.

[deleted1038378]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EthylMethylMan]

A lot of this is going to depend on why you didn't get in last cycle, and whether or not you've improved upon those issues significantly. This is genuinely a hard question to answer without knowing your application more deeply than just your grades/score. But if I were to give generic advice: if your application is a good deal better, you can think about keeping your list the same. If it's not, you should probably apply more broadly. That being said, I think you should just apply as broadly as you can afford to. I've been out of the game for a few years, but I was also a reapplicant. Being a reapplicant is a disadvantage at a lot of schools. Plus, as much as people on this site incessantly crunch numbers, there's a crap shoot element to this whole process. Just my two-cents.

 

[KnightDoc]

A lot of this is going to depend on why you didn't get in last cycle, and whether or not you've improved upon those issues significantly. This is genuinely a hard question to answer without knowing your application more deeply than just your grades/score. But if I were to give generic advice: if your application is a good deal better, you can think about keeping your list the same. If it's not, you should probably apply more broadly. That being said, I think you should just apply as broadly as you can afford to. I've been out of the game for a few years, but I was also a reapplicant. Being a reapplicant is a disadvantage at a lot of schools. Plus, as much as people on this site incessantly crunch numbers, there's a crap shoot element to this whole process. Just my two-cents.

This^^^^^^. It only makes sense. As you know, reapplicants are disadvantaged at some schools, so that in and of itself is reason enough to cast a wider net. No rule as to percentage split, and, as @EthylMethylMan said, the more your app improved the less disadvantaged you'll be. There is also a bias at some schools against people who reapply immediately. Hopefully you didn't just reapply to same schools, did you?

 

[KnightDoc]

I added a few new schools like 5, but I'm in Cali, so my state schools plus the schools that interviewed me last year was already like half my list lol. I did add TMDSAS, so those were all new.

Also, I think my app has improved a good amount. The writing alone is much better. But I got hundreds of hours more research, volunteering, shadowing, and a pub. So, we'll see how it works out.

Boy, you're sure not making it easy on yourself!!

Cali definitely sucks, but it's hard to see how TMDSAS as OOS will be the answer to your problems. That is probably the one thing, other than schools that just don't consider OOS at all, that is worse than Cali. Why did you pick that of all things, as opposed to simple OOS friendly schools from around the country?

 

[TabbyTuxy]

YMMV, but as a fellow reapplicant I cast a way wider net. Less than a quarter of my current school list includes schools I applied to in the past. I did more research on the schools on my old list and found that I certainly wasn't doing myself any favors -- a lot of huge reaches and low-yields. This year, I have only gotten interviews from 1 of the schools where I am a reapplicant, and that school is known to be friendly to its applicants who interviewed in past cycles, so it wasn't too surprising to hear from them. Honestly, all my other interviews are from schools that did not ask me to disclose whether I had reapplied anywhere in the past. Take that as you will.

If you made significant changes, I really don't think there's anything to worry too much about. It sounds like you got interviews in the past and have interviews this cycle already. How have you addressed potential deficiencies that may be arising during the interview phase? Compared to the work you put into getting this far, tweaking interview performance should be fairly easy.

 

[KnightDoc]

I'm gonna do a bunch of mock interviews. I figure practice is the only way to really improve. Gonna call up my friends and a couple doctors I know and maybe try to find some people online. I guess stat wise (3.85+/520+/LM76-77) I don't think I'm locked out of any school, so it was not my school list that was a problem last cycle, more so it was my interview skills and poor writing and mediocre ECs.

I'm no expert nor am I am admissions consultant, but you are absolutely correct about your stats (everywhere!) and are wrong about your ECs at the schools that gave you interviews (they wouldn't have wasted time interviewing you if your ECs rendered you inadmissible).

Even if they weren't as strong as they could have been, they didn't kill you. That leaves your interviews. Your better everything this time around might make your interviews less important than they were last time, but you will do yourself a HUGE favor if you figure out what went wrong last time and fix it. JMHO.

 

[mvsrocks]

Yeah I'm kinda terrified about the bias against reapplicants, even with significant improvements. Only 1 of my 4 IIs is from a school I previously applied to

 

[KnightDoc]

I was kinda going by the staircase analogy. I think I had passable ECs, nothing special, but most of the interviews I got were in part due to my stats (i.e. if I had lower stats, but the same ECs, I probably wouldn't have been invited). So I think I moved up the staircase this year (hopefully). I did get feedback from schools, basically could beef up ECs and improve writing. Obviously they didn't tell me about my interview skills, but it goes without saying that I need to improve those.

Staircase analogy definitely makes sense, but, given the number of IIs you had last year, it just doesn't make a lot of sense that they were too weak. Stronger is definitely better (the same with your essays), but it really sounds like you just couldn't close the deal in the interviews. If so, figuring that out will be the key to success for you this time around.

 

[KnightDoc]

n=1, but I know a guy who was a reapp and did 60%old/40% new and only got iis at old schools. Ended up in a top 10!

That just goes to show there are no rules. You widen the net to guard against reapplicant bias because you have no way to know whether or not it's going to be a problem for you until after the fact. You know it's a real thing, but, in a case like yours (super high stats), if your issue was indeed ECs or the interview, those are easier to fix than stats, and high stats make you very attractive once the other elements are addressed. So, you might not see the same reapplicant bias a 3.6/512 candidate might.

 

[mvsrocks]

n=1, but I know a guy who was a reapp and did 60%old/40% new and only got iis at old schools. Ended up in a top 10!

THANK GOD THERE'S HOPE. Do you know when he got his II's? I have a theory that maybe reapps take longer to review, since they might look at previous app??

 

[Goro]

Yeah I'm kinda terrified about the bias against reapplicants, even with significant improvements. Only 1 of my 4 IIs is from a school I previously applied to

The bias against reapplicant sis mostly SDN hype. Multiple schools give advice on reapplying. The big takeaway is to NOT immediately reapply, but to fix the holes in your app, and/or improve your interview skills.

@erenyeager, you need to apply to schools where you are competitive, whether you applied previously or not.

 

[KnightDoc]

The bias against reapplicant sis mostly SDN hype.

So, which part isn't hype?

The part about schools asking whether an applicant has ever applied anywhere? Do they do this to give applicants extra points for having the grit and determination to not allow setbacks to stop them from pursuing their dream, or to operationalize a bias against a portion of the applicant pool deemed to be weaker due to at least one prior unsuccessful cycle?

The part about schools subjecting a reapplicant to an extra layer of scrutiny by comparing the application to the prior cycle? If there were no bias, why not just judge the application on its face, without respect to if, how or how much it has improved from a prior cycle?

The part about reapplicants just not performing as well, as a group, as first time applicants?

Come to think of it, is any part of it really hype? Nobody is saying it is impossible for a reapplicant with a spectacular application to find success. This happens every year. SDN (in fact, univeral) wisdom is that the bar is higher for reapplicants because there is a bias against them due to a prior failed cycle.

Exactly what part of that is hype? Is the answer simply that it isn't true? That they are weaker as a group, so don't perform as well, with no bias???