Implications of filling "previously applied"

[p0stman]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi there, this will be my second time applying to medical school and for many of my chosen schools I am a re-applicant. I will obviously be honest about this, but I was wondering if filling out the "previous applied" checkbox for any school have any implications on my application (i.e. lower chances etc.) Thanks!

 

[ThaliaNox]

This is going to vary by school. Most schools, though, expect significant improvement in a reapplicant, which makes sense because if your application wasn't good enough last year, why would it be for this year?

 

[ThaliaNox]

I think it raises your chances by showing determination and genuine interest in attending.

There is this, but it is balanced by the fact that nobody wanted you last year. Both viewpoints factor in.

 

[runawayclock]

There is this, but it is balanced by the fact that nobody wanted you last year. Both viewpoints factor in.

Also depends on /why/ they rejected you. Were you wait-listed? Did you apply too late? Did your interview suck (and you've since improved)?

 

[Xinlitik]

I think you're only at a disadvantage if your application has showed little to no progress. If you show them that you've been actively fixing the problems you had last year, I cant see them rejecting you for being a reapplicant--it just shows that you really want medical school and are willing to try as hard as necessary.

 

[NickNaylor]

Some schools don't accept reapplicants. Obviously this would be a problem for you if you're applying to those schools.

 

[ThatQuestionGuy]

Some schools don't accept reapplicants. Obviously this would be a problem for you if you're applying to those schools.

Really? Never heard of this. I know there are some schools with a limit on the number of times you apply but that's usually 3, not 1

 

[tpham1030]

What about if you are applying to schools that you didn't apply to last year? Do they still consider you a re-applicant? Would they still view you as one even though you haven't applied to that school before?

 

[Law2Doc]

I think it raises your chances by showing determination and genuine interest in attending.

Reapplicants like to float this idea, but it doesn't seem to have much weight in reality. Truth of the matter is that reapplicants, as mentioned, have to show substantial improvement in their applications to get the SAME consideration that first time applicants get. As such it's a higher standard, and so being a reapplicant is a steeper hill. Some of the more competitive places separate out reapplicants to a separate pile, or other variations on that theme. You never get the same kind of consideration as a first time applicant, because you aren't -- you already have the track record of coming up short. Determination is not so impressive if you consider how much work many people put in to get into med school the first time. To say, I am coming up for a second shot so that shows how determined I am is sometimes looked at more that you didn't get your ducks in a row last time. There are plenty of folks who spend the time needed to put their best foot forward the first time, and that simply is better regarded. The biggest mistake people make in this process is to rush things. If your app is not up to par you need to spend the time to fix it, not just apply and expect to get "determination" credit when you have to reapply. doesn't work that way. Some people want it to, but it doesn't.

That being said, showing "substantial improvement" is often doable, so many reapplicants get in, if they don't again rush things, and really take the time (sometimes years) to get things right.

 

[Law2Doc]

Really? Never heard of this. I know there are some schools with a limit on the number of times you apply but that's usually 3, not 1

That's accurate. There are a few schools toward the top of the US News list that, although it's not an explicit policy, according to some adcom members, have never been known to take a reapplicant. If you think about it, it shouldn't be so surprising. Those places get tons of applications, are only interested in the cream of the crop, and thus are basically looking for any little blemish to eliminate someone from the running, to cull the herd. Having failed in an attempt at med school to some constitutes such a blemish.

 

[ThatQuestionGuy]

That's accurate. There are a few schools toward the top of the US News list that, although it's not an explicit policy, according to some adcom members, have never been known to take a reapplicant. If you think about it, it shouldn't be so surprising. Those places get tons of applications, are only interested in the cream of the crop, and thus are basically looking for any little blemish to eliminate someone from the running, to cull the herd. Having failed in an attempt at med school to some constitutes such a blemish.

Interesting. Do schools know whether you are a re-applicant even if you haven't applied to their school before?

 

[Law2Doc]

Interesting. Do schools know whether you are a re-applicant even if you haven't applied to their school before?

Sure. There's a question on AMCAS (and on most secondaries as well) which asks if you've submitted before. If the answer is yes, you are a reapplicant by definition.

 

[flip26]

OP:

You are in a big boat with a lot of fellow reapplicants.

I once found the data in one of those AAMC charts, but IIRC, out of the 40k applicants every year, something like 10k are reapplicants. It might be even higher than that, but suffice to say that a significant number of applicants each year are in it for the 2nd time (or 3rd, or 4th...ouch).

There are a couple of schools that don't accept reapplicants, but I would not worry about that right now.

 

[flip26]

Reapplicants like to float this idea, but it doesn't seem to have much weight in reality..

I think this is supported by AAMC data that shows, IIRC, that the acceptance rate for reapplicants is significantly less than first time applicants.

Makes sense if you think about it.

 

[JJMrK]

I think this is supported by AAMC data that shows, IIRC, that the acceptance rate for reapplicants is significantly less than first time applicants.

Makes sense if you think about it.

Hard to say whether that has to do with being a reapplicant.

The person is likely a reapplicant because of less than ideal numbers; if the numbers weren't improved that is going to drag the acceptance rate down (because if they were not acceptable the first time around, why should they be the second time?). Or the low rate could be due simply to the fact that these people are reapplicants (in other words, independent of their numbers). It's probably impossible to separate the two effects, though.

 

[flip26]

Hard to say whether that has to do with being a reapplicant.

The person is likely a reapplicant because of less than ideal numbers; if the numbers weren't improved that is going to drag the acceptance rate down (because if they were not acceptable the first time around, why should they be the second time?). Or the low rate could be due simply to the fact that these people are reapplicants (in other words, independent of their numbers). It's probably impossible to separate the two effects, though.

Yes, I meant it makes sense because the reapplicant is probably a weaker overall applicant, due to stats, poor PS, etc. Hard to improve that much in a cycle...

 

[JJMrK]

Yes, I meant it makes sense because the reapplicant is probably a weaker overall applicant, due to stats, poor PS, etc. Hard to improve that much in a cycle...

OK, in that case I agree. I think there is probably some combination of the two effects, with the one you are talking about having a greater impact than simply being a reapplicant in name.

 

[flip26]

OK, in that case I agree. I think there is probably some combination of the two effects, with the one you are talking about having a greater impact than simply being a reapplicant in name.

Yeah, I don't think there is any stigma attached to being a reapplicant, really. Some schools may sniff about it, but I don't think it counts against the majority of reapplicants.

See my post higher up about the number of reapplicants every year - something like 25 percent of all applicants in a typical year.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah, I don't think there is any stigma attached to being a reapplicant, really. Some schools may sniff about it, but I don't think it counts against the majority of reapplicants....

Well, simply by virtue of being a reapplicant, you have to show substantial improvement on your app. If you were, say, a 3.0/28 and didn't get in, you might be expected to come back with a 3.2/30 to get looked at. Meanwhile a first time applicant with a 3.2/29 might meet the threshold of the same school. So you are penalized for having jumped the gun in a past cycle. In general this substantial improvement you have to show is a higher threshold than put on those applying for the first time. In other words, a harder road. Because you have this hurdle to overcome, being a reapplicant does "count against you". Hence it's stigmatic.

 

[flip26]

Well, simply by virtue of being a reapplicant, you have to show substantial improvement on your app. If you were, say, a 3.0/28 and didn't get in, you might be expected to come back with a 3.2/30 to get looked at. Meanwhile a first time applicant with a 3.2/29 might meet the threshold of the same school. So you are penalized for having jumped the gun in a past cycle. In general this substantial improvement you have to show is a higher threshold than put on those applying for the first time. In other words, a harder road. Because you have this hurdle to overcome, being a reapplicant does "count against you". Hence it's stigmatic.

Your example assumes the reapplicant has sent the app to the same school, and it also assumes that the reviewer compares the current app to the old app. Somehow I seriously doubt that med schools go to that level of sleuthing to ascertain if the reapplicant "improved" his app. Either the app passes muster, or it doesn't.

Now if the new app shows obvious improvement in, say, GPA, that will be evident from the new app. Same with MCAT (the date will be a give away here).

 

[ThaliaNox]

Your example assumes the reapplicant has sent the app to the same school, and it also assumes that the reviewer compares the current app to the old app. Somehow I seriously doubt that med schools go to that level of sleuthing to ascertain if the reapplicant "improved" his app. Either the app passes muster, or it doesn't.

Now if the new app shows obvious improvement in, say, GPA, that will be evident from the new app. Same with MCAT (the date will be a give away here).

Many schools do exactly this. Re-applicants are often parceled out into another pile and reviewed separately. Interviewers are also told to ask how the application has improved. If it hasn't, this is a major red flag.

 

[NotAsking4Much]

OP: it'll really be to your advantage to get advice on what went wrong the first time in your app. Some schools will tell you (a small number) but you guessing what went wrong vs what is really lacking could break your app.

Figure out what's wrong, fix it, and you're in the running with everyone else.

 

[flip26]

Many schools do exactly this. Re-applicants are often parceled out into another pile and reviewed separately. Interviewers are also told to ask how the application has improved. If it hasn't, this is a major red flag.

Do what? Pull out the old app and compare? I doubt it. They have thousands of new apps to deal with - hard to believe that they want to bother with comparing an old app to the new app.

As I said in a prior post, if the app has "improved" in the area of GPA and MCAT, that will be self evident from the new app alone (new MCAT date, new courses reported in the preceding year). Same thing with ECs - are the dates current, or did the applicant last volunteer at a soup kitchen over a year ago. No need to compare it to the old app to see if it has changed or improved - it will be evident in the new app.

The new app will stand, or fall, on its own merits.

And I believe LizzyM said that her school doesn't do this (the pulling out of the old app, etc.). Maybe she will chime in here.

 

[dingyibvs]

There is no stigma against reapplicants that actually matters. If you didn't get in anywhere the first time around, chances are you're not gonna be good enough to get into Harvard or Hopkins the second time around, and those types of schools are probably the only ones that care about reapplicants.

I applied with the same stats, plus about 200 more hours of volunteering this time around, and I received 17 interviews as opposed to 3 the first time. About half of the schools I reapplied to offered me an interview. Not exactly earth-shaking improvements in my application, but definitely significant improvement in results. I specifically wrote about determination and perseverance in my personal statement, making it a central point, in fact.

Just to add, what others say about being reviewed for improvements is true. Applying late and things like that are not good excuses. You can mention it, sure, but you need to show more concrete improvement. I think my determination to go into medicine was in question the last cycle, so my PS, volunteer hours, work at a lab, and improved secondary essays all helped.

 

[ThaliaNox]

Do what? Pull out the old app and compare? I doubt it. They have thousands of new apps to deal with - hard to believe that they want to bother with comparing an old app to the new app.

As I said in a prior post, if the app has "improved" in the area of GPA and MCAT, that will be self evident from the new app alone (new MCAT date, new courses reported in the preceding year). Same thing with ECs - are the dates current, or did the applicant last volunteer at a soup kitchen over a year ago. No need to compare it to the old app to see if it has changed or improved - it will be evident in the new app.

The new app will stand, or fall, on its own merits.

And I believe LizzyM said that her school doesn't do this (the pulling out of the old app, etc.). Maybe she will chime in here.

I think we're arguing the two sides of the same coin. You're right, they likely don't often pull out the old application, but the facts are there on the new one to show improvement. I just meant that the applications are not viewed directly against other applicants, like first time applications, but against your previous qualifications first.

 

[mvenus929]

What about if you are applying to schools that you didn't apply to last year? Do they still consider you a re-applicant? Would they still view you as one even though you haven't applied to that school before?

Sure. There's a question on AMCAS (and on most secondaries as well) which asks if you've submitted before. If the answer is yes, you are a reapplicant by definition.

No, there's only questions that asked if you've applied to that school before. So, yes, you're a reapplicant, but there are a multitude of things that could have affected things the first time around. Maybe you applied early decision and didn't get in, and figured it was too late to apply anywhere else that cycle.

Being a reapplicant was a big part of my application, so I made a big deal out of it. It was all over my PS and my secondary essays. Perhaps that hurt me at some schools, but I got in, so it wasn't all bad.

Your example assumes the reapplicant has sent the app to the same school, and it also assumes that the reviewer compares the current app to the old app. Somehow I seriously doubt that med schools go to that level of sleuthing to ascertain if the reapplicant "improved" his app. Either the app passes muster, or it doesn't.

Now if the new app shows obvious improvement in, say, GPA, that will be evident from the new app. Same with MCAT (the date will be a give away here).

Maybe not, but both schools that I reapplied to (and got interviews at... there were two schools I reapplied to and didn't get interviews at the second time around) compared my applications. Interviewers specifically asked me questions with regard to that status. At one of the schools, the interviewer asked me what I thought I did wrong the first time, and then agreed with me, making it rather clear that he saw my old application. They probably don't pull out the old applications for the initial screening, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit into their decision at some point.

FWIW, I got in to one of them, and didn't get in to the other. The one I got into seemed to fall over themselves to admit me... they sent an e-mail about 15 hours after I interviewed offering me an acceptance. So is being a reapplicant may be a stigma, but there are certainly ways to overcome it. You just have to show that improvement.

 

[Law2Doc]

No, there's only questions that asked if you've applied to that school before. ...

Unless they've changed things, AMCAS asks if you've ever submitted an AMCAS before.

 

[Law2Doc]

Do what? Pull out the old app and compare? I doubt it. They have thousands of new apps to deal with - hard to believe that they want to bother with comparing an old app to the new app.
...

A lot of schools have applications digitized (or digitally submitted) now. They don't even have to open up a file cabinet to see what your prior app looked like.

 

[flip26]

I think we're arguing the two sides of the same coin. You're right, they likely don't often pull out the old application, but the facts are there on the new one to show improvement. I just meant that the applications are not viewed directly against other applicants, like first time applications, but against your previous qualifications first.

Hell, I am just speculating. Some schools probably do it, some don't. I just don't see the value in comparing to an old application. The current app either passes muster, or it doesn't. The decision to interview, admit, etc., will be based solely on the app in play.

 

[Law2Doc]

... I just don't see the value in comparing to an old application. The current app either passes muster, or it doesn't. The decision to interview, admit, etc., will be based solely on the app in play.

Again, this assumes places give reapps a clean slate. Many won't. Your application history matters to many places. The current app has to show substantial improvement, not just pass muster. So it's a steeper hill. Which is why some places separate out reapps to different piles. Which is why you need to get everyone into order, all your ducks in a row, BEFORE you send in that first app. If you aren't sure, you probably should take the time to work on it. The biggest problem premeds tend to have in the application process is when they rush things. You never "wing it" and figure you will just see what happens and if it doesn't go well you'll rehabilitate and try again next cycle. Because suddenly what would have passed muster the first time no longer is good enough given your prior mis-step. Those of you who have the opportunity should meet with an adcom/prior adcom before applying to talk about things like this -- it's very enlightening as to how the process really works. And the truism is that you don't want to set yourself up to be a reapplicant if you can avoid it the first time.

 

[mvenus929]

Unless they've changed things, AMCAS asks if you've ever submitted an AMCAS before.

Pretty sure they've changed things, then, because I don't remember such a question on last year's application. There has also been someone who is applying this cycle asking where that question is... the only place I remember it being is when you designate the schools, and they ask if you've submitted an application there before.

 

[flip26]

Again, this assumes places give reapps a clean slate. Many won't. Your application history matters to many places. The current app has to show substantial improvement, not just pass muster. So it's a steeper hill. Which is why some places separate out reapps to different piles. Which is why you need to get everyone into order, all your ducks in a row, BEFORE you send in that first app. If you aren't sure, you probably should take the time to work on it. The biggest problem premeds tend to have in the application process is when they rush things. You never "wing it" and figure you will just see what happens and if it doesn't go well you'll rehabilitate and try again next cycle. Because suddenly what would have passed muster the first time no longer is good enough given your prior mis-step. Those of you who have the opportunity should meet with an adcom/prior adcom before applying to talk about things like this -- it's very enlightening as to how the process really works. And the truism is that you don't want to set yourself up to be a reapplicant if you can avoid it the first time.

No, I am not assuming a clean slate for a reapplicant. There is an undeniable stigma attached to being a reapplicant, or taking the MCAT more than once. How that stigma plays out will vary from one school to another. Some schools probably roundfile every reapp. Some schools may do a detailed, side by side comparison of the old and new apps. And some schools will note the reapp, but focus solely on the current app.

This is no "one size fits all" deal. My point is that "I" would find no value in comparing a new app to an old one because any improvements would be self-evident - they would be reflected in the dates on the new app. The only adcom who has ever commented on this to my knowledge is LizzyM, and unless I got it all wrong, I believe she said that they do not bother with looking at the old app, and that makes a lot or sense to me.

Sometimes the only change or improvement in a reapp is the date of submission. I find it hard to believe that this would stigmatize the reapplicant in any way.

 

[Law2Doc]

No, I am not assuming a clean slate for a reapplicant. There is an undeniable stigma attached to being a reapplicant, or taking the MCAT more than once. How that stigma plays out will vary from one school to another. Some schools probably roundfile every reapp. Some schools may do a detailed, side by side comparison of the old and new apps. And some schools will note the reapp, but focus solely on the current app.
...

We agree with the above paragraph, just not the percentage that falls within each of the categories you describe. From what I've seen a lot more will be in that second category than you realize.