Is it common for premeds to be rejected everywhere?

[12345a]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I see a notable amount people with what I consider pretty okay GPA's, MCAT scores (~3.6 / low 30's) and EC's saying things like "when i applied my first time..." and referring to themselves as "re-applicants". It got me wondering how common is it for a premed student with respectable (but far from the best) stats to be rejected their first time applying / right after undergrad.

Can someone help me out? ...google doesn't know what I'm talking about

 

[mvenus929]

Half of all students applying to medical school in any given year don't get in anywhere. Of course, that includes people who apply with 3-20 MCAT scores, sub-3.0 GPAs, etc. How many are perfectly qualified for med school but don't get in? Hard to say, but I'd guess it's a pretty big chunk of those applicants, because so many reapplicants do have success getting in eventually.

Most who do get in, get in to only one school.

This process is hard, and you'd be deluding yourself to think otherwise. Which is why you got so many comments saying that stats would not get you in... medical schools do reject smart people (judging by grades and MCAT score).

 

[LuciusVorenus]

I see a notable amount people with what I consider pretty okay GPA's, MCAT scores (~3.6 / low 30's) and EC's saying things like "when i applied my first time..." and referring to themselves as "re-applicants". It got me wondering how common is it for a premed student with respectable (but far from the best) stats to be rejected their first time applying / right after undergrad.

Can someone help me out? ...google doesn't know what I'm talking about

E.Cs apart, 25% of people with a 3.6-3.79 gpa and 30-32 MCAT do not matriculate anywhere.

Here is the source:
http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgpa-grid-3yrs-app-accpt.htm

 

[Zona Pellucida]

I've seen this data multiple times but I'm sure how many schools an applicant applied to plays a role in this percentage. Anyone know what this data is based upon in terms of schools applied to?

 

[MaryLennox]

i've heard stats like this before but i wish i knew more details. like how many schools these applicants applied to and whether they were within a realistic range (i think many reapplicants apply too top-heavy the first time, or just not to enough schools.) or too late in the cycle. these factors add up i'm sure.

edit: get out of my brain zona pellucida!

 

[Zona Pellucida]

edit: get out of my brain zona pellucida!

NEVER! 😛

 

[GoSpursGo]

Any given year, about 60% of applicants don't get in anywhere (allopathic, at least). To be sure, a large proportion of that is people with subpar stats.

But a lot of it certainly also comes from pre-meds who don't go through the application process smartly. Either they apply late, or they apply to too few schools, or they apply to just the top 20 schools in the country, or they waste time applying to state schools that don't accept OOS students, etc. Or they might have the stats, but they don't have the ECs that show that they know what they're getting into (clinical experience). Or they choose people to give them an LOR who writes them a bad letter. Or they fumble in the interviews.

There are a LOT of ways to mess this process up that have nothing to do with stats. Generally, if you're smart about how you apply and you have those kinds of stats that you talk about, you should have an excellent chance of getting in.

 

[apumic]

The average applicant applies to just over 13 schools and about 54% don't get admitted each year. It's also important to realize just how many ways there are to fail the application process (i.e., get in nowhere) in a given year and be sure to avoid those pitfalls.

 

[Beta Cell]

I'd be curious to see the statistics of people who got into two or more schools, half of the schools they applied to, three-quarters, and all of them.

Statistically, there have to be a few applicants who get into every school to which they apply. I'd like to see what they're up to, lol.

 

[MilkmanAl]

I've seen this data multiple times but I'm sure how many schools an applicant applied to plays a role in this percentage. Anyone know what this data is based upon in terms of schools applied to?

I don't think there are any statistics (published) on that. That's one reason it irks me that people refer to the aforementioned table as listing "percent chance to get in" with certain stats. There are waaaaaay too many confounding variables for that to be an accurate or even reasonable claim.

 

[apumic]

I don't think there are any statistics (published) on that. That's one reason it irks me that people refer to the aforementioned table as listing "percent chance to get in" with certain stats. There are waaaaaay too many confounding variables for that to be an accurate or even reasonable claim.

I think it could be argued that while there are many confounding variables, the more midrange values (i.e., the most common ones or ones near the mean scores, such as ranges of about 3.2-3.6 and 26-34) tend to cancel many of those confounding values out by the sheer size of the sample size (i.e., n=1000+). On the other hand, for values that are less common and have n<250, it's extremely likely that those who got in had some very special achievements. Therefore, it is unlikely that the "average" person with a 3.0/23 or even a 3.0/30 is going to get in, despite what that grid may seem to indicate. (I did not check those numbers against the grid, btw, but they seem to be in about that range that seems inflated.) Additionally, it is important to realize that while someone w/ a 3.9/39 may only have a "90%" chance of getting in somewhere, it is actually possible and seems likely that the few people who did not get in had specific "kisses of death" that ruined the app cycle for them. Once again, it isn't really a "% chance." Still, I think it's fair to think of it that way as a way of consider where one stands. It's really not up to "chance" but other factors -- some of which may include luck of the draw (frankly).

 

[MilkmanAl]

Judging by some of the applications I've seen here, I'm not entirely prepared to accept even the high-n bins as representative, but they're certainly far more useful than the percentages on the extremes. People do some really weird and unexpected stuff when applying to med school. That said, you're probably right from a statistical standpoint. I still feel like there's too much other stuff going on like school selection, number of schools, interview performance, EC's, and all the rest to get any really useful "percent chance" data without really breaking down the numbers and qualifications.

 

[Compass]

Judging by some of the applications I've seen here, I'm not entirely prepared to accept even the high-n bins as representative, but they're certainly far more useful than the percentages on the extremes. People do some really weird and unexpected stuff when applying to med school. That said, you're probably right from a statistical standpoint. I still feel like there's too much other stuff going on like school selection, number of schools, interview performance, EC's, and all the rest to get any really useful "percent chance" data without really breaking down the numbers and qualifications.

Applying late with my stats equals sin bin, try again next year. Applying early with my stats equals sin bin, still waiting for results. I should start searching for a PhD program x.x

 

[wanderer]

Therefore, it is unlikely that the "average" person with a 3.0/23 or even a 3.0/30 is going to get in, despite what that grid may seem to indicate. (I did not check those numbers against the grid, btw, but they seem to be in about that range that seems inflated.)

Regarding this, some user posted a spreadsheet that included information about non-URMs, and their acceptance rates were much lower than the average applicant with those numbers.

 

[dingyibvs]

Yea, I had respectable stats and didn't get in anywhere last year, and I applied to a decent range of schools too. EC's were what really killed me, but I had a plethora of other problems as well.

 

[bannie22]

ive alreayd been rejected to 4 places... sigh :I

 

[apumic]

Regarding this, some user posted a spreadsheet that included information about non-URMs, and their acceptance rates were much lower than the average applicant with those numbers.

Right. URM status is known to change your "chances" quite a bit. The numbers on the AMCAS grid are throwing a lot of applicants together based on a few general criteria (i.e., objective scores).

 

[wanderer]

lol nm

 

[MilkmanAl]

ive alreayd been rejected to 4 places... sigh :I

I got rejected by about 20 places before getting an interview. Chin up!

 

[redsquareblack]

Applying late with my stats equals sin bin, try again next year. Applying early with my stats equals sin bin, still waiting for results. I should start searching for a PhD program x.x

Finally, someone else who likes rugby!

 

[brooklynblunder]

60% of ppl get rejected everywhere

 

[redsquareblack]

.

 

[flip26]

Any given year, about 60% of applicants don't get in anywhere (allopathic, at least). To be sure, a large proportion of that is people with subpar stats.

But a lot of it certainly also comes from pre-meds who don't go through the application process smartly. Either they apply late, or they apply to too few schools, or they apply to just the top 20 schools in the country, or they waste time applying to state schools that don't accept OOS students, etc. Or they might have the stats, but they don't have the ECs that show that they know what they're getting into (clinical experience). Or they choose people to give them an LOR who writes them a bad letter. Or they fumble in the interviews.

There are a LOT of ways to mess this process up that have nothing to do with stats. Generally, if you're smart about how you apply and you have those kinds of stats that you talk about, you should have an excellent chance of getting in.

Totally agree.

 

[277768]

You're scaring me