Immediate rejections even w/ high stats (no interview offers) - is this why?

[FROGGBUSTER]

I was browsing the Internet earlier and found this post from another forum talking about how medical schools decide whether or not to extend interview offers to applicants:

It appears that few schools have some highly structured system. Most are a simple 3 or 4 rank system. They typically give a small weight based your GPA from your orginal undergraduate institution and to a lessor extent to other schools such as postbacc or graduate. So a school that is say ranked high at a "4" might give your GPA a multiplier of .04 as opposed to a low school where the rank was a 1 and you get .01 multiplier. These would then be added to whatever numeric formula the school uses that combines GPA (sliced and diced with science, non-science, post-bacc, etc), MCAT score for that first initial cutoff to decide to send you a secondary application. Even so, most schools then have a brief review of applications that didn't make the cut to see if there were any gross disparities, outstanding reasons, etc why the app didn't make the cutoff. So if you mentioned that term of W's due to illness, a loss of a job, etc, they'd probably flag it for further review. This is the majority where any numeric "prestige ranking" is used. It is not likely used much in a direct way in the actual admissions decision.

So apparently how tough your undergrad university is does make a significant difference, something I didn't know before. There's been more than a few 3.7/21 guys on here getting immediate rejections without interview offers (which really surprised me), so maybe this is why?

What do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[flin5845]

I was browsing the Internet earlier and found this post from another forum talking about how medical schools decide whether or not to extend interview offers to applicants:



So apparently how tough your undergrad university is does make a significant difference, something I didn't know before. There's been more than a few 3.7/21 guys on here getting immediate rejections without interview offers (which really surprised me), so maybe this is why?

What do you guys think?

I don't think a 3.7/21 person is immediately rejected because of an "easy" undergrad. Just because a 21 is 90+ percentile. I would agree that if someone had 3.7/17 may get immediately rejected because of an"easy " college. Because someone with a 3.7 should be able to get atleast 18-19 if their undergrad college was challenging. I think the DAT tells admissions 2 things. 1. I'd your GPA is inflated 2. If you would be able to pass boards in dental school because you are thrown a lot of information of pretty challenging stuff.

 

[reely989]

I was browsing the Internet earlier and found this post from another forum talking about how medical schools decide whether or not to extend interview offers to applicants:



So apparently how tough your undergrad university is does make a significant difference, something I didn't know before. There's been more than a few 3.7/21 guys on here getting immediate rejections without interview offers (which really surprised me), so maybe this is why?

What do you guys think?

I think it is more to do with admissions offices just wanting to cut back on sheer numbers sometimes honestly. I really question how much undergraduate comes into account. I know people with lower stats than me (at the same undergraduate university), who didn't get these immediate rejections, though I got one. So, honestly, I have no idea what their criteria is, and short of calling the school, lucking up, and getting someone to tell you, I don't think there is going to be a blanket answer for this.

 

[indigenoustw]

I was browsing the Internet earlier and found this post from another forum talking about how medical schools decide whether or not to extend interview offers to applicants:

So apparently how tough your undergrad university is does make a significant difference, something I didn't know before. There's been more than a few 3.7/21 guys on here getting immediate rejections without interview offers (which really surprised me), so maybe this is why?

What do you guys think?

Interesting post. I never heard of this system before but I know some visiting counselors from some CA dental schools to our predental club did mention something about giving weight to more challenging schools. They didn't elaborate on how this is gonna work, but I do think that your undergrad school does play a role in the admission process because most people coming from a challenging school might ended up applying with a lower GPA than people coming from a "easier school" by logic. So it's fair somehow but the matter can be a really complicated process.

 

[jeffity]

The College Factor.

I posted a little about this in the 'myths' thread. I really don't know which schools would choose to use it, but they have the option to apply a College Factor when adjusting numbers on their end. Info comes form the instructions for the software they use to download our applications and keep our file.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=11276371#post11276371

 

[dieseldent]

I received a letter of rejection from Nova last week. I was in the first batch, my undergrad GPA was 3.2 and my post-bacc GPA is 3.9 (total GPA is 3.4), and my Academic Avg on the DAT was 22. I have left them a voicemail and email inquiring, but have not yet received a response.

 

[cottonschwab217]

there are a couple things I have noticed here on SDN regarding interviews/rejections that I wanted to talk about.

First off, everyone needs to remember that peoples stats are not everything. Some dental schools look way harder at ecs, shadowing hours, personal statement, and LOR than others. Trying to compare yourself to someone else with similar stats doesn't mean diddly because the other person could have 400+ hours of volunteer work and 100+ hours of shadowing/research, or they could have a really great personal statement or LOR. Stats are a big part, but they are not everything. You filled out those other sections of AADSAS and Secondaries for a reason.

Second, of course your undergraduate institution makes a difference! It's definitely not a huge or even moderate factor, but it can definitely make an impact. Someone who attends Cal State Hayward (heard of it? no? exactly) with a gpa of 3.7 isn't going to be looked as favorably upon as someone from UCLA or Berkeley with a gpa of 3.4 or 3.5. Adcomms are not stupid, they realize that there is more competition at better universities. That's the wholel point of having state schools vs universities. If all other things are equal the adcomm is most likely taking the student from the more prestigious university. But even this is probably miniscule. I would imagine the biggest place where your undergrad comes into play is when your DAT and GPA don't match up. When someone has a 3.9 GPA and an 18AA it's clear that something doesn't add up. Most likely that can be attributed to an easy undergrad education. Yes, undergrad makes a difference, but it's not going to be game changing. If you attended a less prestegious university with a 3.8 gpa and got a 23 AA, then there is no issue.

 

[spoog74]

I was browsing the Internet earlier and found this post from another forum talking about how medical schools decide whether or not to extend interview offers to applicants:



So apparently how tough your undergrad university is does make a significant difference, something I didn't know before. There's been more than a few 3.7/21 guys on here getting immediate rejections without interview offers (which really surprised me), so maybe this is why?

What do you guys think?

its funny, when i posted that my school health committee told me that some of my B's were A's at other schools and the admissions adcoms at the dental schools know this and weigh greatly on it, people here were laughing at me.

Its true, the schools know a hard school when they see it. For example, ive seen people on here with A's in LOTS of their sciences, like WTF? In my school to get an A in something like organic chem or bio you'd have to be a mere genius. The average of the class was in the 50-60's ..... Now when i heard some of my friends talking about private schools like Long island University or St Johns University, they were telling me their averages were in the 70's and higher. This is what i mean, and i HOPE this is what the adcoms are looking at as well. Good luck.

 

[Double Bonded]

First off, everyone needs to remember that peoples stats are not everything. Some dental schools look way harder at ecs, shadowing hours, personal statement, and LOR than others. Trying to compare yourself to someone else with similar stats doesn't mean diddly because the other person could have 400+ hours of volunteer work and 100+ hours of shadowing/research, or they could have a really great personal statement or LOR. Stats are a big part, but they are not everything. You filled out those other sections of AADSAS and Secondaries for a reason.

Second, of course your undergraduate institution makes a difference! It's definitely not a huge or even moderate factor, but it can definitely make an impact. Someone who attends Cal State Hayward (heard of it? no? exactly) with a gpa of 3.7 isn't going to be looked as favorably upon as someone from UCLA or Berkeley with a gpa of 3.4 or 3.5. Adcomms are not stupid, they realize that there is more competition at better universities. That's the wholel point of having state schools vs universities. If all other things are equal the adcomm is most likely taking the student from the more prestigious university. But even this is probably miniscule. I would imagine the biggest place where your undergrad comes into play is when your DAT and GPA don't match up. When someone has a 3.9 GPA and an 18AA it's clear that something doesn't add up. Most likely that can be attributed to an easy undergrad education. Yes, undergrad makes a difference, but it's not going to be game changing. If you attended a less prestegious university with a 3.8 gpa and got a 23 AA, then there is no issue.

This is a good post.
Personally, I've found that a lot of people on the east coast aren't aware of UC Berkeley unless they are into some serious academia or have affiliations over on the other side of the country. On the other hand, UCLA is well known to my east coast friends (I also heard that it was one of the most applied to schools in the US...not sure if it's a rumor or fact though).

 

[larryguy1960]

there are a couple things I have noticed here on SDN regarding interviews/rejections that I wanted to talk about.

First off, everyone needs to remember that peoples stats are not everything. Some dental schools look way harder at ecs, shadowing hours, personal statement, and LOR than others. Trying to compare yourself to someone else with similar stats doesn't mean diddly because the other person could have 400+ hours of volunteer work and 100+ hours of shadowing/research, or they could have a really great personal statement or LOR. Stats are a big part, but they are not everything. You filled out those other sections of AADSAS and Secondaries for a reason.

Second, of course your undergraduate institution makes a difference! It's definitely not a huge or even moderate factor, but it can definitely make an impact. Someone who attends Cal State Hayward (heard of it? no? exactly) with a gpa of 3.7 isn't going to be looked as favorably upon as someone from UCLA or Berkeley with a gpa of 3.4 or 3.5. Adcomms are not stupid, they realize that there is more competition at better universities. That's the wholel point of having state schools vs universities. If all other things are equal the adcomm is most likely taking the student from the more prestigious university. But even this is probably miniscule. I would imagine the biggest place where your undergrad comes into play is when your DAT and GPA don't match up. When someone has a 3.9 GPA and an 18AA it's clear that something doesn't add up. Most likely that can be attributed to an easy undergrad education. Yes, undergrad makes a difference, but it's not going to be game changing. If you attended a less prestegious university with a 3.8 gpa and got a 23 AA, then there is no issue.

are you saying state schools and universities differ solely on whether they are state or privately funded?