Is my dad's suggested application plan for me to overcome a low MCAT without taking a gap year viable? It seems risky to me.

[KnightDoc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I wouldn't say this is "assessing you harder" but whatever helps you sleep at night.

If anything a re-applicant has the advantage... Its been through the cycle before and is privileged to process first-hand that the initial applicant wouldn't have.... lol

In that case, maybe we should all seek to grab that advantage by throwing in crappy first applications with a plan to reapply!

 

[ParaMagic1]

In that case, maybe we should all seek to grab that advantage by throwing in crappy first applications with a plan to reapply!

This would require a Gap year... Not into that xD

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I don't think schools should be asking if you are a re-applicant. Everyone should be evaluated same whether they are applying first time or 10th time.

 

[Goro]

I don't think schools should be asking if you are a re-applicant. Everyone should be evaluated same whether they are applying first time or 10th time.

Why should we evaluate someone fresh when we could learn if they have done something to improve themselves?

 

[KnightDoc]

I don't think schools should be asking if you are a re-applicant. Everyone should be evaluated same whether they are applying first time or 10th time.

And I'm not even going that far, since good arguments can be made on both sides. Pro -- they pay their money, and should be evaluated fresh just like everyone else. Con -- we already gave them a fresh look and rejected them, so we shouldn't waste a lot of time on them unless there is significant improvement.

Just realize that schools to which you have previously applied don't have to ask -- they can and do just check their records!

My only point is that the bias against reapplicants is not a myth, and this part of the evidence.

 

[KnightDoc]

Why should we evaluate someone fresh when we could learn if they have done something to improve themselves?

Very true -- but this is the bias that you call mostly a myth!

 

[gyngyn]

I don't think schools should be asking if you are a re-applicant. Everyone should be evaluated same whether they are applying first time or 10th time.

Applying 10 times or more is extremely aberrant. Under what set of circumstances would this be acceptable (i.e. not an indicator of an undesirable trait)? It saves everyone a lot of time and effort not to interview someone who is extremely unlikely to be accepted.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Applying 10 times or more is extremely aberrant. Under what set of circumstances would this be acceptable (i.e. not an indicator of an undesirable trait)? It saves everyone a lot of time and effort not to interview someone who is extremely unlikely to be accepted.

True, but they are paying same fee as first-time applicant to the schools to evaluate their app. As @KnightDoc said school do maintain previous applicants records and they can easily cross check. Also, reviewers and interviewers may be different each cycle. So why not evaluate everyone same with fresh set of eyes than having some bias based on different people's (past cycle) opinions?

 

[KnightDoc]

True, but they are paying same fee as first-time applicant to the schools to evaluate their app. As @KnightDoc said school do maintain previous applicants records and they can easily cross check. Also, reviewers and interviewers may be different each cycle. So why not evaluate everyone same with fresh set of eyes than having some bias based on different people's (past cycle) opinions?

Because, as we've been told by the knowledgeable adcoms all along, they have an enormous amount of work to do in a relatively compressed time frame each year, and this is an efficient way to knock out a subset of applicants that are more likely than other subsets to be unsuccessful.

By just focusing on the reapplicants that have shown significant improvement, they significantly cut down on their work without materially altering the eventual results. In other words, bias against reapplicants, who, as a group, are inherently weaker than first time applicants by virtue of a prior unsuccessful application. 🙂

 

[ParaMagic1]

Because, as we've been told by the knowledgeable adcoms all along, they have an enormous amount of work to do in a relatively compressed time frame each year, and this is an efficient way to knock out a subset of applicants that are more likely than other subsets to be successful.

By just focusing on the reapplicants that have shown significant improvement, they significantly cut down on their work without materially altering the eventual results. In other bias, bias against reapplicants, who, as a group, are inherently weaker than first time applicants by virtue of a prior unsuccessful application. 🙂

Your fact-less conspiracy against re-applicants is the real problem... lol

 

[gyngyn]

True, but they are paying same fee as first-time applicant to the schools to evaluate their app. As @KnightDoc said school do maintain previous applicants records and they can easily cross check. Also, reviewers and interviewers may be different each cycle. So why not evaluate everyone same with fresh set of eyes than having some bias based on different people's (past cycle) opinions?

All data is considered. The number of times someone has applied is a legitimate bit of data, no?
Some may view it as a positive (in some circumstances). In fact, I'm sure some schools get their best candidates this way.
Others will view it as a negative. Others are neutral. Everyone has their own way of looking at the same set of facts. It's a bit like interpreting multiple MCAT scores. Every time a complication is added to an application, the ability to predict the outcome is lower. That why we recommend that applicants apply once with their best possible application if at all possible.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

The number of times someone has applied is a legitimate bit of data, no?

I am not sure about it TBH. School should evaluate without bias or should say if you are re-applicant don't apply without significant improvements and define those. Most schools are sending secondaries without any pre-screening in the name of holistic processing. Now, they say they want to evaluate re-applicants differently.

 

[gyngyn]

I am not sure about it TBH. School should evaluate without bias or should say if you are re-applicant don't apply without significant improvements and define those. Most schools are sending secondaries without any pre-screening in the name of holistic processing. Now, they say they want to evaluate re-applicants differently.

All applicants are evaluated through the (quite variable) lens of any particular school. That is why we spend so much time trying to guide our members.
Does Loma Linda have a bias? Carle? HBCU's? Public schools in small states...?
The more applicants know about the nuances of the schools they consider, the better their chance at acceptance.
Even applicants with very strong stats can still lack strategy.

 

[candbgirl]

I am not sure about it TBH. School should evaluate without bias or should say if you are re-applicant don't apply without significant improvements and define those. Most schools are sending secondaries without any pre-screening in the name of holistic processing. Now, they say they want to evaluate re-applicants differently.

This isn’t a new thing. We have all knowN that if you have to reapply you have to show significant improvement on your reapplication. Further many schools specifically advise not to apply the next cycle. @gonnif has a lengthy post that are direct quotes from various med schools about this. It is also widely advised that until you actually get that big A you consider yourself rejected and keep building your application in case you have to reapply. If you do that you’ll be ready.
Oh and @gyngyn has way more experience than most of us can even dream about, so what gyngyn says is based on that experience in this whole process!

 

[gyngyn]

Oh and @gyngyn has way more experience than most of us can even dream about, so what gyngyn says is based on that experience in this whole process!

Decades and decades of experience. Even I can't believe I'm still doing this sometimes...

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

This isn’t a new thing. We have all knowN that if you have to reapply you have to show significant improvement on your reapplication. Further many schools specifically advise not to apply the next cycle. @gonnif has a lengthy post that are direct quotes from various med schools about this. It is also widely advised that until you actually get that big A you consider yourself rejected and keep building your application in case you have to reapply. If you do that you’ll be ready.
Oh and @gyngyn has way more experience than most of us can even dream about, so what gyngyn says is based on that experience in this whole process!

No one is questioning @gyngyn experience and opinions. We are only debating the bias against re-applicants since @Goro said that's a SDN myth.

 

[KnightDoc]

Your fact-less conspiracy against re-applicants is the real problem... lol

Please let me know how to distinguish a fact-less theory from a fact-based one!

"Roughly 20% of the students who apply to the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in any given year are reapplicants. Data that we have collected indicate they have a lower acceptance rate than do first time applicants."

From Tufts UG: "Our acceptance rate for re-applicants (as well as the national acceptance rate) is far lower than it is for first-time applicants."

Plus, a very wise poster on SDN said:

Schools likely want to see how the re-applicant has changed. What has the re-applicant done to make themselves better than before. If you are a re-applicant that has done nothing to change your application, yet re-apply, schools deserve to know you really don't care about the process/getting better. This doesn't mean they are assessing you harder, rather, they are using information they have to assess your ability to "roll with the punches" and become better after failing (getting rejected).

which implies reapplicants are subject to greater scrutiny than first time applicants.

Please show me some facts to suggest that a bias against reapplicants is truly a myth (or hype), such as data suggesting similar acceptance rates to first time applicants, or a statement from anyone who knows what they are talking about that they are subject to the same level of review as a first time applicant.

 

[candbgirl]

No one is questioning @gyngyn experience and opinions. We are only debating the bias against re-applicants since @Goro said that's a SDN myth.

That might be what you thought you were debating but you took one sentence out of a post and said you “weren’t sure TBH”! The first sentence in the gyngyn’s post specifically said “all data is considered”. That is how it’s done. All data points should be considered. Why even give the opportunity to reapply if new data and experiences aren’t going to be considered? And a rejection is a data point. It makes sense that reviewers would look back and see why a person was rejected and if they did anything to fill that gap or fix the problem.

 

[Goro]

No one is questioning @gyngyn experience and opinions. We are only debating the bias against re-applicants since @Goro said that's a SDN myth.

The bias exists at gyngyn's school. It's not universal, but SDNers take it as such and as gonnif points constantly, many med schools have instructions to applicants about taking a year to improve their apps, and not merely reapply a year later with nothing changed.

And I've seen way too many superstar SDNers get rejected because they applied late in the cycle, but then get accepted the following year by simply applying earlier.

 

[KnightDoc]

That might be what you thought you were debating but you took one sentence out of a post and said you “weren’t sure TBH”! The first sentence in the gyngyn’s post specifically said “all data is considered”. That is how it’s done. All data points should be considered. Why even give the opportunity to reapply if new data and experiences aren’t going to be considered? And a rejection is a data point. It makes sense that reviewers would look back and see why a person was rejected and if they did anything to fill that gap or fix the problem.

All of this is very true, and makes a lot of sense. I love @srk2021, and I'm not sure exactly where he is going with this (other than to suggest that adcoms are obligated to reinvent the wheel every time they accept a secondary fee from a reapplicant), but we are both arguing that @Goro was not entirely accurate when he said the following:

The bias against reapplicants is mostly SDN hype.

since we all agree that reapplicants, rightly or wrongly, are subject to a higher level of scrutiny than first time applicants. This, plus their inherently weaker applications as a group (they are, after all, reapplicants), results in their having lower rates of acceptance than first time applicants. Is this hype, or a form of bias, justified or not?

I have argued that the bias is entirely justified (see my other posts in this thread for details) but I think it's disingenuous for anyone, even an adcom, to deny its existence.

 

[KnightDoc]

The bias exists at gyngyn's school. It's not universal, but SDNers take it as such and as gonnif points constantly, many med schools have instructions to applicants about taking a year to improve their apps, and not merely reapply a year later with nothing changed.

And I've seen way too many superstar SDNers get rejected because they applied late in the cycle, but then get accepted the following year by simply applying earlier.

Fair enough. For the record, the fact that a strong applicant who is rejected because he applies late and is accepted in a subsequent cycle does not mean there is no bias; it means he is a strong candidate who overcame the bias. Bias doesn't mean it's impossible to succeed; it means it's more difficult to succeed. And the data suggests that is the case at all schools, probably including yours.

Tell us that your school reviews every application the same, without regard to whether or not it is a first time application, meaning you don't ask, don't look and don't tell, and then I'll accept there is no bias against reapplicants.

If you look to prior applications for evidence of improvement, rather than simply reviewing the application on its face, even if it means giving the applicant his money's worth by redoing all the same work you did in a prior cycle and coming to the same conclusion, then you are applying a bias to a reapplicant, whether you realize it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not. I'm totally not trying to suggest the bias is unwarranted, because I believe that it is, but I also don't deny its existence.

If it's not universal, please tell us which schools don't look to see whether or not an applicant is a reapplicant. In over a year, I haven't heard of a single one, although I admit I am far from an expert. You, on the other hand, are one! 🙂

 

[candbgirl]

Fair enough. For the record, the fact that a strong applicant who is rejected because he applies late and is accepted in a subsequent cycle does not mean there is no bias; it means he is a strong candidate who overcame the bias. Bias doesn't mean it's impossible to succeed; it means it's more difficult to succeed. And the data suggests that is the case at all schools, probably including yours.

Tell us that your school reviews every application the same, without regard to whether or not it is a first time application, meaning you don't ask, don't look and don't tell, and then I'll accept there is no bias against reapplicants.

If you look to prior applications for evidence of improvement, rather than simply reviewing the application on its face, even if it means giving the applicant his money's worth by redoing all the same work you did in a prior cycle and coming to the same conclusion, then you are applying a bias to a reapplicant, whether you realize it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not. I'm totally not trying to suggest the bias is unwarranted, because I believe that it is, but I also don't deny its existence.

If it's not universal, please tell us which schools don't look to see whether or not an applicant is a reapplicant. In over a year, I haven't heard of a single one, although I admit I am far from an expert. You, on the other hand, are one! 🙂

i think one metric that makes things different is that some(many/few) of the people applying to @Goro’s school are first time applicants to his school because they didn’t apply DO the previous cycle. So even though they are reaplicants to med school they have expanded their pool of schools. And remember you are technically only a reapplicant at schools you submitted a verified primary to through AMCAS(and probably the DO service too).

 

[Goro]

Please let me know how to distinguish a fact-less theory from a fact-based one!

"Roughly 20% of the students who apply to the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in any given year are reapplicants. Data that we have collected indicate they have a lower acceptance rate than do first time applicants."

From Tufts UG: "Our acceptance rate for re-applicants (as well as the national acceptance rate) is far lower than it is for first-time applicants."

Plus, a very wise poster on SDN said:


which implies reapplicants are subject to greater scrutiny than first time applicants.

Please show me some facts to suggest that a bias against reapplicants is truly a myth (or hype), such as data suggesting similar acceptance rates to first time applicants, or a statement from anyone who knows what they are talking about that they are subject to the same level of review as a first time applicant.

You are making a massive leap of logic that the reapplicants have improved on the second try.

 

[KnightDoc]

You are making a massive leap of logic that the reapplicants have improved on the second try.

No, not at all. And as I said before, I honestly do not think it is inappropriate for reapplicants to be subject to enhanced scrutiny.

I also fully realize that, as a group, they have already been unsuccessful once and are therefore inherently weaker than first time applicants, as a group. In fact, I assume many of them have not improved, certainly not enough to be accepted, since their acceptance rates are lower than first time applicants.

I am only saying that the SDN opinion that there is a bias against them is not hype, but rather, is fact, by virtue of the fact that they are required to either be superstars whose sin was applying late in a previous cycle, or be subject to comparison to a failed earlier application and have to show marked improvement that a first time applicant does not have to show. This is a form of bias, albeit perhaps justified, and is not hype. That's my only point!!! 🙂

 

[KnightDoc]

i think one metric that makes things different is that some(many/few) of the people applying to @Goro’s school are first time applicants to his school because they didn’t apply DO the previous cycle. So even though they are reaplicants to med school they have expanded their pool of schools. And remember you are technically only a reapplicant at schools you submitted a verified primary to through AMCAS(and probably the DO service too).

Yes, yes, yes, but this all proves the point. The crazy thing is that all of us are actually saying the same thing. 🙂

This started because OP wanted to hold back on applying to some schools to hold them in reserve for a reapplication in case she was unsuccessful this cycle and had to reapply after retaking the MCAT. I advised that was nuts, and that whatever disadvantage there was to being a reapplicant was nothing compared to the handicap she would be subjecting herself to by limiting her first shot by artificially depressing the number of schools she applied to.

@Goro then opined that the bias against reapplicants was "mostly SDN hype." I think we all agree (maybe even @Goro?) that it's not "mostly hype" at schools that ask about prior applications and at school where you actually are a reapplicant, since you are subject to an additional layer of scrutiny (otherwise they wouldn't ask, and wouldn't refer to a prior year's file). We definitely all agree that there is no bias at schools where they don't ask, and where you are a first time applicant.

 

[Tyrese]

You are over thinking this. It does not matter whether you go to a "low tier" "low mid tier" or "mid tier" school. What matters is that you are accepted to any MD or DO school, complete the 4 years and obtain a license to practice medicine.

This quote needs to be framed and put above the doorway to every pre-med's room. 🙂

Many (certainly not all) pre-meds that I meet are too fixated on xyz schools simply on name and ranking alone. Okay, but why ELSE would this school be a good choice to attend?

Wise words my friend! 👍

 

[candbgirl]

I think the whole discussion has woven around several views of the same subject. But as far as OP’s initial question @gyngyn gave the strongest answer in post 61. Apply once with your strongest application. That removes any doubt that no matter how well meaning OP’s father is, unless he is an ADCOM and has different insights, the convoluted plan he developed was not smart!

 

[doctobeapple]

My advice, you need to come up with priority list here. What is so important to you?
Get in to high tier medical school , get to mid tier medical school?
Or get accepted to medical school?
I can see your point though, you have to be happy with the program you join. But first step getting accepted which is not guaranteed to any medical school!
I had a situation three years ago where the applicant scored 509 (it was 82% percentile) but really did not study for the test and we discussed at that time if she did study a month for the MCAT, she could have scored in the 514 , the medical school name was a factor for here, she did get accepted but not to her favorite school, she is M3 now, few comments I hear every now and then that she made the mistake not studying enough to go to a better school with better organized medical program she would have liked more and fit her personality better. But her priority at that to get to medical school and she was not agreeing at all to a gap year or retake after studying couple of months.

Good Luck, with 509 mcat score, you still can get you to a decent/good medical school.

 

[erdoc111]

Why would this applicant with borderline MCAT go ahead and submit late applications on top of everything else? Do yourself a favor OP, study for your MCAT, continue to improve your activities and put in a strong application next June 1st. Good luck!

 

[MyOdyssey]

Why would this applicant with borderline MCAT go ahead and submit late applications on top of everything else? Do yourself a favor OP, study for your MCAT, continue to improve your activities and put in a strong application next June 1st. Good luck!

Yep.

 

[habbohomer]

Science + music majors were rather common at my undergrad among those with premed aspirations.

If you want to shoot for midtiers, you will need a significantly higher MCAT score than 509.

Applying will interfere with full on MCAT prep, which you need to have any chance at raising your score to 515.

Just wondering. Which schools would you shoot for with a 509, and what score would you need for a mid tier or Top tier?

 

[Goro]

Just wondering. Which schools would you shoot for with a 509, and what score would you need for a mid tier or Top tier?

Look at MSAR Online