Improving application process

[werty1988]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As I become increasingly frustrated during this application cycle, I cannot help but to think about what might be done in the future to improve the application process.

What do you think about limiting the number of schools applicants are able to apply to? This would make the process much cheaper for the schools and applicants, would expedite the application process and would prevent fantastic candidates from applying to a large number of low/mid tier schools. I understand the idea of having a "backup" school, but when a top medical school candidate applies to and is interviewed at 5+ backup schools, I question the system. I am not talking about limiting the number to 3. I was thinking more along the lines of 8 or 10.

What do you think?

 

[claduva94]

Absolutely not. Ultimately you can only matriculate at one school and there is no such thing as a safety school. The spots will go to someone who is qualified so why does it matter if a student interviews at lots of schools?

 

[raiderette]

Schools don't care how many applications that you send; they care about your application. It is true that some people apply to a lot of schools, but it is a personal decision. Why would I want to limit my chances to benefit "the process"?
Now I can do certain things to make it better for me personally, like researching the schools and applying strategically, by making my application the best it can be so that I don't have to do more than one cycle and to withdraw applications once I have an acceptance that I like. If people were limited, it could be even more costly in the long run, as multiple cycles would mean additional costs and lost wages over a lifetime.

 

[PlaqueBuster]

Why would schools want to limit applications? They make tons of money from students applying to their schools. Just because you are frustrated does not mean others should also suffer by limitng their chances at schools. More schools for a poor candidate means he may be considered at 1 or 2. More schools for a good candidate means he wants to keep his choices open.

Like what was said above, there is no such thing as a safety school. There are great and not so great medical schools but all look for something specific in an applicant. If you don't have that something then they won't accept you. So why do you question the system when a top candidate gets interviews at 5+ schools "he may not prefer" (lets get rid of the term backup)? He worked hard and is successful and is being rewarded. Assumptions from reading your thread are that you haven't gotten any interviews yet and you are questioning the system rather than questioning what went wrong on your application.

 

[mimelim]

As I become increasingly frustrated during this application cycle, I cannot help but to think about what might be done in the future to improve the application process.

What do you think about limiting the number of schools applicants are able to apply to? This would make the process much cheaper for the schools and applicants, would expedite the application process and would prevent fantastic candidates from applying to a large number of low/mid tier schools. I understand the idea of having a "backup" school, but when a top medical school candidate applies to and is interviewed at 5+ backup schools, I question the system. I am not talking about limiting the number to 3. I was thinking more along the lines of 8 or 10.

What do you think?

I don't understand how limiting the number of schools you can apply to will change things.

 

[Itisneverlupus]

I think OP is assuming that "top" candidates are accepted to the majority of schools they apply to, thus, if many "top" candidates overlap, together, they "take up" seats that others could grab.

However, OP, realize that there is so much variety in application choices and applicants themselves, in addition to such a large number of applicants and the fact the the process is subjective (interviews and acceptances chosen by adcoms; i.e. humans), that you cannot assume anything, even for top applicants.

Everyone's luck changes with every single school. It depends on the applicant pool they apply with, the individuals that read their applications, the timing of their cycle, etc.

Of course, as @mimelim corrected me, you could probably expect, upon meeting what you consider a top applicant, that they will have multiple acceptances at top schools. However, the reason behind people (yes, even your top candidates") applying to so many schools, is because history has shown us that in this process, nothing guarantees you an acceptance, or even an interview invite.

I know people with outstanding applications who have interviewed at several top 10 at 20 schools who didn't hear a peep from schools where there stats were above their median, even given geographic/in-state preference, ECs, etc. The reason? I don't know, but it goes to show that while strong applications may be wonderful at some schools, a strong applicant applying broadly to "lower/mid tier schools" as well does not necessarily mean they'll take your spot.

If I could change anything about the process, I would probably encourage the LCME to push for schools to offer deep dish pizza and massages during interviews. My $100 secondary fee should just about cover this...

 

[PlaqueBuster]

I second that suggestion about pizza (make it think crust NY style) and massages.

 

[mimelim]

I think OP is assuming that "top" candidates are accepted to the majority of schools they apply to, thus, if many "top" candidates overlap, together, they "take up" seats that others could grab.

However, OP, realize that there is no such thing as a "top" applicant. There is so much variety in application choices and applicants themselves, in addition to such a large number of applicants and the fact the the process is subjective (interviews and acceptances chosen by adcoms;ie humans), that you cannot assume multiple, or even ANY acceptances for "top" applicants.

Everyone's luck changes with every single school. It depends on the applicant pool they apply with, the individuals that read their applications, the timing of their cycle, etc.

In the end, you simply cannot predict which schools someone will be accepted to. In fact, the reason behind people (yes, even your "top" candidates") applying to so many schools, is because history has shown us that in this process, NOTHING guarantees you an acceptance, or even an interview invite.

If I could change anything about the process, I would probably encourage the LCME to push for schools to offer deep dish pizza and massages during interviews. My $100 secondary fee should just about cover this...

There are top applicants. And yes, looking at their applications and meeting them, you can bank on them getting multiple top school acceptances. There is variability, of course, but lets not kid ourselves, every school is looking for the same thing. They may have small adaptations based on their mission, but by and large, strong, interesting students with a track record of production are sought after. There are far more similarities about what schools are looking for than differences. It is prudent to be humble and have redundancies, but people always go overboard, from undergrad to medical school to residency admissions.

 

[cacambo]

I think OP is assuming that "top" candidates are accepted to the majority of schools they apply to, thus, if many "top" candidates overlap, together, they "take up" seats that others could grab.

...

If I could change anything about the process, I would probably encourage the LCME to push for schools to offer deep dish pizza and massages during interviews. My $100 secondary fee should just about cover this...

Its not like one person holding multiple acceptances can go to multiple schools though, in the end you're only going to one school. There's 50k applicants applying for like 20k spots, the process is going to be frustrating for 60% of people no matter how it is structured, I think.

I would change the amount of holds and silent rejections, its silly how many applicants school's must have on hold/not outright reject that they will never do anything more with.

 

[Itisneverlupus]

Its not like one person holding multiple acceptances can go to multiple schools though, in the end you're only going to one school. There's 50k applicants applying for like 20k spots, the process is going to be frustrating for 60% of people no matter how it is structured, I think.

Correct. I was simply referring to those that hold multiple acceptances for a long time through the cycle. However, if they truly are strong applicants, and they have acceptances at top schools, I'm not sure they'd be holding those seats, unless for some type of financial purpose.

See, OP? One less reason to worry...sort of.

 

[LizzyM]

One thing about the silent rejections.... A rejection is forever but an applicant who is silently rejected can be revived and offered an interview at a late date if something extraordinary has happened and a school has openings late in the cycle with no one left on the waitlist. I can't imagine such a scenario but I suppose some schools like to keep their options open until the last possible moment just so they don't get caught with empty seats.

 

[werty1988]

Why would schools want to limit applications? They make tons of money from students applying to their schools. Just because you are frustrated does not mean others should also suffer by limitng their chances at schools. More schools for a poor candidate means he may be considered at 1 or 2. More schools for a good candidate means he wants to keep his choices open.

Like what was said above, there is no such thing as a safety school. There are great and not so great medical schools but all look for something specific in an applicant. If you don't have that something then they won't accept you. So why do you question the system when a top candidate gets interviews at 5+ schools "he may not prefer" (lets get rid of the term backup)? He worked hard and is successful and is being rewarded. Assumptions from reading your thread are that you haven't gotten any interviews yet and you are questioning the system rather than questioning what went wrong on your application.

Yes, I have interviewed already, but I also couldn't afford to apply to more than 5 schools. I find it interesting that you automatically assume I am frustrated because I have had no success. I am living not far from the federal govt.'s "poverty level", but my mother's income from 2013 voided my eligibility for a fee assistance program. She is currently unemployed (not to mention that we don't have a relationship). Schools profiting off applicants is wrong. And to me, "may not prefer" is synonymous with backup, but thanks for putting me in my place.