How many people with a good MCAT (510+) NEVER make it?

[TheAppleJuice]

I was wondering - I know that every year a ton of people with high stats are rejected, but how many people absolutely never become a physician despite having a good MCAT/GPA? say they apply 3 or more times and never get in

what do you think went wrong for those people?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DoctorSnow]

Well since the MCAT is only one piece of the puzzle, I’m going to guess that their other pieces didn’t fall into place for their application.
Ex. Low GPA, no clinical experience, no volunteering, 4.0 robots.

 

[Oso]

poor clinical experience and/or extracurriculars + horrible at interviews

if someone has great stats and doesn't get in after 3 tries, then they either have a major red flag (ex. got in trouble either at school or with the law) or are just clueless about the application process

 

[Goro]

poor clinical experience and/or extracurriculars + horrible at interviews

if someone has great stats and doesn't get in after 3 tries, then they either have a major red flag (ex. got in trouble either at school or with the law) or are just clueless about the application process

I was wondering - I know that every year a ton of people with high stats are rejected, but how many people absolutely never become a physician despite having a good MCAT/GPA? say they apply 3 or more times and never get in

what do you think went wrong for those people?

Look for the thread in this forum on high stat people who don't' get in.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

I was wondering - I know that every year a ton of people with high stats are rejected, but how many people absolutely never become a physician despite having a good MCAT/GPA? say they apply 3 or more times and never get in

what do you think went wrong for those people?

One of the problems these people may have had is their state of residence. A highly qualified applicant has a real chance of falling through the cracks if: 1) he or she comes from a state without a state medical school (e.g. Rhode Island and New Hampshire); 2) the applicant's state school system is too small given the state's population (e.g. California) or 3) his/her home state does not have an arrangement with a school in another state to favor its applicants. Thomas Jefferson in Philadelphia favors Delaware applicants and U of Washington has a formal arrangement with Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho and Montana. A highly qualified applicant might also fail if his/her home state school (e.g. Iowa) gives away too many seats to nonresidents.

Approximately 60% of the matriculants at US MD schools are instate residents.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321442/data/factstablea1.pdf
The average MCAT score this past fall for matriculants from California was 513.4. The average MCAT for Mississippi matriculants was 505.5.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321502/data/factstablea20.pdf
This is not a meritocratic process played out on a level playing field.

If an applicant comes from one of these misbegotten states he or she will have to apply very broadly, go overboard with volunteering and research and carefully apply.

 

[cafedisco]

I am confused. How is a state, a self-governing unit, representing its residents, who pay taxes and support the educational institution including medical schools, having a preference for its own citizens not an appropriate process? If you find this distasteful, shouldnt we also look at the way the say, public education is funded by property taxes mostly, and varies widely based on the small school district or town you live in? Why parents who gladly moved houses and towns in order to get public schools options for their children, jealously keeping their local school district separate from others seemingly become nationalists when it comes to medical school admission for the same children?

I didn't interpret the post in that way. I read it as some states may not have *enough* of a preference for their own residents or be able to meet the high number of qualified applicants in a given state ie. California. If anything, I gripe about my own state, not the fact that other states' state schools won't take me.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

I am confused. How is a state, a self-governing unit, representing its residents, who pay taxes and support the educational institution including medical schools, having a preference for its own citizens not an appropriate process? If you find this distasteful, shouldnt we also look at the way the say, public education is funded by property taxes mostly, and varies widely based on the small school district or town you live in? Why parents who gladly moved houses and towns in order to get public schools options for their children, jealously keeping their local school district separate from others seemingly become nationalists when it comes to medical school admission for the same children?

Year after year the data show that the hurdles to be cleared in gaining admission to medical school vary greatly depending on an applicant's state of residence.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321502/data/factstablea20.pdf
Stare at the table. See the wide variations from state to state in average MCAT scores. (I have these tables in a file going back to 1997 but I can't link them.) I don't think a home address is indicative of an applicant's ability to practice medicine. However, I can certainly understand why state supported medical schools are biased in favor of their own residents. Economically and politically it makes perfect sense. Sparsely populated, poor, unglamorous states wouldn't have any physicians if they didn't make sure their own kids were admitted to medical school.

Consider the case of Paula Buchwald and the University of New Mexico med school. Ms. Buchwald had moved to New Mexico and did all of the statutory stuff required to become a legal resident. She then applied to the New Mexico med school three times and was rejected every year. She appealed the rejection and was told by the med school that she hadn't lived in New Mexico long enough. She sued in federal court. She alleged that the med school had violated her right to travel and every conceivable provision of the 14th amendment like equal protection, due process yada yada.
FindLaw's United States Tenth Circuit case and opinions.

The procedural aspects of this case are cloudy for non-lawyers. Ultimately, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit gets to the substance of the issues. The Court said that Ms. Buchwald's arguments had merit BUT ultimately ruled in the the medical school's favor because the State of New Mexico had a compelling state interest to get longstanding residents into medical school to increase the likelihood that New Mexico would have physicians in underserved areas.

"In this case, defendants argue that the distinction was employed as a proxy for selecting those candidates likely to return to the state of New Mexico and supply needed medical care to underserved areas of the state.   Contrary to plaintiff's argument, we conclude that this justification is not only legitimate, but also compelling.   See Bakke, 438 U.S. at 310, 98 S.Ct. 2733 (“It may be assumed that in some situations a State's interest in facilitating the health care of its citizens is sufficiently compelling to support the use of a suspect classification.”)  (Powell, J.).   New Mexico's policy seeks to provide medical care to all residents of the state, regardless of their duration of residency.   Given the evenhandedness of this purpose, and the strong role that the purpose plays in right to travel analysis, it cannot have been unreasonable for Klepper and Atencio to believe the policy would not be subject to heightened scrutiny.   Further, although the record contains evidence that duration of residency is not the best predictor of where a physician will choose to establish a practice, see Appellant's App. at 102 (Dep. of Dean Paul Roth), such evidence hardly makes it irrational to use duration of residency in this manner."

This sort of residential bias is a fact of life. It means that some people from "easy" states will get into medical school with credentials that are not as solid as those of people from "tough" states who apply and never get in. That is my point.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

A few thoughts:

1) there have been many threads on this topic that are worth reading
2) this is an olympic class event where the competition is intense. Very often it isnt the applicant is bad but that so many people are good. There are 800,000+ individual applications transmitted to 150+ individual medical schools presenting perhaps at best 150,000 interview slots. That would mean at least 650,000 applications must be rejected prior to II. With multiple acceptance offerings and WL at 3.5x 21,500 spots means about 75,000 applications get an acceptance and/or WL.
3) Some estimates:
-At least 5-10% of those with 518 MCAT or higher never attend medical school
-At least 12%-20% of those 514-517 never attend medical school
-At least 20%-25% of those 510-513 never attend medical school.

4) applying to medical school is more than your scores.
5) Does the application have balanced ECs including clinical volunteering, community service, research, shadowing, leadership?
6) Does the application have any glaring deficiencies in any area ?
7) are the schools targeted appropriately for the GPA/MCAT/Mission/Residency for the applicant?
8) Does the applicant present a coherent and concise application, well written, across EC, PS and secondaries?
9) Does the application clearly define the motivation, commitment, and achievement along with the personal characteristics that are sought for physicians in training?
10) Does the application present any compelling factors of life story, service, or similar
11) Does the application present any flags?
12) At any individual school, 5,000-10,000 application for 1,000 II so 80% of applications must be rejected prior to II. Schools must look for reasons to reject. In short, being good may not be enough

I never claimed that the intangible aspects of an application are irrelevant. I am sure that someone with scads of research, a brilliant personal statement and relevant volunteering experiences has an advantage over an applicant with miniscule volunteering and research experience in those instances when the two applicants have similar GPAs and MCAT scores and they come from the same state. However, a review of the data year after year shows that people from West Virginia, North Dakota, Louisiana, Michigan and Mississippi have a much lower hurdle to jump than applicants from New Hampshire, Rhode Island, California and Iowa. It's in the AAMC data every year. It's undeniable.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

Yes the data says so but you make the incorrect assumption that this unfair. It is perfectly fair for the state medical schools as their mission is to use public resources and funding to train physicians for their specific populations, which would include those those with strong ties to remain in state.

Oh you mean fairness to applicants? That isnt the mission. Applicants are merely the raw material to produce physicans. The fairness almost exclusively exists in the fact that no one forces anyone to apply. You can accept the system or not. You dont like the reality, dont apply

I never said it was unfair. Please don't put words in my mouth. Can you cite any post of mine where I said the system was unfair? I did state "This is not a meritocratic process played out on a level playing field." That is obviously the case.

I also posted, "I can certainly understand why state supported medical schools are biased in favor of their own residents. Economically and politically it makes perfect sense. Sparsely populated, poor, unglamorous states wouldn't have any physicians if they didn't make sure their own kids were admitted to medical school."

 

[Goro]

I never claimed that the intangible aspects of an application are irrelevant. I am sure that someone with scads of research, a brilliant personal statement and relevant volunteering experiences has an advantage over an applicant with miniscule volunteering and research experience in those instances when the two applicants have similar GPAs and MCAT scores and they come from the same state. However, a review of the data year after year shows that people from West Virginia, North Dakota, Louisiana, Michigan and Mississippi have a much lower hurdle to jump than applicants from New Hampshire, Rhode Island, California and Iowa. It's in the AAMC data every year. It's undeniable.

Iowans have a 88% chance of getting an II at U IA. They have a ~60% of being accepted. 30% of all ISers get a seat. For a state that has 1/3rd of the class coming from OOS, IA is a very lucky one for Hawkeyes. It's not an uber-lucky one like MS or NM, but it's still lucky.

It's a given that state schools favor the home team, with the exception of VCU. If one has a good list to go with the app, then one can get into med school.

Fish in a barrel, @gonnif.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

Iowans have a 88% chance of getting an II at U IA. They have a ~60% of being accepted. 30% of all ISers get a seat. For a state that has 1/3rd of the class coming from OOS, IA is a very lucky one for Hawkeyes. It's not an uber-lucky one like MS or NM, but it's still lucky.

It's a given that state schools favor the home team, with the exception of VCU. If one has a good list to go with the app, then one can get into med school.

Fish in a barrel, @gonnif.

Getting an interview does not equal getting an acceptance. A high interview to application ratio is indicative of the very high quality of Iowa's applicant pool. It may also be a political move. The University of Iowa medical school consistently gives one third of its medical school seats away to nonresidents. Iowa has one of the lowest ratios of physicians to total population in the country. Iowa currently ranks 46th in the country at 186 active patient care physicians per 100,000 people. The national average is 236.
https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/30/

A google search of "Iowa" and "Physician shortage" will produce numerous articles bemoaning the state's physician shortage. You will read statements from people at the U of Iowa medical school stating they are moving heaven and earth to fix it. Yeah, sure.

If you refer to table 20 on the AAMC data base you will see that the GPA and MCAT averages for allopathic medical school matriculants from the state of Iowa in the fall of 2018 exceeded the total matriculants' averages by all eight statistical criteria.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321502/data/factstablea20.pdf

Iowans simply have to meet a higher standard, in every way, than applicants across the country.

Game, set, match.

 

[Goro]

Getting an interview does not equal getting an acceptance. A high interview to application ratio is indicative of the very high quality of Iowa's applicant pool. It may also be a political move. The University of Iowa medical school consistently gives one third of its medical school seats away to nonresidents. Iowa has one of the lowest ratios of physicians to total population in the country. Iowa currently ranks 46th in the country at 186 active patient care physicians per 100,000 people. The national average is 236.
https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/30/

A google search of "Iowa" and "Physician shortage" will produce numerous articles bemoaning the state's physician shortage. You will read statements from people at the U of Iowa medical school stating they are moving heaven and earth to fix it. Yeah, sure.

If you refer to table 20 on the AAMC data base you will see that the GPA and MCAT averages for allopathic medical school matriculants from the state of Iowa in the fall of 2018 exceeded the total matriculants' averages by all eight statistical criteria.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321502/data/factstablea20.pdf

Iowans simply have to meet a higher standard, in every way, than applicants across the country.

Game, set, match.

Ahhh, there's that almost magic ability you have of moving the goal posts. It's like arguing with a supporter of der Trum...um, He Who Must Not Be Named.

We're not talking about MD grads leaving states or physician shortages, or anything else; we're talking about chances of getting into med school, and IA in particular. Nor are we talking about stats.

As since you ignored the data, I'll reiterate it: Hawkeyes have a 60% chance of getting accepted. This in a school which has a significant number of OOS matriculants. There aren't that many state schools that do that, U VM and VCU come to mind.

There are 141 MD schools in the USA. About 50 are state schools. That leaves some 90 schools lets subtract out the Top 20 (which actually has 30 schools, other than U MI, UCSF, UCLA and U VA). That's still a boat load of schools to apply to for applicants, even for the poor applicants of ME, DE, NH, RI, and PA. And even the first two get some preference from Tufts and Jefferson.

So to reiterate, yes, there are states where it is advantageous to be an applicant. But wise applicants get in elsewhere, even if they live elsewhere, even in a net exporter, like CA.

And to reiterate yet again, we already know that state schools favor the home team.