- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
Don't ever get focused on 1 school, that's asking for heartbreak. Especially when it's one of the best medical schools in the world...Hi guys,
I just graduated college, and I'll be applying to medical school next cycle (2016-2017). I have pretty decent stats, and I'm confident I can put together a competitive application for medical school (Ivy undergrad, 3.8+ GPA, strong extracurriculars, independent research w/ publications, etc...) I haven't taken the MCAT yet, but I've done well with standardized tests in the past. I'm convinced that UCSF is the 100% perfect school for me. In short: I love San Francisco, and the school has a wonderful and very unique program for medical students that's right up my alley. HOWEVER, I'm not from California, and I've heard that UCSF is impossible to get into for out-of-state students.
Is there anything that I can do in the next year -- short of moving to California -- to improve my chances? Would it help to publish with a UCSF professor, or something like that? Anything else anyone can think of?
Thanks!!!
Am I missing the joke?If your GPA is less than 3, you are not getting into UCSF.
Jokes aside, UCSF matriculated 35 out-of-state applicants from a pool of roughly 3500. That's not impossible, but it is difficult. NEVER get focused on one school in this process. Stanford is pretty close to San Francisco, and is far friendlier to OOS applicants. It is still extremely difficult to get into, but your 3.8 is pretty close to their median GPA.
Thanks, guys. I realize that I need to ace the MCAT first -- but assuming I do well on that, does anyone have any other tips for how to set up a good out-of-state application to UCSF?
It's "only" 35.Even amongst those with 3.8+ GPAs in the best schools in the country, at least half of those students at almost all school still fail to get a 36+ MCAT score which is around what UCSF's median is(can't remember if it is 36 or 35 now days).
It's "only" 35.
If you look at their matriculants you will see that there is so much more than stats involved in the decision to interview and accept. Given their social justice mission, it is hard to predict which way their stats might go. They could easily fill with MCAT's to drop Wash U's jaw (if they wanted).Give it time. The way things are trending UCSF's days of "only" being a 35 are numbered.
If you look at their matriculants you will see that there is so much more than stats involved in the decision to interview and accept. Given their social justice mission, it is hard to predict which way their stats might go. They could easily fill with MCAT's to drop Wash U's jaw (if they wanted).
Sorry, dude.Sarcasm over the internet is always rather hard to detect and I failed at it again it looks like. But yes what you are saying is of course spot on.
Furthremore, what you are saying is true of the vast majority of top 20 schools in terms of them being able to self select an absurd MCAT median for their school if they wanted to. There is a reason why UCSF is often cited as one of the schools that reward re-invention and are recommended to those who had rocky starts but really picked things up and fit UCSF's mission to look into for precisely the reasons they said.
The one thing I'll add is that there is a clear distinction people often fail to make in that "more hollistic schools" where more people might have a shot at doesn't mean "less competitive" than schools which are more strict about their numbers. And I think that's particuarly important for the OP to consider; just because UCSF is more likely to consider someone with a 33 MCAT doesn't make them much less selective(if at all) than a WASHU that's more likely to throw an application with a 33 MCAT without any hooks in the trashcan.
I'm curious what UCSF would have to sacrifice about their admitted students if they raised their median numbers to be closer to peers like Harvard, Stanford, Penn
But their mission is the same generic blah as other top schools, four fold mission of education / research / care / service. That's all the same stuff as Harvard/Hopkins/Stanford/Penn isn't it? UCSF emphasizes service more maybe?
They'd have less students going into primary care.I'm curious what UCSF would have to sacrifice about their admitted students if they raised their median numbers to be closer to peers like Harvard, Stanford, Penn
Give me a WAMC OP and I'll tell you with 95% confidence what the next 6-7 posts are going to say, replete with pre-med analysis of the posts of the adcoms.
The OP, in the first post, wrote: "HOWEVER, I'm not from California, and I've heard that UCSF is impossible to get into for out-of-state students.
Is there anything that I can do in the next year -- short of moving to California -- to improve my chances?"
The OP right at the outset stated "I've heard it's almost impossible to get in," and "is the anything I can do to improve chances." Clearly the OP knows the chances are slim regardless. Clearly the OP isn't going to just apply to one school. And clearly the OP knows that a top-notch MCAT score is critically important for any tippy-top school.
And your point????
There are a lot of points. For starters, 1) reading more carefully and 2) the pre-med "advisors" (what are their credentials anyway and have they already been accepted to 5 top 10 schools?) learn the 8-10 red flags preached by adcoms like yourself and then if they see anything pinkish they can't get off of that item as a huge negative for the applicant (oh man, that downward trend is really gonna be a huge downer for your app right before the applicant shares he's already getting interviews). And the tones of superiority and condescencion from the pre-meds are a little much for my tastes. By the time you've read a few posts in this thread one would assume the OP is a very entitled and very distorted and unrealistic young person, but then one reads the very first post and that was not the case at all. And to top it off, the adcoms and pre-med "advisors" go around liking each other's posts, reinforcing the pre-meds to be even more opinionated and "expert."
You have an odd idea of what qualifies someone to give advice. Being accepted to a top 5 or 10 programs doesn't mean someone knows better what advice is appropriate in a variety of situations vs a premed that has read a lot of WAMC adcom posts and perused a lot of MDApps. Does having a 4.0 and 40+ and strong research really change how much you respect someone's advice to retake an MCAT or apply to certain OOS programs over others etc? And here I thought you had a mind for philosophyThere are a lot of points. For starters, 1) reading more carefully and 2) the pre-med "advisors" (what are their credentials anyway and have they already been accepted to 5 top 10 schools?) learn the 8-10 red flags preached by adcoms like yourself and then if they see anything pinkish they can't get off of that item as a huge negative for the applicant (oh man, that downward trend is really gonna be a huge downer for your app right before the applicant shares he's already getting interviews). And the tones of superiority and condescencion from the pre-meds are a little much for my tastes. By the time you've read a few posts in this thread one would assume the OP is a very entitled and very distorted and unrealistic young person, but then one reads the very first post and that was not the case at all. And to top it off, the adcoms and pre-med "advisors" go around liking each other's posts, reinforcing the pre-meds to be even more opinionated and "expert."
Instead of going into every other thread saying this, you could have just helped the OP. It is kind of getting tiresome honestly; the general advice given is pretty solid and there are often some conflicting opinions in threads, so rest assured it isn't simply an echo chamber.
You have an odd idea of what qualifies someone to give advice. Being accepted to a top 5 or 10 programs doesn't mean someone knows better what advice is appropriate in a variety of situations vs a premed that has read a lot of WAMC adcom posts and perused a lot of MDApps. Does having a 4.0 and 40+ and strong research really change how much you respect someone's advice to retake an MCAT or apply to certain OOS programs over others etc? And here I thought you had a mind for philosophy
You misread the post. I didn't suggest that would qualify someone, but rather was asking what might make one think he or she is qualified, and I was imagining that some type of self-perceived extraordinary success might make one feel he or she is so entitled. Am I now qualified simply on the basis of having read tons of WAMCs since May??? But since you raise that example, would you approve of someone performing the advisor task who struck out 2 cycles in a row with low stats? I don't find the argument compelling that one's status as a pre-med is irrelevant. Don't we see candidates advised all the time that the experiences of actually doing things (volunteering, clinical, research, etc) are critical to one's viability as an applicant? Same principle. And even if the pre-meds can offer even better advice than the adcoms, should they be presenting with toen and style even more "adcom" than the adcoms?
-- Zarathustra
I didn't misread, you very much implied acceptance to a Top 5 or 10 was a credential you'd want to see a poster have before giving advice with an air of certainty. I very much disagree that one's competitiveness matters at all in this arena - for example I know what programs are most friendly to OOS or most emphasize research or what MCATs are competitive where because of time put into the MSAR data; earning a 40+ MCAT taught me exactly nothing of relevance to WAMC.
And whatever criticisms you have of SDN advising, it is at least a huge improvement from most premed advisers at colleges!
-- iamverysmart wannabe ubermensch
There are a good number of pre-meds that offer excellent advice in these forums.