how medical schools pick applicants :

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Everyone has their personal preference.
My first glance includes name, school, gpa, MCAT and a brief assessment of their ability to follow simple instructions. I then proceed to the secondary, followed by the primary application, ending with the LOR's.

Are there any conclusions being made when looking at the name🙄
 
My stance of MCAT vs. GPA:

Most important factor: make sure both are good/ok. Then, if it boils down to it, MCAT> GPA for most schools, especially when GPA> 3.7.
 
Holistic review includes evidence of competence. The fact that a significant number of applicants below your stated "proper numbers" are admitted at every school every year indicates that more than mere numbers are involved. The "best" applicant we accepted this cycle had a 29 MCAT.

that gives me hope that you'll take my 28 lol
 
Honestly, is med school that hard to get into really. Getting into the "top tier" may be hard, but if you really want to be a physician you can get into a DO school with 26-27 3.4 do the same job and get paid exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
I would think 3/4 years of undergraduate career matter more than a 4 hour exam....

I know one future applicant who got a bachelors in health sciences from a local community college (cc just started a bachelor degree program as well). All required pre-med courses completed. GPA: 3.97. MCAT? He told me has trouble breaking a 26. This is an extreme case but you know what I mean. MCAT is important because it is the great equalizer. If you "warrant" that high sciences GPA then the MCAT shouldn't be a problem.
 
they definitely sort the applications by mcat scores there's a reason why most of the people who have gotten interviews as of now have high mcats. people with lower mcats arent even seen till way later so most of the slots are full when their apps are seen.
 
I would think 3/4 years of undergraduate career matter more than a 4 hour exam....

unfortunately, you're thinking too rationally then.

I know one future applicant who got a bachelors in health sciences from a local community college (cc just started a bachelor degree program as well). All required pre-med courses completed. GPA: 3.97. MCAT? He told me has trouble breaking a 26. This is an extreme case but you know what I mean. MCAT is important because it is the great equalizer. If you "warrant" that high sciences GPA then the MCAT shouldn't be a problem.

great at equalizing great standardized test takers and those with privileged socioeconomic backgrounds into the accept pile by giving adcoms another number that has the potential to be interpreted as meaningful under a very selective context (step 1 correlations are shoddy).

http://fairtest.org/healthy-medical-school-admissions

"One research study showed that as a student progresses through medical school the power of the pre-admission interview ratings to predict medical school grade point average (GPA) generally increases over time while the power of MCAT scores decreases.2 Another study considered the effects of MCAT scores and "non-cognitive" measures on basic science grades and clinical competence in medical school. While only 4% of the variation in the ratings of clinical competence were related to MCAT scores, 14% could be explained by psycho-social measures.3 While no one factor contributes greatly to predicting success, test scores are clearly only weak predictors whose value decreases as students progress through training."

more viable info than the horrifically shoddy correlation with the step 1 that's frequently claimed.

It gets even better:
" 20% of whom as part of their "special consideration" status did not need to meet MCAT and GPA minimums - had graduation rates and performance reviews in residencies that were "remarkably similar" to students admitted under standard criteria."

Nothing like being evaluated on a metric that is just there for the sake of being an easy way to supposedly rank people and demonstrates very little.
 
Last edited:
unfortunately, you're thinking too rationally then.



great at equalizing great standardized test takers and those with privileged socioeconomic backgrounds into the accept pile by giving adcoms another number that has the potential to be interpreted as meaningful under a very selective context (step 1 correlations are shoddy).

http://fairtest.org/healthy-medical-school-admissions

"One research study showed that as a student progresses through medical school the power of the pre-admission interview ratings to predict medical school grade point average (GPA) generally increases over time while the power of MCAT scores decreases.2 Another study considered the effects of MCAT scores and "non-cognitive" measures on basic science grades and clinical competence in medical school. While only 4% of the variation in the ratings of clinical competence were related to MCAT scores, 14% could be explained by psycho-social measures.3 While no one factor contributes greatly to predicting success, test scores are clearly only weak predictors whose value decreases as students progress through training."

more viable info than the horrifically shoddy correlation with the step 1 that's frequently claimed.

It gets even better:
" 20% of whom as part of their "special consideration" status did not need to meet MCAT and GPA minimums - had graduation rates and performance reviews in residencies that were "remarkably similar" to students admitted under standard criteria."

Nothing like being evaluated on a metric that is just there for the sake of being an easy way to supposedly rank people and demonstrates very little.

Of course psycho-social is going to be a larger predictor of clinical competence.
But MCAT has a huge 0.4 or so correlation to USMLE scores.

In the end, no test is infallible- but the MCAT is not arbitrary material- it is mostly from your premed courses. If you were "taught to the test" in your classes with lectures notes, selected chapters and practice tests with similar questions - then you probably don't know enough to ace the MCATs without extensive studying (but may very well have gotten an A in the class).

Granted I do believe some people have test anxiety. But one can "game" a good GPA. Nobody can game a good MCAT score.
 
It gets even better:
" 20% of whom as part of their "special consideration" status did not need to meet MCAT and GPA minimums - had graduation rates and performance reviews in residencies that were "remarkably similar" to students admitted under standard criteria."

Nothing like being evaluated on a metric that is just there for the sake of being an easy way to supposedly rank people and demonstrates very little.

Does 20% similarity mean 80% dissimilarity among those admitted under standard criteria? Because the way you quote and emphasize that part actually seems to hurt your case. 80% of admitted students who were admitted on special circumstances perform lower than those admitted on standard criteria. This is pretty telling if you ask me but I could be wrong.
 
So lets say you come from a school, like Hopkins, that has a lot of students apply. Do admission offices compare/rank applicants within that school (particularly the schools that don't have rolling admissions)?

Lets say one kid at Hopkins has a 3.9 GPA and a 35 MCAT while another has a 3.7 and a 38 MCAT. Does the kid with the higher MCAT generally have a better shot? Or, at some point, does admissions just view these as two well qualified who can obviously handle the work so lets look at the other factors (LORs ECs etc)?
 
So lets say you come from a school, like Hopkins, that has a lot of students apply. Do admission offices compare/rank applicants within that school (particularly the schools that don't have rolling admissions)?

Lets say one kid at Hopkins has a 3.9 GPA and a 35 MCAT while another has a 3.7 and a 38 MCAT. Does the kid with the higher MCAT generally have a better shot? Or, at some point, does admissions just view these as two well qualified who can obviously handle the work so lets look at the other factors (LORs ECs etc)?

Both GPA's show academic accomplishment and it is hard to factor in grade inflation or deflation where they went to school, difficulty of degree and course load, and UG prestige. Therefore, the higher MCAT would likely be ranked higher, if all other things are relatively equal. But at this point, you are talking about two stellar applicants that will likely get multiple interviews. So yes they may be ranked similarly and both have a shot.
 
So lets say you come from a school, like Hopkins, that has a lot of students apply. Do admission offices compare/rank applicants within that school (particularly the schools that don't have rolling admissions)?

Lets say one kid at Hopkins has a 3.9 GPA and a 35 MCAT while another has a 3.7 and a 38 MCAT. Does the kid with the higher MCAT generally have a better shot? Or, at some point, does admissions just view these as two well qualified who can obviously handle the work so lets look at the other factors (LORs ECs etc)?

Different admissions committees may do things differently, but it's not uncommon to rank applicants.

And I wish people would stop with the stat hypotheticals of 3.X GPA/3X MCAT vs 3.Y GPA/3Y MCAT. Stats are important, but they don't override the entire application, and it never comes down to just stats. It's impossible to say who has a better shot just based on higher GPA vs higher MCAT. It's the entire application, the entire person, that is evaluated, not their numbers.
 
Different admissions committees may do things differently, but it's not uncommon to rank applicants.

And I wish people would stop with the stat hypotheticals of 3.X GPA/3X MCAT vs 3.Y GPA/3Y MCAT. Stats are important, but they don't override the entire application, and it never comes down to just stats. It's impossible to say who has a better shot just based on higher GPA vs higher MCAT. It's the entire application, the entire person, that is evaluated, not their numbers.

So true. And we might interview both and find that one is inarticulate or robotic, emotionally fragile or downright rude. That trumps all.
 
Amen, Brother! I consider these exercises to be fool's errands.

And I wish people would stop with the stat hypotheticals of 3.X GPA/3X MCAT vs 3.Y GPA/3Y MCAT. Stats are important, but they don't override the entire application, and it never comes down to just stats. It's impossible to say who has a better shot just based on higher GPA vs higher MCAT. It's the entire application, the entire person, that is evaluated, not their numbers.[/QUOTE]
 
Holistic review includes evidence of competence. The fact that a significant number of applicants below your stated "proper numbers" are admitted at every school every year indicates that more than mere numbers are involved. The "best" applicant we accepted this cycle had a 29 MCAT.

Apologies for bumping an old thread but may I ask what was so appealing about this applicant that made you over look his test scores?
 
Apologies for bumping an old thread but may I ask what was so appealing about this applicant that made you over look his test scores?
His entire application authentically vibrated with hope and success despite unfortunate life circumstances.
His commitment to service was palpably joyful.
He communicated clearly in own voice in the application and in person.
He was thankful for what he had and begrudged no one else for having more.
He demonstrated resilience and adaptability.
He lit up the room and made everyone happy to be there.
 
Top