Is being a re-applicant a disadvantage at top 20 schools?

[deleted445355]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Do any of you know how top 20 medical schools views significantly improved re-applicants? I have heard some mixed answers from people on SDN regarding how reapplicants are viewed by top 20's and I am wondering what the actual correct answer is. Some say you are at a disadvantage no matter no improved your app is and others say it is not a big deal if you improved your app and had reason that did not raise a red flag. If anyone knows of anyone who had any success getting into a top 20 school as a reapplicant with great stats and extracurriculars upon improvement, I would appreciate if you could tell me.


Coco

 

[efle]

Why would you be at a disadvantage? If you didn't get in due to something lacking (like no or very little time in clinics/shadowing) and spent a year beefing that up to try again, you should be fine. The disadvantaged people are the ones who reapply without addressing the flaws from last time - adcoms don't have time to re-review copies of previous year's rejections. My .02

 

[darkjedi]

depends on why you are a reapplicant. Some flaws are harder to change than others.

 

[efle]

depends on why you are a reapplicant. Some flaws are harder to change than others.

Could you clarify? What can't be improved in a year (other than things that would obviously prevent you from getting in even as a first time applicant like major IAs or a 2.0 GPA)?

 

[DermViser]

Could you clarify? What can't be improved in a year (other than things that would obviously prevent you from getting in even as a first time applicant like major IAs or a 2.0 GPA)?

Like GPA and MCAT.

 

[efle]

But those things would be just as problematic on first application, right? If you've improved for second time around it must not be those things

 

[gyngyn]

Re-applicants with excellent scores are at a special kind of disadvantage, especially at top schools.

 

[DermViser]

Re-applicants with excellent scores are at a special kind of disadvantage, especially at top schools.

Why?

 

[Dr. Retractor]

Re-applicants with excellent scores are at a special kind of disadvantage, especially at top schools.

Why? Because they get rejected due to some personality deficiency? What if they get rejected due to sup-par ECs, and then reapply with considerably beefed up ECs?

 

[gyngyn]

Why? Because they get rejected due to some personality deficiency? What if they get rejected due to sup-par ECs, and then reapply with considerably beefed up ECs?

We won't know the exact reason. We only know the possible reasons.

 

[efle]

What so it's like "whoever rejected this 40 / 3.8 must have had a good reason so I'm going to follow suit"?

 

[gyngyn]

What so it's like "whoever rejected this 40 / 3.8 must have had a good reason so I'm going to follow suit"?

Each application is a composite of variables that equate to greater or lesser risk.
A re-applicant with high stats sorts into a particularly worrisome subset.
For some schools the risk may be worth taking to acquire the stats.
For other schools, high stat applicants are abundant and there is no need to take the risk.

 

[gettheleadout]

Why? Because they get rejected due to some personality deficiency? What if they get rejected due to sup-par ECs, and then reapply with considerably beefed up ECs?

I can see @gyngyn's point here. It takes a lot to totally flop an app cycle with very high stats. Applying with EC's so unacceptable that even applying broadly nets you zero in's? Strike against your judgment. Applying with a great app all around but only to the top 5 schools? Strike against your judgment. Applying broadly with a great app all around but performed so poorly in the interviews you surely received that you got rejected everywhere? Major red flag. It doesn't matter which of these is the case. If you have very high numbers and can appraise your app properly, you can make the correct decision as to whether you're ready to apply or not, and if the answer is yes you can do so in a manner such that you will get in somewhere.

Point being, if you're intelligent/hard-working/whatever enough to set yourself up with a 3.8+ / 38+ combo and still don't get in anywhere, it basically has to be due to a character flaw (e.g. complete lack of social skills = the dreaded academic robot in interviews) or a severe lapse in judgment that doesn't jibe with the conclusions one would like to draw from your stats.

 

[DermViser]

What so it's like "whoever rejected this 40 / 3.8 must have had a good reason so I'm going to follow suit"?

You sound like Elle Woods getting dumped by Warner Huntington III, "So what is it, are my boobs too big?"

 

[efle]

nah my boobs are normal size

 

[efle]

@gettheleadout I thought it wasn't all that rare to have well-qualified applicants with little exposure to medicine, figured that might be a forgivable case if they spend the year beefing it up

 

[Dr. Retractor]

I can see @gyngyn's point here. It takes a lot to totally flop an app cycle with very high stats. Applying with EC's so unacceptable that even applying broadly nets you zero in's? Strike against your judgment. Applying with a great app all around but only to the top 5 schools? Strike against your judgment. Applying broadly with a great app all around but performed so poorly in the interviews you surely received that you got rejected everywhere? Major red flag. It doesn't matter which of these is the case. If you have very high numbers and can appraise your app properly, you can make the correct decision as to whether you're ready to apply or not, and if the answer is yes you can do so in a manner such that you will get in somewhere.

Point being, if you're intelligent/hard-working/whatever enough to set yourself up with a 3.8+ / 38+ combo and still don't get in anywhere, it basically has to be due to a character flaw (e.g. complete lack of social skills = the dreaded academic robot in interviews) or a severe lapse in judgment that doesn't jibe with the conclusions one would like to draw from your stats.

I see the logic. Well said, GTLO.

 

[gyngyn]

I can see @gyngyn's point here. It takes a lot to totally flop an app cycle with very high stats. Applying with EC's so unacceptable that even applying broadly nets you zero in's? Strike against your judgment. Applying with a great app all around but only to the top 5 schools? Strike against your judgment. Applying broadly with a great app all around but performed so poorly in the interviews you surely received that you got rejected everywhere? Major red flag. It doesn't matter which of these is the case. If you have very high numbers and can appraise your app properly, you can make the correct decision as to whether you're ready to apply or not, and if the answer is yes you can do so in a manner such that you will get in somewhere.

Point being, if you're intelligent/hard-working/whatever enough to set yourself up with a 3.8+ / 38+ combo and still don't get in anywhere, it basically has to be due to a character flaw (e.g. complete lack of social skills = the dreaded academic robot in interviews) or a severe lapse in judgment that doesn't jibe with the conclusions one would like to draw from your stats.

You will be a fine diagnostician!
Your DDx is excellent.

 

[gettheleadout]

You will be a fine diagnostician!
Your DDx is excellent.

I'm truly flattered! 🙂