Is the old SDN saying still true during this app cycle?

[yws22]

Hello all!

I'm pretty sure all sdn users are familiar with the old saying, "wait lists 3 a doctor you will be"

I was wondering if this is still true during the COVID app cycles! Despite my low stats (LM 65~66) as an Asian applicant, I am grateful to have received 3 MD interviews (2 OOS, 1 IS). However, I am currently all WLed to the schools which is not surprising considering my low stats where both my GPA and MCAT are on the 10th percentile for all the schools. For DO schools, I got 2 II and got WLed because I submitted the app pretty late and correspondingly interviewed late where I was explicitly told that I was interviewing for the WL. Sitting on 5 WLs, I really do hope getting an A from the WL, but also am really losing hope and was wondering if I should be preparing for a re-app or not.

(Just in case anybody says that my poor interview skills might have been the reason behind all the WLs... Don't really think interviewing skills were much of an issue because I got so much love back from my interviewers where they would give me their personal emails to keep in touch and etc.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[candbgirl]

I think the original saying was “interviews three a doctor you’ll be”. Not sure if it still holds true. Because of the pandemic one year there were lots more applications than usual and I think I read that schools are interviewing more applicants because they are Zoom etc. You’ll just have to wait to see. But don’t take the “love” you received from your interviewers too seriously. Some are just really nice and supportive and it’s all part of their jobs to put on a positive spin. I doubt any interviewer would say you are a terrible interviewer.
Just keep up with your activities in case you do have to reapply.
Good luck.

 

[KnightDoc]

I think the original saying was “interviews three a doctor you’ll be”. Not sure if it still holds true. Because of the pandemic one year there were lots more applications than usual and I think I read that schools are interviewing more applicants because they are Zoom etc. You’ll just have to wait to see. But don’t take the “love” you received from your interviewers too seriously. Some are just really nice and supportive and it’s all part of their jobs to put on a positive spin. I doubt any interviewer would say you are a terrible interviewer.
Just keep up with your activities in case you do have to reapply.
Good luck.

This, this, this, this^^^^^^. It's all true, but I think 3 IIs ---> 1 A still holds true, at least on average, because many schools that increased the number of interviews they conducted last year saw that things didn't really change with their yields, so they scaled back IIs this cycle to pre-pandemic levels, even though applications are still elevated. This is a reason some people are finding it so difficult to score IIs.

Post-II A rates still range from around 15% to over 70%, with the average being somewhere in the 30s. As before, great applicants will do better and less spectacular ones, not so much, but 3 IIs resulting in one A still holds on average. Just keep in mind that this includes WL movement, so you just won't know until the end whether or not you are performing at the average. But 5 WLs, including 2 DOs, really should result in 1 or 2 As before the cycle is over.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Well, from a probability perspective, that holds pretty well. The number of interviewed applicants who get placed on waitlists could be as high as 4-5 times the size of the regular class (probably lower to 3-4x, h/t @candbgirl and @KnightDoc ), until the scrambling CYMS period begins.

Also, if your interviewing skills were terrible, remember the admissions committee has the option of giving you a post-interview R. Stop finding a reason to beat yourself up. Let the process run.

 

[KnightDoc]

Well, from a probability perspective, that holds pretty well. The number of interviewed applicants who get placed on waitlists could be as high as 4-5 times the size of the regular class (probably lower to 3-4x, h/t @candbgirl and @KnightDoc ), until the scrambling CYMS period begins.

Also, if your interviewing skills were terrible, remember the admissions committee has the option of giving you a post-interview R. Stop finding a reason to beat yourself up. Let the process run.

I think you are going to freak people out with your guesstimates regarding the size of WLs, and I don't think they are correct.

It happens, but it's the relatively rare school that interviews 10x the number of people it has spots for, and then places 4-5x on the WL. Even NYU cut back the number of people on its WL this year, because no med school that might, in a good year (for candidates) pull 20-50 people off a WL, needs to have 500 or more people on it. More typical is interviewing 3-6x, and placing less than half of them on the WL, after backing out people accepted and rejected post-II. The numbers aren't great, but they aren't as dismal as you are implying.

If a school has 4x the number of its seats on a WL, even if 25% of the class came from the WL, that would mean that you have a 1 in 16 chance of getting off the WL. Most schools don't actually take a quarter of their class from the WL, but believe me, those that do have a far greater than 6% accept rate off the WL!

Suffice it to say that the post-II accept rate, including WL movement, ranges from a low of less than 20% at a school like NYU to above 60% at some schools. Michigan's II rate is so low that its post-II acceptance rate is actually around 80%. A lot of schools are in the 40s and 50s, and 33% is a very conservative average.

Most people with more than 3 IIs will have at least one A before all is said and done, but that includes WL movement. If WL movement was as rare as your numbers imply (i.e., if a typical school with a typical enrollment of around 150 actually had 600-750 people on the WL), WL movement would be much more uncommon than we anecdotally know that it is.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Fair enough. My estimates depend on the program and their yields (not limiting to just allopathic medicine in my estimates). Every school is different on that. I do think that there are moves to try to interview more people though at a lot of schools, since last cycle saw such a bump up in URM representation.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

For me it was more like interviews 7.5 a doctor you’ll be.

I’ve seen some similar stories (albeit less extreme) on sdn this cycle but not sure how it compares

 

[Proudfather94]

Hello all!

I'm pretty sure all sdn users are familiar with the old saying, "wait lists 3 a doctor you will be"

I was wondering if this is still true during the COVID app cycles! Despite my low stats (LM 65~66) as an Asian applicant, I am grateful to have received 3 MD interviews (2 OOS, 1 IS). However, I am currently all WLed to the schools which is not surprising considering my low stats where both my GPA and MCAT are on the 10th percentile for all the schools. For DO schools, I got 2 II and got WLed because I submitted the app pretty late and correspondingly interviewed late where I was explicitly told that I was interviewing for the WL. Sitting on 5 WLs, I really do hope getting an A from the WL, but also am really losing hope and was wondering if I should be preparing for a re-app or not.

(Just in case anybody says that my poor interview skills might have been the reason behind all the WLs... Don't really think interviewing skills were much of an issue because I got so much love back from my interviewers where they would give me their personal emails to keep in touch and etc.)

Honestly 3 WLs and no acceptance to me means that your interview skills were not good enough to get an acceptance but not bad enough to get outright rejected. I would work on that in the meantime in case you need to reapply.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Honestly 3 WLs and no acceptance to me means that your interview skills were not good enough to get an acceptance but not bad enough to get outright rejected. I would work on that in the meantime in case you need to reapply.

This could be true but not necessarily. Assuming interviewed applicants are normally distributed on LizzyM hypothetical staircase and sampling is similar between schools, it is very possible that one could be in the WL range for 3 schools pre-interview. In that case, maybe only an outstanding interview could lead to an acceptance

 

[Proudfather94]

This could be true but not necessarily. Assuming interviewed applicants are normally distributed on LizzyM hypothetical staircase and sampling is similar between schools, it is very possible that one could be in the WL range for 3 schools pre-interview. In that case, maybe only an outstanding interview could lead to an acceptance

I feel that if their interview skills were where they needed to be at least one of those should have been an A instead. When something happens once it's luck when it happens 5 times (didn't see the 2 DO WLs earlier) that's a pattern. Something is making op be put on the WL and I'd assume it is interview skills.

 

[mdog31415]

Hey my friend. I feel for you rn since I too am in WL-purgatory with 3 WLs. What’s important to note is not all schools are the same. Some use WLs a ton, and others barely if at all. I know one of the schools I’m WL’d at hasn’t pulled anyone off in the last 2 cycles. Another school told me that 80% of the people who interview there and don’t get a Post-II R get an acceptance offer. So it is what it is. Happy hunting!

 

[KnightDoc]

Hey my friend. I feel for you rn since I too am in WL-purgatory with 3 WLs. What’s important to note is not all schools are the same. Some use WLs a ton, and others barely if at all. I know one of the schools I’m WL’d at hasn’t pulled anyone off in the last 2 cycles. Another school told me that 80% of the people who interview there and don’t get a Post-II R get an acceptance offer. So it is what it is. Happy hunting!

And THIS^^^^ is where the rule of thumb comes from. Averaging 80% chances with 0%!

Each and every cycle, people freak out in March and April, and then calm down in May and June. When the dust settles, this cycle will be like all of those that came before, and the majority of people with 3+ IIs will have at least 1 A. Not all of them, but many.

And it's worth keeping in mind that that's the goal here, to get an A. Not to complain that with 15 IIs you should have 5 As instead of 2, before WL movement even began, so the "rule" must be broken!

 

[hopefull!!]

Suffice it to say that the post-II accept rate, including WL movement, ranges from a low of less than 20% at a school like NYU to above 60% at some schools. Michigan's II rate is so low that its post-II acceptance rate is actually around 80%. A lot of schools are in the 40s and 50s, and 33% is a very conservative average.

Most people with more than 3 IIs will have at least one A before all is said and done, but that includes WL movement. If WL movement was as rare as your numbers imply (i.e., if a typical school with a typical enrollment of around 150 actually had 600-750 people on the WL), WL movement would be much more uncommon than we anecdotally know that it is.

Where have you found this information about schools? Is there a list or somewhere to find these percentages? Thanks!

 

[KnightDoc]

Where have you found this information about schools? Is there a list or somewhere to find these percentages? Thanks!

Yes. It's behind a paywall at US News.

 

[LizzyM]

This could be true but not necessarily. Assuming interviewed applicants are normally distributed on LizzyM hypothetical staircase and sampling is similar between schools, it is very possible that one could be in the WL range for 3 schools pre-interview. In that case, maybe only an outstanding interview could lead to an acceptance

If someone is in the mushy middle at three schools, it could be that they aimed too high and would have had more success at a school where they'd have been closer to the top of the staircase to begin with (i.e. a school with lower median MCAT and GPA). Of course, a borderline candidate at three lower tier schools is going to be in a tight place and should be considering DO schools during a subsequent cycle.

Interview issues could be in play here but sometimes it is not a "bad" interview but a good interview where a "WOW!" interview was required to move up the staircase.

Do keep in mind that some schools lose a ton of admitted students as decision day comes along and there can be some waitlist movement as a single seat at one school can have a ripple effect across an entire group of schools.

 

[NegativeMargin]

Obligatory thedataking plug.




There's definitely enough variance between the highest Post II rates and the lowest, where at least statistically speaking your chance of getting into at least one of your schools is 1 minus your chances of not getting into any. As an example for me, where the post II acceptance rates for my first 3 schools were ~46%, 51%, and ~83%, my rule of 3 was 1-(.54*.49*.17) = 95.5%, which lends itself to this being true.. but if the "average" post II rate is 35% (not saying it is I haven't done the math), that equates to a 73%, and if your schools are below a 20% Post II acceptance rates, then your chance of getting at least 1 A would be ~50%.

 

[LizzyM]

Obligatory thedataking plug.




There's definitely enough variance between the highest Post II rates and the lowest, where at least statistically speaking your chance of getting into at least one of your schools is 1 minus your chances of not getting into any. As an example for me, where the post II acceptance rates for my first 3 schools were ~46%, 51%, and ~83%, my rule of 3 was 1-(.54*.49*.17) = 95.5%, which lends itself to this being true.. but if the "average" post II rate is 35% (not saying it is I haven't done the math), that equates to a 73%, and if your schools are below a 20% Post II acceptance rates, then your chance of getting at least 1 A would be ~50%.

This does assume that each decision is independent (very likely it is ) but it may not be random (in fact, this is very unlikely). Some people just don't interview well and the chances of no offers is not just 1-the multiplication of the likelihood of being admitted at each school but if far higher.

 

[hopefull!!]

Obligatory thedataking plug.




There's definitely enough variance between the highest Post II rates and the lowest, where at least statistically speaking your chance of getting into at least one of your schools is 1 minus your chances of not getting into any. As an example for me, where the post II acceptance rates for my first 3 schools were ~46%, 51%, and ~83%, my rule of 3 was 1-(.54*.49*.17) = 95.5%, which lends itself to this being true.. but if the "average" post II rate is 35% (not saying it is I haven't done the math), that equates to a 73%, and if your schools are below a 20% Post II acceptance rates, then your chance of getting at least 1 A would be ~50%.

Wow this sheet is awesome, wish there were more DO schools but gives such a thorough breakdown. Thank you for posting!!

 

[proudofmykids]

I feel that if their interview skills were where they needed to be at least one of those should have been an A instead. When something happens once it's luck when it happens 5 times (didn't see the 2 DO WLs earlier) that's a pattern. Something is making op be put on the WL and I'd assume it is interview skills.

I’d argue that it is their Excellent Interviewing skills that is getting them onto the WL instead of an R, helping overcome their low LizzyM.

 

[Proudfather94]

I’d argue that it is their Excellent Interviewing skills that is getting them onto the WL instead of an R, helping overcome their low LizzyM.

I would believe that most schools have a genuine interest in accepting you if they are offering an interview. If their disposition towards an applicant is to reject them unless they are a great interviewer which would get them placed on the waitlist instead I would think that they would get a pre II R instead. Interview slots are a finite resource as well as time during the application cycle so a school will want to spend those resources on people that they can see themselves accepting before the interview takes place.

 

[KnightDoc]

I would believe that most schools have a genuine interest in accepting you if they are offering an interview. If their disposition towards an applicant is to reject them unless they are a great interviewer which would get them placed on the waitlist instead I would think that they would get a pre II R instead. Interview slots are a finite resource as well as time during the application cycle so a school will want to spend those resources on people that they can see themselves accepting before the interview takes place.

Yes and no. Interviews ARE a finite resource, and schools do not waste time or resources interviewing people who are not admittable.

OTOH, almost all schools send out far more IIs than they can possibly admit, which means plenty of people with fine applications who do not screw up the interview still find themselves on WLs. Just refer to @LizzyM's staircase analogy, or to @voxveritatisetlucis's experience, in which he has a glaring red flag that made it past the screen for very many IIs, but apparently not past the enhanced scrutiny an applicant is subject to by the full adcom post interview.

Bottom line - the fact that an applicant makes it past a team screening applicants for IIs neither means that applicant is going to be accepted if the interviewers like them, nor that the school wasted a finite resource by issuing the II. Not accepting people who are perfectly acceptable, or sometimes even interviewing people that a full committee would not find acceptable, is just part of the process, since, by design, they want to build a WL buffer in addition to selecting people for admission, and because it is impractical to expect the full adcom to also do the screens for IIs.

 

[Proudfather94]

Yes and no. Interviews ARE a finite resource, and schools do not waste time or resources interviewing people who are not admittable.

OTOH, almost all schools send out far more IIs than they can possibly admit, which means plenty of people with fine applications who do not screw up the interview still find themselves on WLs. Just refer to @LizzyM's staircase analogy, or to @voxveritatisetlucis's experience, in which he has a glaring red flage that made it past the screen for very many IIs, but apparently not past the enhanced scrutiny an applicant is subject to by the full adcom post interview.

Bottom line - the fact that an applicant makes it past a team screening applicants for II neither means that applicant is going to be accepted if the interviewers like them, nor that the school wasted a finite resource by issuing the II. Not accepting people who are perfectly acceptable, or sometimes even interviewing people that a full committee would not find acceptable, is just part of the process, since it is impractical to expect the full adcom to also do the screens for IIs.

I get that if that happens at one or two schools but this happened to op at 5 schools. If their interview skills were where they needed to be I would expect at least one of those to have been an acceptance. I'm not saying op is a terrible interviewer but I do think they need to develop the skills more. I just think that it is more likely that they didn't impress one school enough to accept them then it is that all 5 schools were going to reject him but he did a perfect interview which got him put on the waitlist at all 5 schools.

What I'm saying is that op may be a 5/10 or 6/10 interviewer and would have got in to at least one school if they were a 7/10 or 8/10.

 

[KnightDoc]

I get that if that happens at one or two schools but this happened to op at 5 schools. If their interview skills were where they needed to be I would expect at least one of those to have been an acceptance. I'm not saying op is a terrible interviewer but I do think they need to develop the skills more. I just think that it is more likely that they didn't impress one school enough to accept them then it is that all 5 schools were going to reject him but he did a perfect interview which got him put on the waitlist at all 5 schools.

What I'm saying is that op may be a 5/10 or 6/10 interviewer and would have got in to at least one school if they were a 7/10 or 8/10.

And I'm saying you are making an assumption that is just not necessarily true. If OP is at the bottom of @LizzyM's staircase at one school, they could easily be at the bottom at all 5, and a great interview at one or all of them might not have been enough to generate an A.

We just don't know! Would your opinion change if OP is called off one or more of the WL's? If so, then it is certainly premature to be providing any diagnosis now, before we know how things are going to play out. You're just blindly applying a rough rule of thumb and saying "more than 3 IIs and no A = interviewing problem."

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

My interview skills are/were pretty good considering my current job, I went through a combined 7 half hour to one and a half interviews. I really doubt it was interviewing skills

In a previous cycle, I got into a lot of the schools I interviewed at. I doubt my interview skills deteriorated over the past 3-4 years but I guess it’s possible

 

[Mr.Smile12]

My interview skills are/were pretty good considering my current job, I went through a combined 7 half hour to one and a half interviews. I really doubt it was interviewing skills

In a previous cycle, I got into a lot of the schools I interviewed at. I doubt my interview skills deteriorated over the past 3-4 years but I guess it’s possible

I'm also not sure it would just be "your" skills. Interviewers change. Rubrics change.

 

[Proudfather94]

And I'm saying you are making an assumption that is just not necessarily true. If OP is at the bottom of @LizzyM's staircase at one school, they could easily be at the bottom at all 5, and a great interview at one or all of them might not have been enough to generate an A.

We just don't know! Would your opinion change if OP is called off one or more of the WL's? If so, then it is certainly premature to be providing any diagnosis now.

My opinion wouldn't change because I don't think they were at the bottom of the staircase at all 5 schools. Schools are so picky with IIs that I believe it's more likely that op was at different stairs at each school. To get that many interviews means that their academics and extracurriculars have to be impressive, and if one has an impressive application they will have an A with great interview skills if they are interviewing at 5 schools.

 

[UsernameChecksOut]

My opinion wouldn't change because I don't think they were at the bottom of the staircase at all 5 schools.

OP is a low stat, Asian applicant who applied late to the DO schools. Their staircase placement was unlikely to be advantageous going into the interview. Good luck, OP!

 

[KnightDoc]

My opinion wouldn't change because I don't think they were at the bottom of the staircase at all 5 schools. Schools are so picky with IIs that I believe it's more likely that op was at different stairs at each school. To get that many interviews means that their academics and extracurriculars have to be impressive, and if one has an impressive application they will have an A with great interview skills if they are interviewing at 5 schools.

Yes, of course. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was that, if someone is ultimately accepted off a WL, one cannot seriously say that their interview skills need work. And we do not yet know whether or not that is going to happen.

Also, it's worth keeping in mind that "interviews 3 and a doctor you will be" includes acceptances off a WL, so it is too soon to pronounce anyone on WLs, whether it's 1 or 15, dead just yet. Or to say, based on nothing other than their WL/A ratio, that they have an interviewing problem. Maybe when the cycle is over, but not the last week of April!

 

[NegativeMargin]

I get that if that happens at one or two schools but this happened to op at 5 schools. If their interview skills were where they needed to be I would expect at least one of those to have been an acceptance. I'm not saying op is a terrible interviewer but I do think they need to develop the skills more. I just think that it is more likely that they didn't impress one school enough to accept them then it is that all 5 schools were going to reject him but he did a perfect interview which got him put on the waitlist at all 5 schools.

What I'm saying is that op may be a 5/10 or 6/10 interviewer and would have got in to at least one school if they were a 7/10 or 8/10.

I certainly agree with the spirit of what you are saying. I know if I was in that position I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility that I could be a better interviewer, even if the people conducting them seemed pleased with me. That said they gave their stats and their timeline so I'm not disagreeing with anyone else either, but I think something could be said about people's belief about their own interview skills..

The only times I accepted that I did well, and it certainly was not every time, was when they said I was the best interview they had all week, or when they turned to each other and literally said out loud "finally". Beyond that, there's this level of professionalism and niceness that exists. People can misidentify that as the interviewer liking them more than they actually do, and they can also be affected by any number of self-inflicted biases. Most importantly, if I wasn't in the state of mind to think I could do better when I had interviews that seemed okay, I wouldn't have kept practicing and had those interviews where I hit it out of the park.

And I think that's worth mentioning, as this is just one step in the process, and the idea is that we shouldn't be starting out the gate saying "I don't really think _____ was much of an issue for me because they were nice when I interacted with them". We should be discerning lessons wherever we can.

Not the least of which is because as a non-trad graduating UG at 29 it's become clear that people talking to audiences that are supposed to be in their early 20s tend to give 10 heaping spoonful's of praise with every dash of criticism. This makes discerning what could be done better all that much more difficult, and most responses to discussion prompts like the OPs aren't all that much different, especially on the subreddit. It's a lot of discussing outside factors, and a few controversial people saying, in all decency, are you as good at interviewing as you think you are?

It's a valid question. Discernment is a skill and it's necessary throughout life and med school. At least for me, I might as well think about that now before I end up with a "good job, 3/5" on rotations like thousands of people talk about here and on the subreddit, because I confused the attending seeming nice with them not having anything critical to say or there not being anything for me to work on. And I chose that example for comparison because just like this one there are a lot of outside factors, but what matters is what you can control, at least in so far as advice goes.

 

[LizzyM]

Not to mention anyone by name, but we should keep in mind that someone who has an offer of admission yanked due to an IA or criminal investigation and then a cycle or two later interviews at many schools but ends up waitlist is not a situation generalizable to all applicants.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Not to mention anyone by name, but we should keep in mind that someone who has an offer of admission yanked due to an IA or criminal investigation and then a cycle or two later interviews at many schools but ends up waitlist is not a situation generalizable to all applicants.

in your opinion, would one in this situation have fared better at higher schools if he/she waited more time between the IA/conviction, or was low tier MD always the ceiling. The premed advisor at my school told me I should probably give it more time but I decided to apply this cycle due to age concerns with waiting.

Not thinking about turning down the low tier or anything and I am grateful for having gotten into two low tier MDs, but can’t say that I haven’t been having serious regrets now that step 1 is pass or fail.

 

[LizzyM]

in your opinion, would one in this situation have fared better at higher schools if he/she waited more time between the IA/conviction, or was low tier MD always the ceiling. The premed advisor at my school told me I should probably give it more time but I decided to apply this cycle due to age concerns with waiting.

Not thinking about turning down the low tier or anything and I am grateful for having gotten into two low tier MDs, but can’t say that I haven’t been having serious regrets now that step 1 is pass or fail.

Hard to say. The hope that the applicant has changed their ways, and won't embarrass the adcom that admitted them, is weighed against whatever the applicant might contribute to moving the median GPA/MCAT upward (in other words, if you are above the median for that school's matriculants, you might be more attractive to the adcom than if you were at or below its median.

If a school has hundreds of people with similar GPA/MCAT to choose from ("higher schools"), someone with a serious, and recent, blemish on their record may not be as enticing.

 

[yws22]

Just an update for everyone! I got in!!!!!!!! MD acceptance omg I'm crying rn. Thank you SDNers all for your contribution to this thread. I truly appreciate this community and love you all ♡