Knowing that many folks won't get accepted in their first try, is it better to start with a smaller school list?

[southernhope1]

Now bear with me on this. I've been noticing a number of folks who are re-applicants and i'm also noticing that many people claim that there is a bias towards applicants applying twice to a specific school. If the latter is true, would it make sense to pick a fairly small number of schools the first time out (say, 12) as opposed to the 20+ that many people do with the idea that if you have to go out again next year with a stronger app, you'll have more schools that are seeing you for the first time. Or is it better to be an optimistic person who assumes that natch it's going to work out in Year 1...and just go for it and shoot for all of them?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jhmmd]

Now bear with me on this. I've been noticing a number of folks who are re-applicants and i'm also noticing that many people claim that there is a bias towards applicants applying twice to a specific school. If the latter is true, would it make sense to pick a fairly small number of schools the first time out (say, 12) as opposed to the 20+ that many people do with the idea that if you have to go out again next year with a stronger app, you'll have more schools that are seeing you for the first time. Or is it better to be an optimistic person who assumes that natch it's going to work out in Year 1...and just go for it and shoot for all of them?

No, this is reverse psychology.

 

[7thAndLASTPoopoftheDay]

There is nothing to be gained from the process of reapplying. No lesson to be learned except that it really ****ing sucks and you don't ever want to have to do it.
Take it from one who knows.

 

[deleted1054719]

You should apply to the appropriate schools and should not apply with the idea you'll be rejected from all of them. If you already know your app is not strong enough, the appropriate number of schools to apply to is zero.

 

[deleted1075353]

Put together the best application possible and apply once. If that means you need an extra year, then take an extra year. But planning to lose is exactly that - a losing strategy, like the people who plan for a MCAT retake before a 1st attempt.

 

[Deltasidearm]

I have only ever heard of a bias against reapplicants. Do not turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy of rejection.

 

[FalconSlice]

Now bear with me on this. I've been noticing a number of folks who are re-applicants and i'm also noticing that many people claim that there is a bias towards applicants applying twice to a specific school. If the latter is true, would it make sense to pick a fairly small number of schools the first time out (say, 12) as opposed to the 20+ that many people do with the idea that if you have to go out again next year with a stronger app, you'll have more schools that are seeing you for the first time. Or is it better to be an optimistic person who assumes that natch it's going to work out in Year 1...and just go for it and shoot for all of them?

You should try nor expect to be a reapplicant lol. Only apply when you're confident enough in your application and in yourself. Planning for failure even before you try is ensuring you will be a reapplicant.

 

[Rogue42]

The best strategy is to have the very best application you can put together on the first try; and then give that first try everything you've got.

People become reapplicants because they don't put their very best application forward from the beginning.

 

[KnightDoc]

Everyone who posted before me has given you excellent advice. You are looking at the data in the abstract and then drawing a bad conclusion. Yes, if you happen to end up being a reapplicant, it is better to have more schools to choose from where you haven't applied previously. That doesn't make tying one hand behind your back on your first rodeo a smart strategy.

To say what has already been said a different way, if you want to go down this road, then the smartest strategy is to apply to zero schools on your first cycle so that no schools are repeats for the second cycle with the stronger app. In other words, don't apply until you are ready, and then apply wherever it makes sense.

 

[jhmmd]

the smartest strategy is to apply to zero schools on your first cycle so that no schools are repeats for the second cycle with the stronger app

Works for me; less competition

 

[readmypostsMD]

Apply to a lot of schools

I got 2 ii from totally random schools that I just randomly tacked on

 

[southernhope1]

Everyone who posted before me has given you excellent advice. You are looking at the data in the abstract and then drawing a bad conclusion. Yes, if you happen to end up being a reapplicant, it is better to have more schools to choose from where you haven't applied previously. That doesn't make tying one hand behind your back on your first rodeo a smart strategy.

Point well-taken and advice accepted.

but.

BUT.

I truly do believe that there are going to be a number of applicants this year who are going to run into a twin tsunami of more applicants and more pandemic...In the past decade, the year over year applicant increase has averaged less than 3%. This year, 25%. Folks who might have been accepted in last year's cycle and might be accepted in *next* year's cycle are simply not going to be successful this year. It is what it is.

 

[jhmmd]

Point well-taken and advice accepted.

but.

BUT.

I truly do believe that there are going to be a number of applicants this year who are going to run into a twin tsunami of more applicants and more pandemic...In the past decade, the year over year applicant increase has averaged less than 3%. This year, 25%. Folks who might have been accepted in last year's cycle and might be accepted in *next* year's cycle are simply not going to be successful this year. It is what it is.

I'd like to see where you are getting these numbers, but don't doubt that this is correct. Some might see this post as trying to scare off those applying.

You might be interested in this article.

 

[sunnyisland]

Point well-taken and advice accepted.

but.

BUT.

I truly do believe that there are going to be a number of applicants this year who are going to run into a twin tsunami of more applicants and more pandemic...In the past decade, the year over year applicant increase has averaged less than 3%. This year, 25%. Folks who might have been accepted in last year's cycle and might be accepted in *next* year's cycle are simply not going to be successful this year. It is what it is.

Although there is change in number of applicants, it will not make a difference for the top 20000 who get accepted. They probably will be the same. Most of these excess applicants will be part of bottom half. Preparing to apply for Medical does not happen in a year. It takes much more commitment than that. I would not worry about 25 percent increase in applicant size.

 

[southernhope1]

I'd like to see where you are getting these numbers, but don't doubt that this is correct. Some might see this post as trying to scare off those applying.

Here's that article -- Applications to medical school are at an all-time high. What does this mean for applicants and schools? and the good (bad) news is that the increase has already happened and can't scare off any current applicants because, hey, they applied before they knew!

 

[Goro]

Now bear with me on this. I've been noticing a number of folks who are re-applicants and i'm also noticing that many people claim that there is a bias towards applicants applying twice to a specific school. If the latter is true, would it make sense to pick a fairly small number of schools the first time out (say, 12) as opposed to the 20+ that many people do with the idea that if you have to go out again next year with a stronger app, you'll have more schools that are seeing you for the first time. Or is it better to be an optimistic person who assumes that natch it's going to work out in Year 1...and just go for it and shoot for all of them?

No, it's better to start with a strategic school list, with the best possible app. But also keep in mind that the bias against reapplicants is mostly SDN hype.

And the DO schools are also seeing massive increases in apps compared to last year.

 

[KnightDoc]

Point well-taken and advice accepted.

but.

BUT.

I truly do believe that there are going to be a number of applicants this year who are going to run into a twin tsunami of more applicants and more pandemic...In the past decade, the year over year applicant increase has averaged less than 3%. This year, 25%. Folks who might have been accepted in last year's cycle and might be accepted in *next* year's cycle are simply not going to be successful this year. It is what it is.

You might be right, but ... but, if this is a concern, the best strategy would be to avoid this year altogether rather than half-assing it with a smaller than normal number of applications to allow more schools to not be reapplications next year.

For what it's worth, I have previously expressed the opinion stated by @rx2000 about the increase this year, and was pretty uniformly shot down by the all-knowing adcoms on SDN. We'll see who turns out to be right, but I totally agree that it takes more than 4 months to slap together a competitive application, so most of the people who decided between March and July to throw in an application when they weren't already planning on doing so will find that, for the most part, they are not competitive with those planning on this cycle for 2, 3 or more years.

If I and @rx2000 are correct, you are really competing with the same 50,000 you were always competing with. The incremental additional last minute applications will mostly just be creating additional fee revenue for the schools, and won't change the odds at all for those who were planning on applying all along. JMHO.

 

[jhmmd]

You might be right, but ... but, if this is a concern, the best strategy would be to avoid this year altogether rather than half-assing it with a smaller than normal number of applications to allow more schools to not be reapplications next year.

For what it's worth, I have previously expressed the opinion stated by @rx2000 about the increase this year, and was pretty uniformly shot down by the all-knowing adcoms on SDN. We'll see who turns out to be right, but I totally agree that it takes more than 4 months to slap together a competitive application, so most of the people who decided between March and July to throw in an application when they weren't already planning on doing so will find that, for the most part, they are not competitive with those planning on this cycle for 2, 3 or more years.

If I and @rx2000 are correct, you are really competing with the same 50,000 you were always competing with. The incremental additional last minute applications will mostly just be creating additional fee revenue for the schools, and won't change the odds at all for those who were planning on applying all along. JMHO.

Well, yeah. You have to take the pre-reqs. You have to excel in ALL of the pre-reqs (for the most part). You have to put together ECs + clinical volunteering + volunteering + research + LORs + PS + a compelling MCAT score. All of this takes years to put together.

 

[KnightDoc]

Well, yeah. You have to take the pre-reqs. You have to excel in ALL of the pre-reqs (for the most part). You have to put together ECs + clinical volunteering + volunteering + research + LORs + PS + a compelling MCAT score. All of this takes years to put together.

This was exactly my point back in the spring. In response to adcoms predicting that applications would spike in response to the economic downturn, which has in fact occurred, I said EXACTLY what you are saying.

They said there are a ton of people ready to go who wouldn't be applying but for the pandemic. I doubted it. I agree with you -- people who have planning on this cycle applied as expected. Other people who rushed an MCAT, and an application, because gap year plans fell apart will not be competitive. Of course, there will always be outliers, like really smart people who already have great apps who would have put it off for another year, but this will not account for the majority of the additional applications this year.

 

[jhmmd]

This was exactly my point back in the spring. In response to adcoms predicting that applications would spike in response to the economic downturn, which has in fact occurred, I said EXACTLY what you are saying.

They said there are a ton of people ready to go who wouldn't be applying but for the pandemic. I doubted it. I agree with you -- people who have planning on this cycle applied as expected. Other people who rushed an MCAT, and an application, because gap year plans fell apart will not be competitive. Of course, there will always be outliers, like really smart people who already have great apps who would have put it off for another year, but this will not account for the majority of the additional applications this year.

This is a bit of a stretch
I think most of the people taking the MCAT are in college and did not rush the MCAT due to the pandemic
If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in seeing proof

 

[OchemOficionado]

If you're going to put your effort into an application cycle you should do it right. Why waste your time and lower your own chances?

 

[KnightDoc]

This is a bit of a stretch
I think most of the people taking the MCAT are in college and did not rush the MCAT due to the pandemic
If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in seeing proof

No, you're right. I'm talking about people who were blindsided by the pandemic in March, decided soon thereafter to apply to med school, signed up to take the test once registration opened in May, took the test sometime between June and September, and threw in an application.

I'm not talking about regular applicants. I'm talking about the influx of last minute applicants, who, if they weren't already planning on applying, had to make a decision to take the test within a few short months. That, to me, is rushing. I'd been thinking about the test for almost a year before actually taking it. Even without the delays, it still would have been around 8 months. I realize most people spend 3-4 months studying, but many of them plan that for several months before actually doing it.

 

[jhmmd]

No, you're right. I'm talking about people who were blindsided by the pandemic in March, decided soon thereafter to apply to med school, signed up to take the test once registration opened in May, took the test sometime between June and September, and threw in an application.

I'm not talking about regular applicants. I'm talking about the influx of last minute applicants, who, if they weren't already planning on applying, had to make a decision to take the test within a few short months. That, to me, is rushing. I'd been thinking about the test for almost a year before actually taking it. Even without the delays, it still would have been around 8 months. I realize most people spend 3-4 months studying, but many of them plan that for several months before actually doing it.

?? You didn't take the pre-reqs?

 

[KnightDoc]

?? You didn't take the pre-reqs?

Of course I did -- I guess I'm not being clear.

Who said anything about prereqs???? I'd been obsessing on the MCAT since Summer 2019. The plan was to take the test in April 2020 (I was signed up!) and apply this cycle. As you know, April didn't happen. Neither did June (test was scheduled but cancelled at the last minute due to Pearson still not being open in my state). I finally took it in August. Prereqs are done. I was studying for the test since last December, but thinking about it for months before then.

And I still pushed the cycle back because I wasn't happy with my ECs, given everything that was cancelled last spring and summer, and couldn't focus on apps with the MCAT hanging over my head from May-August. I chose to wait a year rather than being someone rushing apps in August and September, and I was probably way more prepared to apply than many of those who threw in last minute applications!

I'm not talking about anyone who was already planning on applying. I'm talking about the people who decided in March that med school was a good idea given the pandemic (i.e., the extra however many people are applying this cycle). They had to schedule, prepare for, and take that test with no prior plan all within 6 months, plus pull together an entire application in that time. To me, that's rushing (whether or not prereqs have been completed), and is doomed to failure, other than the rare exception who already had their ducks lined up, maybe except for the MCAT, and pushed and app up like I pushed mine back due to the pandemic.

 

[LindaAccepted]

Now bear with me on this. I've been noticing a number of folks who are re-applicants and i'm also noticing that many people claim that there is a bias towards applicants applying twice to a specific school. If the latter is true, would it make sense to pick a fairly small number of schools the first time out (say, 12) as opposed to the 20+ that many people do with the idea that if you have to go out again next year with a stronger app, you'll have more schools that are seeing you for the first time. Or is it better to be an optimistic person who assumes that natch it's going to work out in Year 1...and just go for it and shoot for all of them?

Apply when you're really ready with the best application you can produce to the schools that you really want to attend and are likely to accept you.

Don't plan for rejection. Deal with it if it happens.

I have seen no bias for or against reapplicants. I have seen a bias against serial applicants who don't improve their qualifications or their presentation of their qualifications.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Well, yeah. You have to take the pre-reqs. You have to excel in ALL of the pre-reqs (for the most part). You have to put together ECs + clinical volunteering + volunteering + research + LORs + PS + a compelling MCAT score. All of this takes years to put together.

if planned early and planned well, it takes 2-3 years only.

 

[deleted889094]

If you've done a good job preparing, you shouldn't care what your competition is. It's not going to change anything for you, it's just fodder for obsession and anxiety. You can't game the system, you just gotta get through it.

I mean, if what you're suggesting is correct, the difference between getting in and not getting in is that you were bottom of the list and barely scraped by. That's a bit defeatist going into the 4-year onslaught.

 

[jhmmd]

if planned early and planned well, it takes 2-3 years only.

This is probably an outlier statistic if you are referring to post-bacc programs, and those are more geared towards nontraditional students in the first place. College for most people takes four years, as I'm sure you know. More and more pre-meds these days are also nontraditional students. With these two things in mind, that only leaves BS/MD programs, which are 7-8 years.

The average student does not graduate college in 3 years.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

This is probably an outlier statistic if you are referring to post-bacc programs, and those are more geared towards nontraditional students in the first place. College for most people takes four years, as I'm sure you know. More and more pre-meds these days are also nontraditional students. With these two things in mind, that only leaves BS/MD programs, which are 7-8 years.

The average student does not graduate college in 3 years.

I meant a focused premed can do all in 3 years, speaking about 30% (or 25% if you take out BSMD students) traditional applicants.

 

[jhmmd]

I meant a focused premed can do it all in 3 years, speaking about 30% (or 25% if you take out BSMD students) traditional applicants.

Quoting directly from here:

"With the cost of a traditional college education steadily on the climb, it is not surprising that college students are trying to fast track their college education. It all sounds good on paper--get out of school faster, save money, and get a job faster...

Finishing college sooner means less time to engage in social networking, making connections and developing skills. You want to develop a network of colleagues where you can help each other with professional opportunities, both now and in the future.

When you’re on a deadline to graduate fast, you may not be able to get all the classes or electives you want. Or even worse, you may have to take electives that are useless just to fulfill requirements, simply because the courses you want are not available when you want them.

More importantly, you might miss out on opportunities for internships and externships. Employers reveal that they want to hire people with practical work experience, which is often earned through internships and externships. In addition, your deadlines may limit your ability to study abroad."

I meant that while a small percentage of students may graduate college in three years, most don't. And it isn't always the smartest thing to do.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Quoting directly from here:

"With the cost of a traditional college education steadily on the climb, it is not surprising that college students are trying to fast track their college education. It all sounds good on paper--get out of school faster, save money, and get a job faster...

Finishing college sooner means less time to engage in social networking, making connections and developing skills. You want to develop a network of colleagues where you can help each other with professional opportunities, both now and in the future.

When you’re on a deadline to graduate fast, you may not be able to get all the classes or electives you want. Or even worse, you may have to take electives that are useless just to fulfill requirements, simply because the courses you want are not available when you want them.

More importantly, you might miss out on opportunities for internships and externships. Employers reveal that they want to hire people with practical work experience, which is often earned through internships and externships. In addition, your deadlines may limit your ability to study abroad."

I meant that while a small percentage of students may graduate college in three years, most don't. And it isn't always the smartest thing to do.

I am not advocating for graduating for 3 years, but you can complete all the activities needed for an application by end of junior year to apply in senior year. As stated before I am against 6 year or 7 year BSMD programs.

 

[KnightDoc]

Just to add, BS/MD med students have the highest attrition rate, just under 5%, as compared to other medical students. This I believes this only refers to when they are actually in medical school.

https://www.aamc.org/system/files/r...tesandattritionratesofu.s.medicalstudents.pdf

Yup. And when you think about it, it makes a ton of sense. They are the students most likely to have been pressured into it, in HS, by overbearing parents. They were selected based on excellence in HS, and, for the most part, are shielded from the weeding out everyone else has to go through in UG and through the application cycle. Some weeding happens for the truly unmotivated under performers, but, for the most part, the hardest thing about a BS/MD program is getting into one. So, for them, the weeding happens in M1.

 

[KnightDoc]

Apply when you're really ready with the best application you can produce to the schools that you really want to attend and are likely to accept you.

Don't plan for rejection. Deal with it if it happens.

I have seen no bias for or against reapplicants. I have seen a bias against serial applicants who don't improve their qualifications or their presentation of their qualifications.

This depends on how you define bias. If reapplicants are subject to a higher level of review, by virtue of having to show an improvement over a prior application that first time applicants don't have to show, is this not a form of bias?

In any event, @gonnif helpfully periodically posts a bunch of excerpts from med school websites on the topic. Miami explicitly states the following:

"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."

Bias?? Inferior applications? Is there a difference? Either way, they have demonstrably lower rates of success, across the board, at all schools. I'd like to avoid it if at all possible, rather than subjecting myself to it and hoping there really is no bias, and it's just a coincidence that reapplicants have lower rates of admission, or that I'm somehow an exception to the general rule.

 

[KnightDoc]

This is the one place where I wish we could compare the dropout rate of "serious" premeds in regular UG versus those in the UG part of BD/MD. I wonder what the difference would be.

I know for a fact, from personal observation at one school over the past few years, that A LOT of people do drop out of BS/MD during UG, at least at one school I am very familiar with. As you might imagine, the screen on the way in is not particularly rigorous, and the program is mostly used as a magnet to attract high stat HS students to the UG. The attrition rate is far higher than 5%.

Whether other programs have rates anywhere near this or not, 1 in 20 is nothing for a BS/MD program, so I'm sure that the national BS/MD attrition rate for the UG portion is far higher than 5%. I'm sure it's nowhere near 50%, but, even if it were, we both know that would still be far lower than regular UG, which is closer to 75-80%.

Of course, that includes a lot of people who weren't "serious," so we'd have to figure out how to define that before trying to answer the question. My gut tells me it would be still be lower for BS/MD than regular "serious" UG, because the BS/MDs are subject to some screen on entry (so they are probably inherently somewhat more likely to see it through than a random self declared premed entering UG), and they have the carrot of the guarantee to keep them motivated while regular UGs do not.

 

[deleted889094]

This depends on how you define bias. If reapplicants are subject to a higher level of review, by virtue of having to show an improvement over a prior application that first time applicants don't have to show, is this not a form of bias?

In any event, @gonnif helpfully periodically posts a bunch of excerpts from med school websites on the topic. Miami explicitly states the following:

"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."

Bias?? Inferior applications? Is there a difference? Either way, they have demonstrably lower rates of success, across the board, at all schools. I'd like to avoid it if at all possible, rather than subjecting myself to it and hoping there really is no bias, and it's just a coincidence that reapplicants have lower rates of admission, or that I'm somehow an exception to the general rule.

There is a difference between bias and inferior applications. In order to determine the different effects each has on acceptance, you'd have to do a pretty extensive multi-factor analysis.

In my own experience, reapplying yielded far more success as I was able to apply smarter and fill in some deficits. Never perceived a bias, but how could I, I suppose.

Bottom line: Try to apply well the first round. Save time and money. And don't obsess over things you can't control.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I know for a fact, from personal observation at one school over the past few years, that A LOT of people do drop out of BS/MD during UG, at least at one school I am very familiar with. As you might imagine, the screen on the way in is not particularly rigorous, and the program is mostly used as a magnet to attract high stat HS students to the UG. The attrition rate is far higher than 5%.

Whether other programs have rates anywhere near this or not, 1 in 20 is nothing for a BS/MD program, so I'm sure that the national BS/MD attrition rate for the UG portion is far higher than 5%. I'm sure it's nowhere near 50%, but, even if it were, we both know that would still be far lower than regular UG, which is closer to 75-80%.

Of course, that includes a lot of people who weren't "serious," so we'd have to figure out how to define that before trying to answer the question. My gut tells me it would be still be lower for BS/MD than regular "serious" UG, because the BS/MDs are subject to some screen on entry (so they are probably inherently somewhat more likely to see it through than a random self declared premed entering UG), and they have the carrot of the guarantee to keep them motivated while regular UGs do not.

which school is this? Most schools claim they have occasional drop outs only.

 

[jhmmd]

I know for a fact, from personal observation at one school over the past few years, that A LOT of people do drop out of BS/MD during UG, at least at one school I am very familiar with. As you might imagine, the screen on the way in is not particularly rigorous, and the program is mostly used as a magnet to attract high stat HS students to the UG. The attrition rate is far higher than 5%.

Whether other programs have rates anywhere near this or not, 1 in 20 is nothing for a BS/MD program, so I'm sure that the national BS/MD attrition rate for the UG portion is far higher than 5%. I'm sure it's nowhere near 50%, but, even if it were, we both know that would still be far lower than regular UG, which is closer to 75-80%.

Of course, that includes a lot of people who weren't "serious," so we'd have to figure out how to define that before trying to answer the question. My gut tells me it would be still be lower for BS/MD than regular "serious" UG, because the BS/MDs are subject to some screen on entry (so they are probably inherently somewhat more likely to see it through than a random self declared premed entering UG), and they have the carrot of the guarantee to keep them motivated while regular UGs do not.

All things being said, it's no longer a carrot if they don't achieve the target GPA & MCAT.

 

[jhmmd]

which school is this? Most schools claim they have occasional drop outs only.

I'm sure it's nowhere near 50%, but, even if it were, we both know that would still be far lower than regular UG, which is closer to 75-80%.

Take a look at this: "In the United States, the overall dropout rate for undergraduate college students is 40%, with approximately 30% of college freshmen dropping out before their sophomore year."

IIRC when I was in high school the overall dropout rate was more like 75%, as KnightDoc said. I guess dropping out of college is on the rise.

 

[KnightDoc]

which school is this? Most schools claim they have occasional drop outs only.

I'm not going to identify the school, but even an occasional drop out is higher than 5%! Just think back to your CC days -- the bigger the program, the less selective they were. I'm not talking about BU, Brown, Northwestern, etc. Schools like Rutgers, Albany, etc. lose way more than 1 in 20. And then add in all the schools that have relatively high GPA and MCAT requirements to move on, like that person posting about Augusta in the other thread. The attrition rates are significant -- 20%, 30%, even more.

 

[KnightDoc]

All things being said, it's no longer a carrot if they don't achieve the target GPA & MCAT.

Just tell that to every premed who has higher stats and no luck every year!

Of course, you are correct -- those are the people who drop out or are kicked out. But keep in mind that the "guarantee" still keeps people in who would have dropped premed without it. That's all I'm saying, and it's why BS/MD attrition rates are far lower than for regular premed.

 

[KnightDoc]

Take a look at this: "In the United States, the overall dropout rate for undergraduate college students is 40%, with approximately 30% of college freshmen dropping out before their sophomore year."

IIRC when I was in high school the overall dropout rate was more like 75%, as KnightDoc said. I guess dropping out of college is on the rise.

This might be true, but it's apples and oranges. @gonnif and I were only talking about people dropping premed, not college!!

 

[NY_Med]

Lets put the proper interpretation on this and not have a potential ecological fallacy here. There are applicants and there are applications.
The data this year with show a larger than typical increase in the number of applicants. The last 5 years there have been between about 51,500 and and 53,500 individual applicants per year. This year it is likely to increase to 55,000. What appears to have increased this year is the number of individual applications each applicant is making this year, thus increasing the aggregate number of applications at each school and across the applicant pool as whole. For the matriculation year of 2020, there were 906,500 total applications. We likely exceed a million total applications this cycle. However, that is for 2020 that was 22,200 matriculants for 53,000 applicants or 41.8%. In 2021 it will be 22,500 for 55,000 or 40.9%. So we are talking about 1% to 2% difference in the ratio.

https://www.aamc.org/media/5976/download

The AAMC has posted this data 10/26/2020 and it states there are ~900,000 applications for 2020-2021 application year (Identical to your stated number). Is this meant to be the 2019-2020 data and will be updated at the end of the cycle?

 

[jhmmd]

This might be true, but it's apples and oranges. @gonnif and I were only talking about people dropping premed, not college!!

Like u said I don't think that there are stats for that.

 

[KnightDoc]

Like u said I don't think that there are stats for that.

Oh no, there totally are -- it's something like 75-80%, and it's measure as the difference between the number of people declaring that they are premed upon entering UG and the number of people from that entering class who ultimately apply to med schools. UGs have this number, and it dribbles out from time to time.

As I said, the widely reported number that I have seen is that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 people who enter UG as premeds do not get weeded out and actually apply. From there, you have your 40% success rate. @gonnif was talking about "serious" premeds, which is an unknown subset of this group because, let's face it, anyone who says they are a premed and then gets weeded out in Bio I probably wouldn't meet the definition of "serious," and there are definitely thousands of people every year who have this or something similar with a relatively basic, foundational class, happen to them.

 

[jhmmd]

Oh no, there totally are -- it's something like 75-80%, and it's measure as the difference between the number of people declaring that they are premed upon entering UG and the number of people from that entering class who ultimately apply to med schools. UGs have this number, and it dribbles out from time to time.

As I said, the widely reported number that I have seen is that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 people who enter UG as premeds do not get weeded out and actually apply. From there, you have your 40% success rate. @gonnif was talking about "serious" premeds, which is an unknown subset of this group because, let's face it, anyone who says they are a premed and then gets weeded out in Bio I probably wouldn't meet the definition of "serious," and there are definitely thousands of people every year who have this or something similar with a relatively basic, foundational class, happen to them.

Let's agree to disagree again

 

[Hzreio]

Just to add, BS/MD med students have the highest attrition rate, just under 5%, as compared to other medical students. This I believes this only refers to when they are actually in medical school.

https://www.aamc.org/system/files/r...tesandattritionratesofu.s.medicalstudents.pdf

Yeah, this is actually why UTSW stopped their BS/MD program. Too many kids were dropping out

 

[KnightDoc]

Yeah, this is actually why UTSW stopped their BS/MD program. Too many kids were dropping out

I also heard, first hand, that they were not happy with the quality of student as compared to those coming in through regular admission. The program was mainly a carrot for UTD to attract high stat students. This is the case for many BS/MD programs. In the case of UTSW, however, given the heavy focus on IS students, high stat HS students aren't really a priority, and, as I noted, they didn't believe the BS/MD performed at the same level as their other students, notwithstanding the attrition rate (the person I spoke to at the time did not mention attrition as a factor).