass/Fail or Quartiles like they're currently considering.

TL;DR the big name MD programs dont teach you especially well in preclinical and a big name hospital doesnt necessarily have the best rotations. If PDs find [Top X] graduates to be particularly great residents and favor them in residency selection process, it's a result of the traits the students already had that made admissions select them, not anything special the elite institution imbued them with.

What attibutes would graduating college seniors have that indicate they'd be attractive to residency program directors?

 

[efle]

What attibutes would graduating college seniors have that indicate they'd be attractive to residency program directors?

Academic aptitude, work ethic, already being experienced at the research game, being able to impress mentors over long periods (good letters) and make good immediate impressions (good interviews), writing well, etc

If you think of MD admissions as a kind of extremely long job interview process it makes more sense. ERAS/the match is very similar and is truly a job interview process, essentially.

 

[KnightDoc]

I think their favoritism of elite undergrads is defensible. A 3.95 GPA earned at Columbia is simply harder to do than at a SUNY. Not to mention that the frequency of 520+ MCATs is much higher at the former and will confound the apparent favoritism even further.

But I was talking about the medical education provided at elite MD programs rather than about colleges.

To give an example with Johns Hopkins SOM, the preclinical education is mediocre to poor, with a lot of lectures devoted to niche areas of professors' research and many USMLE topics entirely skipped. This was keeping the class Step1 average very low until recent years, as low as 235-237 a couple years back which is only a few points above the national average.

The clinical rotations are also not in some elite tier of their own. I just finished a core medicine rotation which was split in two halves. First 50% was on the Osler firms at the main John's Hopkins Hospital, which is widely regarded to be one of the best medicine services and residency programs in the world. Latter 50% was at the satellite site (Hopkins Bayview) which is an entirely separate hospital and much less competitive residency program. The med student experience was much better at the satellite site, where they had a lot more time to teach us and keep us involved in what was happening with patients.

And yet the Hopkins match list is fantastic every year, and it tops the program director survey every year. It's certainly not because the preclinical years make us especially knowledgeable and its certainly not because the JHH ivory tower makes rotations much better. It's because the students admitted have the traits that make for a good resident, and had those traits before ever arriving in Baltimore. They would've been just as good as interns if they went to U Maryland SOM instead, but they get a big boost to their residency app because some admissions committee members decided they were especially impressive at the end of college and allowed them to wear the Hopkins label.

It's a bizarre process really. And only going to get a lot more high stakes and problematic if Step1 switches to Pass/Fail or Quartiles like they're currently considering.

TL;DR the big name MD programs dont teach you especially well in preclinical and a big name hospital doesnt necessarily have the best rotations. If PDs find [Top X] graduates to be particularly great residents and favor them in residency selection process, it's a result of the traits the students already had that made admissions select them, not anything special the elite institution imbued them with.

@efle -- what you describe has been going on forever, and probably will continue to do so. You understand it at the UG level, but not for med school, but it is the same. The prevalence of 520+ MCATs at top UGs is not a function of superior education delivered at the school; it is a function of a greater percentage of higher quality students attending the school as compared to an average state flagship. Also, sure, a 3.95 is harder to get at a top school, especially if the classes are curved, but so what? A 3.95 is still a 3.95, and indicates mastery of the material regardless of school attended, and the MCAT is still the great equalizer, which is why it is given such weight.

Med school adcoms use prestigious UG admissions as a screen and proxy for high quality students, just like residency directors use top med school admissions. I really don't think it's a reflection of perceived quality of the education delivered. Rather, it's a reflection of perceived quality of the candidate, by virtue of him or her making it through the prestigious school admission process.

It doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, and that really good students don't attend all kinds of UGs or med schools. It's just that top schools are "name brand," and just like soap or cereal, name brand students are deemed to be better than generic, even if in reality they are sometimes exactly the same, or on occasion, the generic is actually higher quality!

 

[efle]

@efle -- what you describe has been going on forever, and probably will continue to do so. You understand it at the UG level, but not for med school, but it is the same. The prevalence of 520+ MCATs at top UGs is not a function of superior education delivered at the school; it is a function of a greater percentage of higher quality students attending the school as compared to an average state flagship. Also, sure, a 3.95 is harder to get at a top school, especially if the classes are curved, but so what? A 3.95 is still a 3.95, and indicates mastery of the material regardless of school attended, and the MCAT is still the great equalizer, which is why it is given such weight.

Med school adcoms use prestigious UG admissions as a screen and proxy for high quality students, just like residency directors use top med school admissions. I really don't think it's a reflection of perceived quality of the education delivered. Rather, it's a reflection of perceived quality of the candidate, by virtue of him or her making it through the prestigious school admission process.

It doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, and that really good students don't attend all kinds of UGs or med schools. It's just that top schools are "name brand," and just like soap or cereal, name brand students are deemed to be better than generic, even if in reality they are sometimes exactly the same, or on occasion, the generic being higher quality!

But theres the key difference where I disagree. I think a candidate getting accepted to Cornell or Columbia undergrad instead of SUNY isn't worth much of anything in itself. You have to then perform well, because it's being better than the other students at each school that is the signal of value. Nobody wants the below average Cornell premeds with a 3.3 just by virtue of being Ivy Leaguers.

In contrast it's entirely the acceptance that holds the value for these top medical programs. Below average HMS grads still match great just because the admissions committee let them into HMS.

In other words I think prestigious colleges are a proving ground where coming out on top has demonstrated something tangible and valuable to medical admissions that should make them favor you. In contrast, spending your 4 years at a brand name medical school is treated as valuable without the school actually adding anything special during your education.

 

[MyOdyssey]

But theres the key difference where I disagree. I think a candidate getting accepted to Cornell or Columbia undergrad instead of SUNY isn't worth much of anything in itself. You have to then perform well, because it's being better than the other students at each school that is the signal of value. Nobody wants the below average Cornell premeds with a 3.3 just by virtue of being Ivy Leaguers.

In contrast it's entirely the acceptance that holds the value for these top medical programs. Below average HMS grads still match great just because the admissions committee let them into HMS.

In other words I think prestigious colleges are a proving ground where coming out on top has demonstrated something tangible and valuable to medical admissions that should make them favor you. In contrast, spending your 4 years at a brand name medical school is treated as valuable without the school actually adding anything special during your education.

I don't think your distinction between UG and med prestige works.

Average Ivy Leaguers/Stanford/MIT can still do very well when applying to Wall Street, consulting and other general business gigs and they can do so without necessarily exposing themselves to rigorous competition in STEM fields. It's well known that such schools grade more rigorously in STEM than they do in the humanities.

Medical students at HMS who excel have more opportunities than those who finish at the bottom.

All of this is why the movement toward eradicating objective measures of merit is a mistake. Institutions will still try to discern more from less qualified candidates; they have to because their capacity to admit/hire isn't infinite. As certain indicia are eliminated or deemphasized, others rise up to take their place and these alternative criteria are not necessarily better.

What's more fair/better in ascertaining residency applications -- Step 1 scores or whether one's residency face pic looks "hot"?

 

[Lucca]

I don't think your distinction between UG and med prestige works.

Average Ivy Leaguers/Stanford/MIT can still do very well when applying to Wall Street, consulting and other general business gigs and they can do so without necessarily exposing themselves to rigorous competition in STEM fields. It's well known that such schools grade more rigorously in STEM than they do in the humanities.

Medical students at HMS who excel have more opportunities than those who finish at the bottom.

All of this is why the movement toward eradicating objective measures of merit is a mistake. Institutions will still try to discern more from less qualified candidates; they have to because their capacity to admit/hire isn't infinite. As certain indicia are eliminated or deemphasized, others rise up to take their place and these alternative criteria are not necessarily better.

What's more fair/better in ascertaining residency applications -- Step 1 scores or whether one's residency face pic looks "hot"?

No one is arguing for the eradication of objective measures of success. What is happening is that the purportedly “objective” measures are not precisely objective and they are being relied on to an extent that far exceeds their actual utility. Whatever your thoughts on the matter, it’s a basic fact that there is nothing objective about that at all.

I think the skepticism towards whether or not new metrics will be worse than what is already in place is too pessimistic. It’s also circuitous logic to suggest that because no alternative currently exists that no alternative could ever exist. And wrong, because there are ideas for alternatives. One must make the judgement for oneself whether or not any alternative could ever be seriously considered or crafted if nothing is done to disturb the current Meta.

But this is all kind of besides the point of this thread. More to the point, I don’t think your statement about top HMS grads doing appreciably better than bottom HMS grads necessarily makes sense. First of all, what even is a top HMS grad? The preclinicals are P/F, the only clerkship grades that show up are those in the field you are applying into, and when they are graded 90% or more get Honors. The differentiating factor is Step 1. Well, HMS’ average is around 240 and 50% or greater of the class match at a Harvard residency. Is that only the half of the class that scored 240 or better? Harvard residencies are not all equally competitive but my money says “No”. What is considered a “good” outcome in the match? That depends on the individual. My bet is that the proportion of students coming out of HMS matching their #1 pick on their ROL is higher than most other medical schools in the country.

 

[KnightDoc]

But theres the key difference where I disagree. I think a candidate getting accepted to Cornell or Columbia undergrad instead of SUNY isn't worth much of anything in itself. You have to then perform well, because it's being better than the other students at each school that is the signal of value. Nobody wants the below average Cornell premeds with a 3.3 just by virtue of being Ivy Leaguers.

In contrast it's entirely the acceptance that holds the value for these top medical programs. Below average HMS grads still match great just because the admissions committee let them into HMS.

In other words I think prestigious colleges are a proving ground where coming out on top has demonstrated something tangible and valuable to medical admissions that should make them favor you. In contrast, spending your 4 years at a brand name medical school is treated as valuable without the school actually adding anything special during your education.

With all due respect, I think the problem with the comparison is you are comparing match results for a few hundred MDs at top med schools to results for thousands of students at top UGs. I hear what you are saying about 3.3s at top UGs, but isn't it true that there are more 3.8 premeds at top UGs than the entire class at all the T10 med schools combined, and don't they "match" to top MD programs at roughly the same rate that students at top med schools match to top residencies??? The relevant comparison is the rate at which 3.8 students from top UGs gain admission to top med schools compared to that of 3.8 candidates at lower ranked schools, equalizing for MCATs and ECs. All things equal, preference is given to name-brand UGs, just like residencies give preference to top med schools, STEP scores and everything else being equal.

I hear what you are saying that all top med students match well while only high GPA students at top UGs match into top MD programs, but isn't this more of function of the relative numbers of the two populations than the fact that the education at top UGs is valued while nothing matters at a top med school after admission?