is getting accepted as impossible as people make it out to be

[piii]

40% of applicants get in every year. Yeah, totally impossible.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lawpy]

Isnt the bolded the same thing in this case? haha.

Yeah it probably is but i'm just trying to avoid ambiguity.

 

[MD2BE92]

Before you read my take on tests: I am a reapplicant who has worked extremely hard through a couple of cycles now to optimize my application in nearly every possible manner.

Take this as you will, but here's a wakeup call to those of you who 'aren't good at standardized testing'. I told myself this the first time I performed slightly lower than I had hoped on the MCAT and proceeded to convince myself that a masters degree would even my playing field for the following cycle. Wrong.
Not until I retook and perfected my test taking strategy did I really see an impact on the responses I received from medical schools.

Furthermore, you had best reevaluate your career path or find a way to improve if you are of the notion that standardized tests are just not for you. The MCAT is just the beginning. Boards are all-day long events and even recertification every X years (depending on the specialty) is no walk in the park, either.
That being said, improving is doable! Seeing results might be gradual and extremely frustrating, but the commitment is worth it if you have the drive to be a doctor one day. Don't give up, double down and work harder

TL;DR: Learning is lifelong in medicine, and so are standardized exams.

 

[Gandyy]

40% of applicants get in every year. Yeah, totally impossible.

But those are terrible odds. 40 percent?

Yea, you have a 40 percent chance of getting into a school for which you have been building an application for years. Sounds miserable.

 

[Gandyy]

Before you read my take on tests: I am a reapplicant who has worked extremely hard through a couple of cycles now to optimize my application in nearly every possible manner.

Take this as you will, but here's a wakeup call to those of you who 'aren't good at standardized testing'. I told myself this the first time I performed slightly lower than I had hoped on the MCAT and proceeded to convince myself that a masters degree would even my playing field for the following cycle. Wrong.
Not until I retook and perfected my test taking strategy did I really see an impact on the responses I received from medical schools.

Furthermore, you had best reevaluate your career path or find a way to improve if you are of the notion that standardized tests are just not for you. The MCAT is just the beginning. Boards are all-day long events and even recertification every X years (depending on the specialty) is no walk in the park, either.
That being said, improving is doable! Seeing results might be gradual and extremely frustrating, but the commitment is worth it if you have the drive to be a doctor one day. Don't give up, double down and work harder

TL;DR: Learning is lifelong in medicine, and so are standardized exams.

I would respond to this as some of this is probably directed towards me, but I just dont feel like delving into this right now as it would probably derail the thread.

 

[McGillian]

That could be due to international limitations though just like its harder for a Canadian to gain admission to US schools.

He's Canadian. Ended up class valedictorian at another Ivy

 

[Gandyy]

He's Canadian. Ended up class valedictorian at another Ivy

no idea then. Canadian med schools screen out 10 or below verbals??!

 

[Henry101]

40% of applicants get in every year. Yeah, totally impossible.

It's not that straightforward because of in-state preferences in some states. If you are a Texas resident, you have close to 80% chance to get an MD if you apply. Michigan, New York, Indiana, all have more than 40%+ chances to get in as a state student. Meanwhile, CA state medical schools give very little preference to in-state students. You aren't even guaranteed a secondary application as an in-state student for 3 of the in-state schools. I've heard similar stories from friends in Pennsylvania. People really underestimate the importance and impact of residency. Students in Texas, Michigan, Indiana, etc. inflate the number to 40%.

40% odds are terrific. But, there are many confounding factors that affect this number that you have to recognize.

 

[piii]

But those are terrible odds. 40 percent?

Yea, you have a 40 percent chance of getting into a school for which you have been building an application for years. Sounds miserable.

The value of 40% isn't great, but it certainly isn't impossible.

The harsh reality of applying to medical school and going through the process of premed is that not everyone is cut out to be a doctor. Like how not everyone is gifted in math, or should be an astronaut, or has the articulation to be a litigator. That is just life.

It has been speculated on SDN (by various adcoms) that maybe 30-40% of applicants applying shouldn't be bothered to apply. I'm not going to speculate on what the MCAT/GPA cutoff or lack of experience warrants that. But if that is the case, then it is something close to 60% of deserving applicants who get in. A lot better than 40%.

Now if you have the great GPA/MCAT/essays/LORs/ECs, your chances go up even more.

There is a very small fraction of extremely qualified individuals who don't get in each year. And that is unfortunate, and has something to do with chance. But I think the sensationalism of OPs title is a little unwarranted.

 

[ChrisMack390]

I understand all that, and I know it is difficult to get into MD school. No one is denying that. However, it is wrong to say that most MD schools are stat hungry when yield protection applies. And this is a serious problem for those stuck with an average/low GPA with very high MCAT scores no matter how small this group is.

I have a crap GPA and a 97th percentile mcat. It is rather agonizing.

 

[piii]

It's not that straightforward because of in-state preferences in some states. If you are a Texas resident, you have close to 80% chance to get an MD if you apply. Michigan, New York, Indiana, all have more than 40%+ chances to get in as a state student. Meanwhile, CA state medical schools give very little preference to in-state students. You aren't even guaranteed a secondary application as an in-state student for 3 of the in-state schools. I've heard similar stories from friends in Pennsylvania. People really underestimate the importance and impact of residency. Students in Texas, Michigan, Indiana, etc. inflate the number to 40%.

40% odds are terrific. But, there are many confounding factors that affect this number that you have to recognize.

look at my post below yours. I was just using the most basic statistic to counter the assertion of impossibility in OP's title.

 

[Cookie04]

It's not that straightforward because of in-state preferences in some states. If you are a Texas resident, you have close to 80% chance to get an MD if you apply. Michigan, New York, Indiana, all have more than 40%+ chances to get in as a state student. Meanwhile, CA state medical schools give very little preference to in-state students. You aren't even guaranteed a secondary application as an in-state student for 3 of the in-state schools. I've heard similar stories from friends in Pennsylvania. People really underestimate the importance and impact of residency. Students in Texas, Michigan, Indiana, etc. inflate the number to 40%.

40% odds are terrific. But, there are many confounding factors that affect this number that you have to recognize.

There were 4,197 Texas residents that applied to Texas medical schools through TMDSAS a in 2014. 1,369 matriculated to a Texas Medical school which equals around 41%. I do agree that residency is a huge factor in admissions when it comes to certain states. So that statistic doesn't necessarily mean that Texas residents have a 40% chance of getting accepted, it's probably higher than that, but where are you getting 80% from? And also I can have a 0% chance of getting into MD if I apply without the credentials or stats, so it is misleading to say " If you are a Texas resident, you have close to 80% chance to get an MD if you apply."

 

[Goro]

You mean my faculty peers? Only ~1/3rd of them are PhDs...the rest are MDs, DO or OMS2's. So, no.

Years ago, one of my DO colleagues said to me "oh, Goro, you're so smart, you should apply to medical school"

I immediately thought: "F*** that! I'm too old and fat for that sort of nonsense!!!"

As I am fond of stating, this is what medical school would have done to me:

Goro, I have a question. Have you ever heard of or had anyone on an admission's committee decide they wanted to apply to medical school?

 

[Goro]

It's resource protection, and it's based upon historical yields or outcomes. if you know that only 1/100 people of this group (compare to 50% of the usual group) will come to your school, why waste time interviewing them?

If MD schools are so keen in acquiring students with high GPA and high MCAT, why are applicants with a 3.9/39+ with strong ECs screened out and promptly rejected by lower-tier MD and possibly mid-tier MD schools? Why does the concept of "yield protection" exist for MD schools if they want high stats?

 

[Affiche]

You mean my faculty peers? Only ~1/3rd of them are PhDs...the rest are MDs, DO or OMS2's. So, no.

Years ago, one of my DO colleagues said to me "oh, Goro, you're so smart, you should apply to medical school"

I immediately thought: "F*** that! I'm too old and fat for that sort of nonsense!!!"

As I am fond of stating, this is what medical school would have done to me:

This is my all-time favorite post from you! Especially the part in blue hahaha

 

[SOMBound13]

Is getting accepted to any osteopathic or allopathic med school as impossible as people make it out to be or is it possible? Allopathic answer separately and osteopathic answer separately.

The acceptance rate for MD may be 40%, but obviously that's not the acceptance rate of a strong stats applicant. Each applicant is not presenting with identical or near-idential stats. Additionally, the state you're from can make a difference.


What are your GPA's and your MCAT? How's the rest of your resume?

What state are you from?

 

[GrapesofRath]

There were 4,197 Texas residents that applied to Texas medical schools through TMDSAS a in 2014. 1,369 matriculated to a Texas Medical school which equals around 41%. I do agree that residency is a huge factor in admissions when it comes to certain states. So that statistic doesn't necessarily mean that Texas residents have a 40% chance of getting accepted, it's probably higher than that, but where are you getting 80% from?

https://www.aamc.org/download/321466/data/factstable5.pdf

As a reference @piii use this chart to see the effects of state residence on chances no state has anywhere near an 80% Matriculation rate. Luckiest states are probably WV Ark Al KY MS ND SD and a few others in some order

 

[Lawpy]

It's resource protection, and it's based upon historical yields or outcomes. if you know that only 1/100 people of this group (compare to 50% of the usual group) will come to your school, why waste time interviewing them?

Then it doesn't make sense to say that most MD schools want high GPA and high MCAT when resource protection is in effect

 

[soadhead]

Then it doesn't make sense to say that most MD schools want high GPA and high MCAT when resource protection is in effect

No. It makes sense that most MD schools want high GPA and high MCAT. It's just that a lot of schools know that very few high GPA and high MCAT applicants will go to their school, even if accepted, because they will get accepted to more prestigious schools and go there. I don't think the lower tier med schools want to interview 1500 applicants and send out 700 acceptances in order to fill 200 seats. There is a limit in time and resources.

 

[Lawpy]

No. It makes sense that most MD schools want high GPA and high MCAT. It's just that a lot of schools know that very few high GPA and high MCAT applicants will go to their school, even if accepted, because they will get accepted to more prestigious schools and go there. I don't think the lower tier med schools want to interview 1500 applicants and send out 700 acceptances in order to fill 200 seats. There is a limit in time and resources.

That's all fine if the schools actually read the essays that match their mission/fit category and not just preemptively reject the rockstar applicants out of a blind assumption that they will land up some place better.

 

[MD2BE92]

Haha this whole process is really unbelievable. So what you're saying (hypothetically) is I could potentially have an MCAT/GPA combo that is TOO competitive...and some schools are not confident in securing me as an applicant, so they reject or refuse to interview...OR they interview but don't offer.

How do they r/o applicants wanting to go elsewhere? I figured all of this was taken care of by the craziness that ensues btwn April-August

It is all a cruel game

 

[Goro]

Even Drexel or Mercer don't want 3.0/25s. Look at the medians of schools. They're all still, well, high. Yes, Harvard is 3.9/37 and Drexel is 3.7/32. I don't think that the latter is accepting people who are 3.9+ 25. PCOM, on the other hand, probably is. But Drexel has learned from past experience that the kids with 3.9/36 will more likely be going to U Penn or Harvard.

Then it doesn't make sense to say that most MD schools want high GPA and high MCAT when resource protection is in effect

 

[Lawpy]

Even Drexel or Mercer don't want 3.0/25s. Look at the medians of schools. They're all still, well, high. Yes, Harvard is 3.9/37 and Drexel is 3.7/32. I don't think that the latter is accepting people who are 3.9+ 25. PCOM, on the other hand, probably is. But Drexel has learned from past experience that the kids with 3.9/36 will more likely be going to U Penn or Harvard.

Do these low yield schools even bother to look at the essays and apps of strong applicants? Or do they just blindly reject them because their stats are too high regardless of what's in their app/essays?

 

[mrspecialist]

40% of total applicants get in somewhere.

 

[Goro]

Don't know.

Do these low yield schools even bother to look at the essays and apps of strong applicants? Or do they just blindly reject them because their stats are too high regardless of what's in their app/essays?

 

[Dr. Death]

Depends on your MCAT and GPA.
Allopathic The problem with the medical education system is the disparity between states. If you have a decent MCAT score and GPA 28-31 3.5+ are from a school rich, applicant poor state, you are golden. If you are from a school poor, applicant rich state (CA for instance) you are effed. The reason is that all the private schools get a bazillion applicants and thus are super competitive

Osteopathic- the solution to this problem is higher tier DO schools which have average MCATs in the 28-30 range and average GPAs of 3.5+ These are excellent schools, have applicant friendly admissions processes and are within reach of a lot of applicants. And the people that turn their nose up at DOs end up in the Caribbean, 300k in debt and performing surgery on a clogged toilet as a janitor.

 

[IlDestriero]

But those are terrible odds. 40 percent?

Yea, you have a 40 percent chance of getting into a school for which you have been building an application for years. Sounds miserable.

But if you're a superior applicant with superior scores, your odds are much higher.

 

[Giovanotto]

It seriously has to be <20% in California.

 

[soadhead]

It seriously has to be <20% in California.

It was 39% in 2014.

 

[Giovanotto]

It was 39% in 2014.

I should of been more specific. The number of CA residents getting into CA schools. NO WAY its 39%.

 

[soadhead]

I should of been more specific. The number of CA residents getting into CA schools. NO WAY its 39%.

14.7%

 

[Lawpy]

@gyngyn previously reported that at least 2/3 of CA matriculants attend medical school OOS. So only less than 33% of CA matriculants remain in state

The applicant fraction is likely a lot smaller than 33%

 

[soadhead]

14.7%

Washington State is the lowest in this category at 13.2%, which happens to be the state I'm from.

 

[Giovanotto]

Washington State is the lowest in this category at 13.2%, which happens to be the state I'm from.

Then again, CA has probably what, say 3-4xs the number of medical schools as Washington State?

 

[soadhead]

Then again, CA has probably what, say 3-4xs the number of medical schools as Washington State?

10x. There is 1 medical School in Washington State.

 

[PhillyMed777]

No it isn't that hard. Tens of thousands of people do it each year. From my friend groups in the past, the difficult part of choosing to study over raging all the time. It was hard to do for some, and they didn't get in.

With regard to favorable states, some states don't even have a state medical school...and to top it off, the surrounding schools are private schools with little favorable bias for geography
example: New Hampshire, no state schools, has schools like Dartmouth, BU, Harvard, geographically closeby...

 

[SOMBound13]

It seriously has to be <20% in California.

It was 39% in 2014.

I should of been more specific. The number of CA residents getting into CA schools. NO WAY its 39%.

14.7%

I believe it. I got into almost an argument with a relative in Calif about this. She was annoyed when I said that an OOS serious premed high school senior shouldn't go to a Calif undergrad. In my view, there's little to no benefit. Any "tie" to that state that is created by going to undergrad there is negligible. Instead, if a student insists on going OOS, then at least pick a school where creating a "tie" to the state means something, and the state isn't over-run with too many premeds and too few seats.

Is that 14.7% number accurate? If so, when more than half of the successful applicants have to find seats OOS, that's a serious problem.

 

[SOMBound13]

No it isn't that hard. Tens of thousands of people do it each year. From my friend groups in the past, the difficult part of choosing to study over raging all the time. It was hard to do for some, and they didn't get in.

With regard to favorable states, some states don't even have a state medical school...and to top it off, the surrounding schools are private schools with little favorable bias for geography
example: New Hampshire, no state schools, has schools like Dartmouth, BU, Harvard, geographically closeby...

I don't know about NH, but some states that don't have med schools will pay another state's med school to guarantee a certain number of seats. I think UWash does that with a few states, including Alaska. I wonder why the state of Wash only has one med school if their own applicants are at a disadvantage since a chunk of UWash's seats aren't available to them. Seems like they should either grow UWash SOM or build another and put those other states' students there.

 

[Dral]

I didn't want to comment too much on it here but, yes, it has become a test where if you're wealthy enough to hire a tutor, you'll do fine irregardless of your aptitude or reasoning skills. Not to mention that it is now only offered in a few select months in the year and costs $300. Yes, $300.

It is so stressed because it is the closest thing to standardized as possible.

And more so because it is one in a long line of standardized exams in a medical career. I've taken 8 standardized exams since the MCAT, not including shelf exams. DO students who apply ACGME typically take even more.

$300? My Derm boards were offered on one day only, only in Tampa Florida and cost $1700 (thankfully I passed on the first attempt). My dermpath boards will be one day only, again only in Tampa, and will cost $2500 (before travel and hotel of course).

 

[terra330]

$300? My Derm boards were offered on one day only, only in Tampa Florida and cost $1700 (thankfully I passed on the first attempt). My dermpath boards will be one day only, again only in Tampa, and will cost $2500 (before travel and hotel of course).

That's not really a fair comparison though. $300 is harder for most students than $2500 would be for a physician. Especially since doing well on that $300 exam does not in any way guarantee success in an application cycle.

 

[Dral]

That's not really a fair comparison though. $300 is harder for most students than $2500 would be for a physician. Especially since doing well on that $300 exam does not in any way guarantee success in an application cycle.

That comparison is a bit unfair. True.

However, I had to pay the $1700 as a resident in New York making barely enough to get by. The case for everyone? No of course not.

Regardless, big picture = if one is willing to sign up for it, get used to it now...it only gets worse.

 

[Henry101]

However, I had to pay the $1700 as a resident in New York making barely enough to get by. The case for everyone? No of course not.

wow! I had no idea! I wish things like this were more transparent!
Looking back, I don't think my tone in some of these posts was completely professional/fair.
I'm definitely not against standardized tests and support them. They got me into a good undergrad school and, hopefully soon, a medical school too.
When I started studying for the MCAT, though, I really wanted a tutor to help me through some of the OCHEM I was having trouble with but didn't have the money. In order to pay for the $300 fee on my credit card bill, I had to work extra night shifts and max out my overtime. But, reading that^^ got me thinking that this cycle is probably going to continue for another decade, probably, and I might as well get used to it

 

[Dral]

wow! I had no idea! I wish things like this were more transparent!
Looking back, I don't think my tone in some of these posts was completely professional/fair.
I'm definitely not against standardized tests and support them. They got me into a good undergrad school and, hopefully soon, a medical school too.
When I started studying for the MCAT, though, I really wanted a tutor to help me through some of the OCHEM I was having trouble with but didn't have the money. In order to pay for the $300 fee on my credit card bill, I had to work extra night shifts and max out my overtime. But, reading that^^ got me thinking that this cycle is probably going to continue for another decade, probably, and I might as well get used to it

That's part of the issue. We all sign up for this stuff not knowing all the stuff that's in store. I think when I started Med School I heard people talking about USMLE and was like 'um, what's that?' haha. I found out soon enough!

I took a Kaplan course for the MCAT and did much better than previously when I studied on my own. So I believe there is some truth to more privileged individuals having an advantage.

 

[MD2BE92]

wow! I had no idea! I wish things like this were more transparent!
Looking back, I don't think my tone in some of these posts was completely professional/fair.
I'm definitely not against standardized tests and support them. They got me into a good undergrad school and, hopefully soon, a medical school too.
When I started studying for the MCAT, though, I really wanted a tutor to help me through some of the OCHEM I was having trouble with but didn't have the money. In order to pay for the $300 fee on my credit card bill, I had to work extra night shifts and max out my overtime. But, reading that^^ got me thinking that this cycle is probably going to continue for another decade, probably, and I might as well get used to it

Don't lose hope, I have several family members in medicine. It is a very rewarding profession, more than just the lifestyle. If it is truly your passion you will do what it takes to make it work! It's a lifelong commitment but also a lifelong privilege, look at it this way, you're already concerned enough to seek out guidance and remain actively involved in the process. You're ahead of many passive applicants accepted by shear statistical and/or demographical advantages

 

[JohnConstantine511]

People in states like Kentucky or West Virginia just need to be a resident and have an good shot at MD.

Hmm...I am currently a resident of Kentucky. What kind of stats am I looking at to matriculate as a resident? Obviously, the overall average listed is going to be higher because of OOS student.

 

[Goro]

1 MD school.

PacNW is the other med school.

10x. There is 1 medical School in Washington State.

 

[mehc012]

Allopathic: Its pretty damn hard especially with the rise of applicants. Honestly though I am a strong believer that the MCAT is the "limiting reactant" for the entire reaction to go to completion. Much much bigger crapshoot than Osteopathic Schools. Way more applicants, and the "low tier" MD schools all have MCAT scores/GPA matriculant averages at the same or slightly higher level as "top tier" DO schools. Edit: Also other people on here may not want to admit to it but your MCAT literally comprises about 80 percent of determining whether or not you have a shot between Harvard, or some random "low tier" MD. If you arent good at standardized testing, then dont expect too much from an allopathic cycle.

Far more than just MCAT goes into this. You need MCAT *and* everything else...the MCAT just ends up being the bottleneck because it's less common to get the ideal MCAT score than everything else. MCAT alone won't carry you, though.

 

[Demosthenes1]

Guy I work with graduated with a 4.0 from Harvard, no interviews all across Canada.
How do I get a green card people?

Is he Kevin Schwartz and do you work at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz?
If he not he's a liar.

 

[BluMist]

Those numbers will go up by 100%/50% next year with WSU opening

1 MD school.

PacNW is the other med school.

 

[El-Rami]

I wonder how many of the majority of applicants that do not get into medical school get rejected because they made errors on their applications due to not following directions. I imagine many of the people that "shotgun" schools by applying to 15+ fail to make sure that the schools they are applying to are appropriate fits, and they probably fail to read everything in applicant manuals. There are a lot of lazy people, premed or not.

People like to say it's a "crapshoot" or "impossible," but I have noticed certain patterns in people who eventually get accepted vs those who do not.