I really appreciate schools that do a hard pre-secondary screen

[Anonimus.Maximus]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Given how expensive this process is, I think it's very admirable that some schools turn away three quarters of applicants before they waste their time and money on a secondary application. Nobody likes being rejected, but I think it's dishonest for schools to let low stat applicants who don't have a prayer drop $100 applying.

On a related note, it would be nice if schools helped out with interview travel expenses, especially the ones with low post-interview acceptance rates.

 

[CyrilFiggis]

Having your stats posted in your signature makes me question the motives of your comment. You didn't get prescreened at any school and you have are in the 1% of applicants in terms of # of interviews.

 

[IWillMakeIt1]

Given how expensive this process is, I think it's very admirable that some schools turn away three quarters of applicants before they waste their time and money on a secondary application. Nobody likes being rejected, but I think it's dishonest for schools to let low stat applicants who don't have a prayer drop $100 applying.

On a related note, it would be nice if schools helped out with interview travel expenses, especially the ones with low post-interview acceptance rates.

I dont understand the point of creating this thread if you have 19 II's.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

Given how expensive this process is, I think it's very admirable that some schools turn away three quarters of applicants before they waste their time and money on a secondary application. Nobody likes being rejected, but I think it's dishonest for schools to let low stat applicants who don't have a prayer drop $100 applying.

On a related note, it would be nice if schools helped out with interview travel expenses, especially the ones with low post-interview acceptance rates.

So you're saying that schools should give up $$$ they make on secondaries AND give applicants $$$ for interviews.
Doesn't sound like a good plan for them.

 

[plantsandpremed]

Given how expensive this process is, I think it's very admirable that some schools turn away three quarters of applicants before they waste their time and money on a secondary application. Nobody likes being rejected, but I think it's dishonest for schools to let low stat applicants who don't have a prayer drop $100 applying.

On a related note, it would be nice if schools helped out with interview travel expenses, especially the ones with low post-interview acceptance rates.

My question is... how was doing 42 secondaries? Are you glad you applied that broadly?

 

[Anonimus.Maximus]

Having your stats posted in your signature makes me question the motives of your comment. You didn't get prescreened at any school and you have are in the 1% of applicants in terms of # of interviews.

Yeah, my "motive" is that financial pressures are kinda at the front of my mind right now. Not everything is an agendapost.

 

[efle]

>applies to 40+ schools despite an extremely competitive LizzyM
>complains about cycle expenses

hmmmmmmm

 

[Anonimus.Maximus]

I dont understand the point of creating this thread if you have 19 II's.

Because I'm a bit disgruntled about how expensive this process is, of course. Of course I'm happy to be doing well (so far) but money is money.

 

[Anonimus.Maximus]

My question is... how was doing 42 secondaries? Are you glad you applied that broadly?

I'm a good writer (have professional experience doing that) so in terms of timing it wasn't terrible, and there was only one case where I put the wrong name in a secondary. If I had to do it over I wouldn't have sent as many as I did, but I'm a neurotic premed so I think my actions were understandable.

 

[calivianya]

Oh, come on guys. You know it's true. It would be nice if more schools pre-screened so there was less ambiguity about your chances when you applied places, and you didn't just throw money down the black hole that is secondary fees.

It's a valid point regardless of how many II a person has. With thorough prescreening, getting zero secondaries = getting out of the limbo where you don't know if you're going to get an II or an acceptance, and you can move on with your life instead of feeling stuck and neurotically checking your email 500 times a day to see if you're ever going to get an II. Getting all the secondaries back = knowing you're competitive and you can afford to complete the secondaries for only the schools you want to go to the most. Either way, 0 II or 19 II, it would save applicants money and time if schools pre-screened.

Hell, it would also save the schools themselves lots of time... fewer secondaries to go through = quicker review process, assuming the same number of employees reading the secondaries.

 

[kwu]

It does not really matter if OP had 19 II or 0 II, I think he has a valid point. I am not an expert on medical school admission, but I believe that it is not fair to give out secondaries to applicants who have 0% chance of getting accepted. I know many people with extremely low stats getting many secondaries and wasting their money on them.

Sending out fewer secondaries will benefit everyone.

 

[efle]

Oh, come on guys. You know it's true. It would be nice if more schools pre-screened so there was less ambiguity about your chances when you applied places, and you didn't just throw money down the black hole that is secondary fees.

It's a valid point regardless of how many II a person has. With thorough prescreening, getting zero secondaries = getting out of the limbo where you don't know if you're going to get an II or an acceptance, and you can move on with your life instead of feeling stuck and neurotically checking your email 500 times a day to see if you're ever going to get an II. Getting all the secondaries back = knowing you're competitive and you can afford to complete the secondaries for only the schools you want to go to the most. Either way, 0 II or 19 II, it would save applicants money and time if schools pre-screened.

Hell, it would also save the schools themselves lots of time... fewer secondaries to go through = quicker review process, assuming the same number of employees reading the secondaries.

The one big huge glaring flaw here is that the only way to rapidly screen out 2/3 or 3/4 people is to set very high stats minimums (e.g. Vandy), which is not a behavior most people want to see become widespread. Value of being "holistic" and whatnot is largely lost.

Places like the UCs that do a pretty holistic pre-secondary screen are hella slow in doing so, because it's the reading of the apps that takes so much time in this process. If the whole system started working like you suggest, you'd just end up frantically checking email and worrying about being "in limbo" for weeks and weeks in anticipation of a secondary, and then again later in anticipation of an II.

As to the costs, they have to pay for the labor/expenses on their end. It's a necessary evil as far as I can see.

And yes, I do think it's relevant when someone complains about expense to notice that they applied to 3x as many places as was appropriate and needlessly tripled the cost of the process for themselves. Like no **** you're worried about finances, but the easy fix here was to apply more reasonably, not to blame the school's costs.

 

[Anonimus.Maximus]

The one big huge glaring flaw here is that the only way to rapidly screen out 2/3 or 3/4 people is to set very high stats minimums (e.g. Vandy), which is not a behavior most people want to see become widespread. Value of being "holistic" and whatnot is largely lost.

I'd refer you to what Hofstra does. They set a very liberal stat cutoff to receive a secondary (I think the GPA cutoff is 3.0, don't recall what it is for the MCAT). If you fall below the cutoff but you think that you have extenuating circumstances, you can contact the school directly to explain your situation and request a secondary.

 

[efle]

I'd refer you to what Hofstra does. They set a very liberal stat cutoff to receive a secondary (I think the GPA cutoff is 3.0, don't recall what it is for the MCAT). If you fall below the cutoff but you think that you have extenuating circumstances, you can contact the school directly to explain your situation and request a secondary.

Oh I absolutely agree that it would be good to have public/published stats cutoffs to tell people if they're almost certainly wasting their time. But the majority of applicants aren't going to be caught by a 3.0 GPA screen. You need a much higher cutoff if the goal is to quickly and significantly thin the herd of people paying secondary fees and/or waiting to know if they're rejected. For a model of good behavior, like say UCLA which is fantastic but practices very holistic admissions, there isn't a fix to be found here. People excited about UCLA just end up stressing out and waiting to receive a secondary + the same thing again for an interview. And as for cost, I would guess heavy pre-screening just means the admissions expenses get passed on to somewhere else, like maybe the tuition/fees for students there.

 

[longhaul3]

I'd refer you to what Hofstra does. They set a very liberal stat cutoff to receive a secondary (I think the GPA cutoff is 3.0, don't recall what it is for the MCAT). If you fall below the cutoff but you think that you have extenuating circumstances, you can contact the school directly to explain your situation and request a secondary.

How is that a "hard" screen though? What percentage of applicants do you think have below a 3.0 GPA?

 

[calivianya]

And yes, I do think it's relevant when someone complains about expense to notice that they applied to 3x as many places as was appropriate and needlessly tripled the cost of the process for themselves. Like no **** you're worried about finances, but the easy fix here was to apply more reasonably, not to blame the school's costs.

It's hard to tell what applying reasonably means sometimes, especially if your application is unbalanced. I have a decent GPA/MCAT. My LizzyM is either a 70 or around a 72.5 depending if you run it for my cumulative GPA or post bacc GPA. At a school that rewards reinvention, I'd say I'm a 72.5.

But... if I sort for schools within 2% of that 72.5, I get a lot of research-heavy schools, and I never did any research. However, if really good clinical experience could make up for research, I'd be back to being a good candidate because as best as I can estimate, I have >10k hours of clinical experience.

As far as I can tell, the whole process is a totally unpredictable crap shoot at best. As good as computers are these days, you would think someone could have come up with an algorithm to pre-screen candidates more holistically based on what the school is looking for, so it isn't just about GPA/MCAT and the pre-screen doesn't require a tremendous amount of human effort.

 

[hellowalnut]

Agreed! Love the Calfornia schools for this. Now if they weren't so damn difficult to get into.....

 

[efle]

It's hard to tell what applying reasonably means sometimes, especially if your application is unbalanced. I have a decent GPA/MCAT. My LizzyM is either a 70 or around a 72.5 depending if you run it for my cumulative GPA or post bacc GPA. At a school that rewards reinvention, I'd say I'm a 72.5.

But... if I sort for schools within 2% of that 72.5, I get a lot of research-heavy schools, and I never did any research. However, if really good clinical experience could make up for research, I'd be back to being a good candidate because as best as I can estimate, I have >10k hours of clinical experience.

I cannot think of any way for a 75.1 to be imbalanced enough to need 40+ apps. Like a 3.51/40 or 3.91/36, and everything in between, really doesn't need a cycle like that. The fact they have ~20 interviews in mid Oct means they have no giant holes elsewhere, either. They just applied to waaaaay too long of a list. It was clearly reasonable for them to apply to more like 20 places at the most if finances were a big concern.

Not that I think it makes someone a bad person for applying lots of places! Just thought it was funny OP lamented the cost when they willingly chose a list that was going to be several fold more expensive than was necessary.

As far as I can tell, the whole process is a totally unpredictable crap shoot at best. As good as computers are these days, you would think someone could have come up with an algorithm to pre-screen candidates more holistically based on what the school is looking for, so it isn't just about GPA/MCAT and the pre-screen doesn't require a tremendous amount of human effort.

I suppose you could set screens for things like X or higher research hours, but I think the human readers are still necessary. Person A and B might have similar numbers of hours and both have a poster, but the PI LoR and the way they write about their projects might make one a much more attractive candidate. And even at the research powerhouses with mostly researchy people, they do want some diversity and go looking for the people they want for other reasons. Hard to train an algorithm to find the interesting, one-of-a-kind narratives.

 

[CUatthefinishline]

Nobody likes being rejected, but I think it's dishonest for schools to let low stat applicants who don't have a prayer drop $100 applying.

Like others have mentioned, this might damper that whole holistic screening thing. But I honestly appreciated being rejected pre-secondary this cycle by a state school before they asked me for mullah. I was mad salty when another state school rejected me DAYS after taking my money. But I chalked it up to the risk you run; if you want even a sliver of a chance, don't really care where you live, & aren't a pre-med rockstar then that's life. I don't really mind it too much. It just takes one acceptance to change my life & I'm willing to invest on the front end to get my name in the ring at a few places. I'll never have to wonder "what if?" or "should I have done blah blah blah?" so it's all cool in the long run.

 

[kwu]

The one big huge glaring flaw here is that the only way to rapidly screen out 2/3 or 3/4 people is to set very high stats minimums (e.g. Vandy), which is not a behavior most people want to see become widespread. Value of being "holistic" and whatnot is largely lost.

Places like the UCs that do a pretty holistic pre-secondary screen are hella slow in doing so, because it's the reading of the apps that takes so much time in this process. If the whole system started working like you suggest, you'd just end up frantically checking email and worrying about being "in limbo" for weeks and weeks in anticipation of a secondary, and then again later in anticipation of an II.

I, on the other hand, lean towards having a GPA/MCAT cutoffs for the simple reason of reality. What percentage of applicants get accepted with below 500 MCAT and 3.5 GPA? very small percentage! I don't think the school will be losing the "Holistic" part of their evaluation by rejecting applicants under certain stats.

 

[Lawpy]

The one big huge glaring flaw here is that the only way to rapidly screen out 2/3 or 3/4 people is to set very high stats minimums (e.g. Vandy), which is not a behavior most people want to see become widespread. Value of being "holistic" and whatnot is largely lost.

Regardless of schools claiming to be “holistic”, admissions is driven largely by numbers, so having a stats prescreen set at various minimums is a reliable and efficient way to prescreen thousands of applications. There wouldn’t be delays in primary screening seen in UCs.

 

[efle]

I, on the other hand, lean towards having a GPA/MCAT cutoffs for the simple reason of reality. What percentage of applicants get accepted with below 500 MCAT and 3.5 GPA? very small percentage! I don't think the school will be losing the "Holistic" part of their evaluation by rejecting applicants under certain stats.

By definition you lose a lot of the "holistic" magic when you raise hard screens. There are some phenomenal schools with ranges spanning into the low 500s / below 3.5.

Are those admits people that could be easily replaced with higher-stats applicants? Or are they impressive, unique gems that require digging through mountains of never-had-a-chance apps to discover? I think the latter is the case and make it worthwhile to keep screens very low.

I think you're right about it being the reality at some places (like Vandy, or WashU). I just don't support the idea of making it the norm everywhere. The fact that lots of the big names have ranges spanning down to 8-10 points below their averages means they're stilling putting in the effort to find the worthwhile hail mary apps, and saying that should end because a higher hard screen saves most of the hail mary's some time and money...just doesn't convince me.

 

[efle]

Regardless of schools claiming to be “holistic”, admissions is driven largely by numbers, so having a stats prescreen set at various minimums is a reliable and efficient way to prescreen thousands of applications. There wouldn’t be delays in primary screening seen in UCs.

I dunno man. Take some examples like Hopkins or Cornell. They have very high medians (519) but dip much further down for their 10th percentiles (510-511). To me, that means something would be lost if they set up hard screens and only gave secondaries to the minority with competitive stats (lets say 514+). Most of the class would remain the same, but is convenience for rejected applicants really more important than that handful that is now missing from each class?

 

[kb1900]

I dunno man. Take some examples like Hopkins or Cornell. They have very high medians (519) but dip much further down for their 10th percentiles (510-511). To me, that means something would be lost if they set up hard screens and only gave secondaries to the minority with competitive stats (lets say 514+). Most of the class would remain the same, but is convenience for rejected applicants really more important than that handful that is now missing from each class?

100% agree.

 

[Lawpy]

I dunno man. Take some examples like Hopkins or Cornell. They have very high medians (519) but dip much further down for their 10th percentiles (510-511). To me, that means something would be lost if they set up hard screens and only gave secondaries to the minority with competitive stats (lets say 514+). Most of the class would remain the same, but is convenience for rejected applicants really more important than that handful that is now missing from each class?

Wouldn't this be an incentive for those applicants to retake the MCAT and meet the cutoff requirements?

 

[infectiousdisease101]

I asked someone at Johns Hopkins and they told me they did a descriptive study and found there was little to no correlation in undergrad stats and being successful in their MSTP since I'm interested in MD PhD. So they try to focus on the non quantifiable traits.

In addition I know at least one school that pre screens, but during the interview, the interviewer is only given the written application. No stats.

As they say stats get you go the door. So I feel like once you have a certain threshold, some don't even look at stats twice.

 

[efle]

I asked someone at Johns Hopkins and they told me they did a descriptive study and found there was little to no correlation in undergrad stats and being successful in their MSTP since I'm interested in MD PhD. So they try to focus on the non quantifiable traits.

In addition I know at least one school that pre screens, but during the interview, the interviewer is only given the written application. No stats.

As they say stats get you go the door. So I feel like once you have a certain threshold, some don't even look at stats twice.

Pretty funny you got that spiel from Hopkins, because for their recent cohort the entire MSTP range (full range, not just 10th to 90th) is inside the top percentile on the MCAT. Every single person 521+

 

[infectiousdisease101]

But they took in a 3.68 GPA as well.

 

[efle]

But they took in a 3.68 GPA as well.

I don't see how a 3.7/40 type admit is evidence of "trying to focus on non-quantifiable traits" haha

 

[infectiousdisease101]

Because judging by stats alone don't really tell much so as I said before, after a threshold they look at the written. Someone I know got into a California school and they graduated cum laude (so I don't reveal too much info) and people with higher LizzyM scores got waitlisted.

Also, in my opinion, even schools that don't pre screen, do screen stats. I know one school that doesn't and first thing they do is look at stats and throw it 1 of 3 piles. Reject, may be, and interview.

 

[CloverBale]

Anyone know what other schools do hard pre-screens?

 

[CyrusHabs7695]

Anyone know what other schools do hard pre-screens?

Only one I got whacked by pre-secondary was EVMS. I know VCU has one as well.

 

[ClamChowderrr]

Also, in my opinion, even schools that don't pre screen, do screen stats. I know one school that doesn't and first thing they do is look at stats and throw it 1 of 3 piles. Reject, may be, and interview.

Does that school happen to be Geoge Washington?

 

[infectiousdisease101]

I am not saying anything.

 

[infectiousdisease101]

Oh and on the topic of this post and Hopkins, they do Skype interviews. How's that for helping with travel expenses?

 

[CyrilFiggis]

What percentage of applicants get accepted with below 500 MCAT and 3.5 GPA? very small percentage!

So what's more important GPA or MCAT? I was below on one of them. But I'm also a non-trad so my uGPA is 8 years older than my sGPA form my post-bacc. Or is it both in combination? If so, the mean GPA and MCAT for last year's applicants were 3.55 and 501.8, which means a not-insignificant number of applicants would be pre-screened. I think that would affect the holistic approach.

It does not really matter if OP had 19 II or 0 II, I think he has a valid point.

A valid point can be reduced by the optics of the situation. When OP has a nearly 50% II rate and currently zero rejections how can they call schools "admirable" without it coming across as "glad the riff-raff has been excluded so I can get more IIs" (regardless of if that's true.... this is the internet). If OP had an unsuccessful application and marginal stats, that would have been better received.

 

[Terry Toma]

What would a "hard pre-secondary screen" do for us that a review of the MSAR would not allow us to do for ourselves? If I pay an application fee at a school where my stats are subpar, I'm making an informed decision and taking a calculated risk. It doesn't benefit me to remove my ability to make that choice.

I'm a non-trad with a low cGPA, but a solid postbacc and MCAT. With any significant stat-based prescreen, my cGPA would probably prevent me from getting a secondary at just about every MD school. I'm glad that I am able to submit secondaries with the hope that a few will land in front of receptive adcoms, even if I know that I'll be an insta-reject more often than not.

I understand how a prescreen might benefit an admissions committee, but I just don't see how it would benefit the applicant. Taking a decision out of my hands is never going to benefit me (assuming that I am mentally competent and reasonably informed).

 

[DBC03]

What would a "hard pre-secondary screen" do for us that a review of the MSAR would not allow us to do for ourselves? If I pay an application fee at a school where my stats are subpar, I'm making an informed decision and taking a calculated risk. It doesn't benefit me to remove my ability to make that choice.

I'm a non-trad with a low cGPA, but a solid postbacc and MCAT. With any significant stat-based prescreen, my cGPA would probably prevent me from getting a secondary at just about every MD school. I'm glad that I am able to submit secondaries with the hope that a few will land in front of receptive adcoms, even if I know that I'll be an insta-reject more often than not.

I understand how a prescreen might benefit an admissions committee, but I just don't see how it would benefit the applicant. Taking a decision out of my hands is never going to benefit me (assuming that I am mentally competent and reasonably informed).

I do agree that it's nice to have the opportunity to get my application in front of people regardless of one bad stat (low GPA, solid post-bacc and MCAT like you). But I wish schools would tell us if there is a hard cutoff is for GPA and MCAT. I didn't realize until reading some threads that some schools won't even look at an application with a GPA below 3.5 - It would be nice to know that regardless of high MCAT, unique and meaningful ECs, significant upward GPA trend, and perfect post-bacc, I'm still not getting into that school except as a cadaver. If they could at least post lowest MCATs and GPAs accepted each year, that would give many of us an idea of whether this is worthwhile. My GPA is below the 10th percentile at the majority of schools in the country, but knowing which schools have never accepted a GPA that low is helpful. The MSAR is helpful for most situations, but this year's is the least accurate for the MCAT as it only represent 1/3 of the applicants, and we don't know how each school considered the new MCAT for that first year. It also doesn't account for skewed stats (we can only gauge this by word of mouth or absolute stats provided on websites).

 

[Terry Toma]

I do agree that it's nice to have the opportunity to get my application in front of people regardless of one bad stat (low GPA, solid post-bacc and MCAT like you). But I wish schools would tell us if there is a hard cutoff is for GPA and MCAT. I didn't realize until reading some threads that some schools won't even look at an application with a GPA below 3.5 - It would be nice to know that regardless of high MCAT, unique and meaningful ECs, significant upward GPA trend, and perfect post-bacc, I'm still not getting into that school except as a cadaver. If they could at least post lowest MCATs and GPAs accepted each year, that would give many of us an idea of whether this is worthwhile. My GPA is below the 10th percentile at the majority of schools in the country, but knowing which schools have never accepted a GPA that low is helpful. The MSAR is helpful for most situations, but this year's is the least accurate for the MCAT as it only represent 1/3 of the applicants, and we don't know how each school considered the new MCAT for that first year. It also doesn't account for skewed stats (we can only gauge this by word of mouth or absolute stats provided on websites).

Ok, yeah, I'd agree that if a school does have a true hard cutoff, that cutoff should be pre-secondary (or at least the cutoff should be advertised). I just wouldn't want schools that don't otherwise have hard cutoffs to start screening pre-secondary. In that case, I'd rather be allowed to use my own judgement when applying.

 

[Lawpy]

If a hard stats screen were to be implemented, it would be used to screen based on MCAT scores. MCAT is a more recent, standardized measure of academic readiness than GPA. School selectivity is stratified by MCAT scores, not by GPAs.

 

[DBC03]

If a hard stats screen were to be implemented, it would be used to screen based on MCAT scores. MCAT is a more recent, standardized measure of academic readiness than GPA. School selectivity is stratified by MCAT scores, not by GPAs.

This sounds good in theory, but I've heard a few adcoms say that some schools won't look at an application with a GPA below 3.5, regardless of having an MCAT above the median for that school. I think these are the minority of schools, but it would be helpful information.

Of course, I realize this applies to a VERY small percentage of applicants in the full applicant pool...

 

[Lawpy]

This sounds good in theory, but I've heard a few adcoms say that some schools won't look at an application with a GPA below 3.5, regardless of having an MCAT above the median for that school. I think these are the minority of schools, but it would be helpful information.

Of course, I realize this applies to a VERY small percentage of applicants in the full applicant pool...

No idea what those schools are but i don’t think they are top tiers or mid tiers that like good stats (like Hofstra, Rochester, Emory etc.), because these schools like high MCAT scores a lot more than high GPAs. Screening for GPA is a very bad idea because GPA is unstandardized and unreliable: grade policies vary widely by university, by major and even by professor (not to mention grading on a curve and the average student quality also varies widely). Many schools have a 3.0 autoscreen where any GPA below that is screened out. That is more reasonable than a 3.5 screen that’s irrationally too high.

Screening for MCAT is a lot more reliable because everyone applying takes the exam that’s kept in closely monitored conditions. And the MCAT screens can be reasonable while also maintaining holistic standards: just set the screen = 10th percentile of matriculants - 1.

 

[DBC03]

No idea what those schools are but i don’t think they are top tiers or mid tiers that like good stats (like Hofstra, Rochester, Emory etc.), because these schools like high MCAT scores a lot more than high GPAs. Screening for GPA is a very bad idea because GPA is unstandardized and unreliable: grade policies vary widely by university, by major and even by professor (not to mention grading on a curve and the average student quality also varies widely). Many schools have a 3.0 autoscreen where any GPA below that is screened out. That is more reasonable than a 3.5 screen that’s irrationally too high.

Screening for MCAT is a lot more reliable because everyone applying takes the exam that’s kept in closely monitored conditions. And the MCAT screens can be reasonable while also maintaining holistic standards: just set the screen = 10th percentile of matriculants - 1.

My guess is that schools like Pritzker and NYU (maybe WashU) screen heavily for GPAs. I know Duke, Emory, and the like do not. I agree that it's difficult to compare GPAs (and was told that by one of the schools where I interviewed). I've gone to three different schools and the difference in difficulty of achieving an A at each was significantly different.