Letter of intent, no acceptances

[EaglesontheWarpath]

---

Members do not see this ad.

God I hate this thread so much. I hate myself even more for partaking

 

[MaxPlancker]

I may be wrong here, but I didn't take it as the adcoms saying LOIs are useless-I took it as them saying to the best of their knowledge, in this specific example, an LOI is useless and might be detrimental.

I would agree that you need to think critically and a degree and/or position lends credibility but that is not immune to begin wrong or the absolute voice of reason, but in each case you have presented you keep taking these extreme examples/outliers stating "since this is possible, all the other knowledge that you have is wrong since you were wrong this one time" (I'm not a big molecular biology guy so I can't tell with your HEPES example, but it feels that way to me). Just because you have experience doesn't mean you are always correct, but if I had to bet 50/50 on the Golden State Warriors playing any other NBA team, I'd bet on them based on their experience and track record. Sure I might lose occasionally, but the majority of the time I'm going to win. Believing in your own opinion isn't wrong, but being able to take the advice of people who have more experience and have been through it all before is also extremely important.

That's exactly why I used such extreme examples. Because without them, you guys won't see the point. OP talks about a highly ranked school and I offer my 2 cents on what I know about high ranked schools, which is IMHO (biased I suppose?) much better than the experienced opinions of the adcoms because my advice to OP is based on direct contact with the top schools. The best solution is for OP to reveal the school and voila we will have the best answer for him.

 

[MaxPlancker]

God I hate this thread so much. I hate myself even more for partaking

Yea srsly i was gonna post once and this happened.

 

[Nietzschelover]

MaxPlancker is going to take his ball and go......straight to HMS.

This seems to happen with some frequency for me here, but I found myself mostly agreeing with both sides on this one. In a nutshell, what generally speaking may be a bad idea isn't always a bad idea in an individual case.

One thing on the desperation theme and off putting moves. At this stage applicants with no acceptances are desperate, and I would guess that schools usually know that applicants may be in a desperate position. Why avoid the elephant in the room (i.e. the desperation). The view of the field inside the stadium no doubt looks different for an applicant than for seasoned adcoms who have observed cycle after cycle after cycle.

 

[Med Ed]

MaxPlancker is going to take his ball and go......straight to HMS.

This seems to happen with some frequency for me here, but I found myself mostly agreeing with both sides on this one. In a nutshell, what generally speaking may be a bad idea isn't always a bad idea in an individual case.

One thing on the desperation theme and off putting moves. At this stage applicants with no acceptances are desperate, and I would guess that schools usually know that applicants may be in a desperate position. Why avoid the elephant in the room (i.e. the desperation). The view of the field inside the stadium no doubt looks different for an applicant than for seasoned adcoms who have observed cycle after cycle after cycle.

So you think the OP should include in his LOI a statement that he is preparing for a reapplication cycle.

 

[Nietzschelover]

So you think the OP should include in his LOI a statement that he is preparing for a reapplication cycle.

Absolutely not, and MaxP didn't think so either, which he repeated 3-4 times.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Why avoid the elephant in the room (i.e. the desperation).

Ill keep this response relatively short as a change up but a few things

1) Your desperation stands out if you are amongst the 10% of people who send an LOI with no acceptances. Anytime a negative characteristic stands out, not ideal. It's kind of like talking about those 3 C's you got sophmore year in your PS; highlighting a bad trait just brings on additional attention and thoughts about it.
2) We all know these applicants are desperate; how they react is telling. Are they begging for sympathy? Are they whining? Are they becoming unraveled? Sending an LOI could perhaps indicate some of these things(or at least in an ADCOMs mind they could even if you disagree).
3) Ive heard this more than once in another thread and talking to someone I know on the other side of things; the potential issue of entitlement. The "100's of people are on your waitlist, but you need to choose me" mentality. The "Look Im sending a letter, Im special, take me" type mentality. Again, whether you agree this is a valid perspective, there are those(even if they are in the minority) who might perceive this as such to some degree.
4) Being annoying: ADCOMs lives come waitlist season(which really starts as soon as decisions come out) are way too busy already. You're making someone spend a couple minutes to take the time to read something they already know is true and serves no purpose. Imagine getting a number of these, perhaps each day. It adds up; if you see the name of the person who sent the letter later in the cycle and the first thing you think of is that annoying feeling you had reading that letter during that busy day, again not ideal.

 

[Goro]

I rest my case.

I'm getting a strong whiff of one of these too:

I would use a bit more brainpower before making statements.

 

[Med Ed]

Absolutely not, and MaxP didn't think so either, which he repeated 3-4 times.

The main problem with this thread is that it devolved almost immediately from question about LOI composition to an argument over LOI merit.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Ill keep this response relatively short as a change up but a few things

1) Your desperation stands out if you are amongst the 10% of people who send an LOI with no acceptances. Anytime a negative characteristic stands out, not ideal. It's kind of like talking about those 3 C's you got sophmore year in your PS; highlighting a bad trait just brings on additional attention and thoughts about it.
2) We all know these applicants are desperate; how they react is telling. Are they begging for sympathy? Are they whining? Are they becoming unraveled? Sending an LOI could perhaps indicate some of these things(or at least in an ADCOMs mind they could even if you disagree).
3) Ive heard this more than once in another thread and talking to someone I know on the other side of things; the potential issue of entitlement. The "100's of people are on your waitlist, but you need to choose me" mentality. The "Look Im sending a letter, Im special, take me" type mentality. Again, whether you agree this is a valid perspective, there are those(even if they are in the minority) who might perceive this as such to some degree.
4) Being annoying: ADCOMs lives come waitlist season(which really starts as soon as decisions come out) are way too busy already. You're making someone spend a couple minutes to take the time to read something they already know is true and serves no purpose. Imagine getting a number of these, perhaps each day. It adds up; if you see the name of the person who sent the letter later in the cycle and the first thing you think of is that annoying feeling you had reading that letter during that busy day, again not ideal.

I agree in general, but a couple of thoughts. Desperation is different than weak resignation or stating you are looking towards re-applying. Desperation could mean really wanting something badly and not necessarily with entitlement. And I can understand the impulse to pursue any and every avenue to avoid re-application. Clearly the consensus here is that a LOI is not a good idea, especially in this kind of case. But, IF some schools have a documented history of receptivity or even a preference for LOIs, then I think the risk is mitigated. Presentation obviously is key as you say. I know you're right, but the one thing I don't get is adcoms being annoyed. Sure, they're busy, but this is what they do, and instead of being annoyed I think they can understand if someone who reasonably believes he or she is a very competitive applicant reaches a point of of wanting to make sure he doesn't leave any powder in the gun.

 

[DominusAnulorum]

Honestly this thread and these adcoms responding are hilarious. What do you not understand that your experience has nothing on actually hearing from the admissions staff themselves at the top schools?

And you went from polite and reasonable to the ad hominum. I actually agree that the issue might not necessarily be so cut and dry, but the minute you being to personally insult people you lose a lot of credibility.

Also, the reason many of us respect the adcoms and physicians is because they have been doing this for a while and, in general, know a lot more about the process. I don't know exactly how old you are, but in general most people around the age of a college senior, myself included, don't know as much as they think they know. Its always better to defer to experience until you have built up sufficient maturity to be a trustworthy source. We are hear to learn, not take charge (for another decade at least). That is not to say your advice was bad, just realize that you have an n=1 situation and still have a ways to go in life. We both do.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I agree in general, but a couple of thoughts. Desperation is different than weak resignation or stating you are looking towards re-applying. Desperation could mean really wanting something badly and not necessarily with entitlement. And I can understand the impulse to pursue any and every avenue to avoid re-application. Clearly the consensus here is that a LOI is not a good idea, especially in this kind of case. But, IF some schools have a documented history of receptivity or even a preference for LOIs, then I think the risk is mitigated. Presentation obviously is key as you say. I know you're right, but the one thing I don't get is adcoms being annoyed. Sure, they're busy, but this is what they do, and instead of being annoyed I think they can understand if someone who reasonably believes he or she is a very competitive applicant reaches a point of of wanting to make sure he doesn't leave any powder in the gun.

All of what you're saying is pretty reasonable. What Ill say is

a) It's about what you are doing rest to the rest of the applicants like I said above in terms of potential negative effects. These dont necessairly reek of entitlement or insecurity, but when 95% of other applicants arent doing so, it starts raising questions.

b) The issue of "annoyance" is one that comes with every job. Nobody admits to it openly, and nobody wants to say it affects their performance. But when you see so many of these useless documents over the years, it just wears on you. I agree it isnt necessairly entirely fair, but it's also human nature and it's apparent in every job.

c) Some schools do say something along the lines of "to waitlisted applicants you can send us something along those lines to express your interest"(schools like Gtown actually want it). Those arent the types of schools where what we are discussing applies.

I think what's the key thing to remember is all actions have potential rewards and consequences. Some might be more likely to have them than others, but all do. There is no action really you can do which only has one in admission. I think the desperate tend to forget that with the "well it cant hurt to send one" mentality. And that's part of where the problem might lie on the admission committee members parts; applicants not realizing or having enough sense to realize there is no such thing as "well it cant hurt to do". Youll hear stories ADCOMs say about how every year they reject at least one person for being rude to a staff member at the school during the school who has nothing to do with admission; you're always being judged in some regard. Perhaps it might be annoying to see all these applicants forget that and it can be perceived as "lack of responsibility, accountability" etc to forget actions have consequences always.

 

[osckey]

I rest my case.

I'm getting a strong whiff of one of these too:

View attachment 201197

Loose cannon. Nice.

 

[MaxPlancker]

The main problem with this thread is that it devolved almost immediately from question about LOI composition to an argument over LOI merit.

Which started with Gonnif putting the words of adcoms on a pedestal.

Edit: that to the

 

[MaxPlancker]

And you went from polite and reasonable to the ad hominum. I actually agree that the issue might not necessarily be so cut and dry, but the minute you being to personally insult people you lose a lot of credibility.

Also, the reason many of us respect the adcoms and physicians is because they have been doing this for a while and, in general, know a lot more about the process. I don't know exactly how old you are, but in general most people around the age of a college senior, myself included, don't know as much as they think they know. Its always better to defer to experience until you have built up sufficient maturity to be a trustworthy source. We are hear to learn, not take charge (for another decade at least). That is not to say your advice was bad, just realize that you have an n=1 situation and still have a ways to go in life. We both do.

My ad hominem started after receiving them myself, if you look closely. Perhaps some on here choose to attack in subtle ways; I'm a blunt person after a point.

 

[MaxPlancker]

All of what you're saying is pretty reasonable. What Ill say is

a) It's about what you are doing rest to the rest of the applicants like I said above in terms of potential negative effects. These dont necessairly reek of entitlement or insecurity, but when 95% of other applicants arent doing so, it starts raising questions.

b) The issue of "annoyance" is one that comes with every job. Nobody admits to it openly, and nobody wants to say it affects their performance. But when you see so many of these useless documents over the years, it just wears on you. I agree it isnt necessairly entirely fair, but it's also human nature and it's apparent in every job.

c) Some schools do say something along the lines of "to waitlisted applicants you can send us something along those lines to express your interest"(schools like Gtown actually want it). Those arent the types of schools where what we are discussing applies.

I think what's the key thing to remember is all actions have potential rewards and consequences. Some might be more likely to have them than others, but all do. There is no action really you can do which only has one in admission. I think the desperate tend to forget that with the "well it cant hurt to send one" mentality. And that's part of where the problem might lie on the admission committee members parts; applicants not realizing or having enough sense to realize there is no such thing as "well it cant hurt to do". Youll hear stories ADCOMs say about how every year they reject at least one person for being rude to a staff member at the school during the school who has nothing to do with admission; you're always being judged in some regard. Perhaps it might be annoying to see all these applicants forget that and it can be perceived as "lack of responsibility, accountability" etc to forget actions have consequences always.

Ultimately it comes down to how the letter is worded. If the school doesn't specifically state for students to not send updates, LOIs, etc and the adcoms are offended when they see such things (especially letters written well without sounding desperate, annoying etc), that is that but then I would start losing hope in this world.

 

[Curioso06]

This may already have been mentioned on this thread but it makes logical sense that LoIntent are not useful for candidates who don't hold any acceptances. The only way I can see how it could is if this is construed as a positive thing that somehow puts one's application higher up than other's who also don't have any acceptances.

I would imagine that LoIntent to a higher ranked school should still be helpful for applicants who've been accepted elsewhere at "lesser" ranked schools. Although I'm sure in many cases, candidates would like to attend the highly ranked institution, it also isn't true many times, because of cost, location or other considerations. Just my humble opinion

 

[MaxPlancker]

MaxPlancker is going to take his ball and go......straight to HMS.

This seems to happen with some frequency for me here, but I found myself mostly agreeing with both sides on this one. In a nutshell, what generally speaking may be a bad idea isn't always a bad idea in an individual case.

One thing on the desperation theme and off putting moves. At this stage applicants with no acceptances are desperate, and I would guess that schools usually know that applicants may be in a desperate position. Why avoid the elephant in the room (i.e. the desperation). The view of the field inside the stadium no doubt looks different for an applicant than for seasoned adcoms who have observed cycle after cycle after cycle.

Lol I thought I would be rejected for arguing with my interviewer over a theory she proposed. 🙂

This thread seems to be akin to what happens with many of the police brutality cases or the Indian man that was paralyzed by a cop last year.

 

[TBV]

I can't believe that people are just accepting that Max went on many interviews and asked adcom members, and not a faculty interviewer, "Hey what would you think if I held no acceptances and sent you a LOI". I'm calling Bullsh*t.

 

[MaxPlancker]

I can't believe that people are just accepting that Max went on many interviews and asked adcom members, and not a faculty interviewer, "Hey what would you think if I held no acceptances and sent you a LOI". I'm calling Bullsh*t.

Nobody on this thread is accepting nor thinking that I asked that. Recheck the bolded. Props for the funniest post on the thread though.

Edit: I retract the use of "nobody". TBV thinks so 😉

 

[Med Ed]

I know you're right, but the one thing I don't get is adcoms being annoyed.

After you have been left at the altar enough times the proposals start to chafe.

 

[Nietzschelover]

After you have been left at the altar enough times the proposals start to chafe.

With all due respect, you've got to be bigger than that. The power dynamics are all skewed very heavily in the favor of the adcoms, at least until applicants have a few acceptances and thereby more control in terms of choices. Also, treating the LOIs as neutral or meaningless is one thing, but actually downgrading an applicant (consciously or unconsciously) because of writing one seems a bit harsh (unless the school expressly tells applicant they do not want and will not accept updates or LOIs).

In the OP's case, leaving you at the alter doesn't appear to be likely given that OP has nothing to choose from.

Everyone has agreed that the OP should not hint anything about re-application. MaxP's message was at least in part based on his idea that top-tier schools actually want LOIs. I have no idea if that is true or not, and of course the OP's school in question may be more in the mid-tier range. I'm gonna guess we're talking about Emory since that is a school that apparently has told applicants that all of their IIs get an acceptance somewhere.

 

[Med Ed]

With all due respect, you've got to be bigger than that.

So we don't get to be at least a teensy bit annoyed by the annual bumper crop of hollow promises? Sorry, we are but humble admissions folk, not übermenschen.

 

[Dr.NickRiviera]

I feel like the adcoms that find LOIs so annoying to the point where they would reject an applicant solely based on a polite letter expressing interest are adcoms that have not experienced some of the much much crazier and desperate things that some applicants have done to try to get into med school. As someone who has worked in college admissions, once you've had a few rounds with the crazy ones, it's much easier to brush off the LOIs as a well-kind-of-annoying-but-meh-kids-are-naive/stupid thing.

Also, @MaxPlancker, in regards to the UC Irvine applicant you mentioned. She was not rejected but put on a pre-interview waitlist/hold. She sent an LOI and got an interview. After she interviewed, she was put on another waitlist. She sent another LOI and was finally accepted in the end. The dean of admissions commended her for her persistence. This is all very well documented on her mdapps page which I've linked below.

http://www.mdapplicants.com/profile.php?id=6325

 

[Nietzschelover]

So we don't get to be at least a teensy bit annoyed by the annual bumper crop of hollow promises? Sorry, we are but humble admissions folk, not übermenschen.

Now you and @gonnif appear to moving the goal posts from the OP here to your general views (and perhaps YOUR schools's views) about LOIs. If an applicant writes the same type of LOI to 10 schools and you can figure that then by all means ding the crap out of them for being duplicitous, greedy, insecure, entitled snotty-nosed little jerks.

The bumper crop of hollow promises is different than what is described in the OP's case. Applicants holding acceptances gunning for something better is far different than what is described as the OP's situation here, and hence how we got into the issue of how to handle desperation.

Yes, getting annoyed is understandable, but rising above that also is understandable. If you've told applicants not to send LOIs and they do it anyway then hammer them. If they write a LOI that reeks of really bad qualities (which perhaps you also saw in other written materials submitted by the applicant) then by all means stamp "Reject." Adcoms aren't the only people who interview dozens or hundreds of people for things.

 

[Nietzschelover]

You are missing two points.

1) Adcom staff are human and the dynamics at the very fluid WL time (May/June) can stress their decision making, thus increasing the influence of what I will call "applicant impression." Imagine a scenario where there are 3 seats open and the adcom staff is going thru the "pile" of the next 20 on the WL, all of who were accepted by the adcom previously but no seats for them. They check the National Acceptance report, they look over comments on the original evals, and now come across our imaginary applicant with a LOI that seems at best innocuous and at worst desperate. What impression would this make? positive? negative? You are trying to decided under this pressure which 3 of these 20 get called next by noon. These impression have an influence.

2) Most schools will keep everything sent to them in the permanent applicant file record. These are virtually all electronic and filed under AMCAS ID. If you reapply to that school next year, in most places, you old file will be automatically be associated with your new application, They may to compare to see why you rejected last time, what improvements you may have made, and anything else. What if they come across an poorly toned LOI from the year before? Do you want that to be part of the applicant impression they make this time around?

As I always say, all actions have implications.

Not following the first bolded part above. All accepted but no seats and on the WL?

As to the second, yes, all actions have implications. Not acting (i.e. not sending something) also is an action that may have implications. Each person has to weigh out what to do in his situation, and hopefully considers the potential pros and cons of each move. Obviously there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees schools will like your PS, or your secondary answers, or how you interview. Some schools will advise about whether to do LOIs or not. One would hope that trying to make sure any communications are very thoughtful, gracious, and soaking in appropriate in humility might mitigate potential damaging effects.

 

[Goro]

I believe what my learned colleague was referring to was candidates that normally would have been accepted, but perhaps applied to late and had to be wait listed.


What we're trying to say is that LOI are like the legions of guys who say to hot chicks, "but I'll respect you in the morning!". It gets old. try telling all the ladies here "but you're bigger than that"

Not following the first bolded part above. All accepted but no seats and on the WL?

As to the second, yes, all actions have implications. Not acting (i.e. not sending something) also is an action that may have implications. Each person has to weigh out what to do in his situation, and hopefully considers the potential pros and cons of each move. Obviously there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees schools will like your PS, or your secondary answers, or how you interview. Some schools will advise about whether to do LOIs or not. One would hope that trying to make sure any communications are very thoughtful, gracious, and soaking in appropriate in humility might mitigate potential damaging effects.

 

[Curioso06]

You are missing two points.

1) Adcom staff are human and the dynamics at the very fluid WL time (May/June) can stress their decision making, thus increasing the influence of what I will call "applicant impression." Imagine a scenario where there are 3 seats open and the adcom staff is going thru the "pile" of the next 20 on the WL, all of who were accepted by the adcom previously but no seats for them. They check the National Acceptance report, they look over comments on the original evals, and now come across our imaginary applicant with a LOI that seems at best innocuous and at worst desperate. What impression would this make? positive? negative? You are trying to decided under this pressure which 3 of these 20 get called next by noon. These impression have an influence.

2) Most schools will keep everything sent to them in the permanent applicant file record. These are virtually all electronic and filed under AMCAS ID. If you reapply to that school next year, in most places, you old file will be automatically be associated with your new application, They may to compare to see why you rejected last time, what improvements you may have made, and anything else. What if they come across an poorly toned LOI from the year before? Do you want that to be part of the applicant impression they make this time around?

As I always say, all actions have implications.

I know you've mentioned this aspect of the waitlist before, but can you clarify what you mean here? If a candidate is accepted by the adcom, why is s/he still placed on the waitlist? Is it because of the timing of the interview cycle (i.e., late in the season) or because there have already been many applicants of that demographic (e.g., race/gender/etc) that have been accepted already? Is it possible that although such a candidate may be "accepted" by the adcom but is placed on the waitlist, is it possible for other candidates who interviewed at that school to still be accepted outright without being waitlisted?

 

[KungFuPanda123]

I know you've mentioned this aspect of the waitlist before, but can you clarify what you mean here? If a candidate is accepted by the adcom, why is s/he still placed on the waitlist? Is it because of the timing of the interview cycle (i.e., late in the season) or because there have already been many applicants of that demographic (e.g., race/gender/etc) that have been accepted already? Is it possible that although such a candidate may be "accepted" by the adcom but is placed on the waitlist, is it possible for other candidates who interviewed at that school to still be accepted outright without being waitlisted?

I'm pretty sure he's saying that those candidates would have been accepted into the class under normal circumstances (e.g. earlier in the cycle), but because the adcom is now looking for more niche/better-quality candidates, those candidates who would have normally gotten accepted are waitlisted instead.

Of course, those candidates just need to be of higher quality or be able to fill a particular niche in the class
-----

In reference to the original purpose of this thread, I got to say that people keep referencing how schools don't give much weight to LOIs when the writer/applicant has no acceptances anywhere else. Today is the 11th; no school (besides those that have already accepted you) can see where you are waitlisted/accepted. If a letter of intent were submitted and read right now, one from an applicant with 0 acceptances would theoretically hold the same amount of weight as one from an applicant with 5 acceptances. Granted, the person with 5 acceptances might objectively be a better candidate, but you get my point; the aspect of having a stronger letter of intent due to already holding acceptances is not yet present.

To give a personal spin to this post, I have been thus far rejected/waitlisted at all my safeties and mid-tier schools. The only school that I have gotten into so far was a far-reach. Yes, med school apps are a total crap shoot, but I like to think that my letter of intent that I sent to this 1 school made a difference. I applied to ~15 schools, and the one school I did not get rejected/waitlisted from is one of my reach schools? It doesn't make much sense, but I feel like I can see some logic in what came about if I take a look at this scenario with the letter that I submitted in mind. I sent my letter before decisions came out (non-rolling school) and before the date when schools can see if you are holding any acceptances. Obviously, the school did not see that I was holding 0 acceptances, and I think that this played to my advantage.

So to come back full-circle, these are my conclusions about letters of intent. They are helpful before the date at which schools can see if you are holding any acceptances or not (shows initiative, doesn't show any weakness). They can be hurtful if you don't listen to a school's directions (e.g. do not send us letters, do not send us updates, etc.). They can be good, bad, or neutral when sent after the date that schools can see your acceptances and you are holding 0 acceptances; it depends completely on the quality of your letter as well as the mood/personality/pull of the reader.

 

[Nietzschelover]

I believe what my learned colleague was referring to was candidates that normally would have been accepted, but perhaps applied to late and had to be wait listed.


What we're trying to say is that LOI are like the legions of guys who say to hot chicks, "but I'll respect you in the morning!". It gets old. try telling all the ladies here "but you're bigger than that"

I will respect you in the morning. I promise 😉

P.S. Are you suggesting that adcoms have their feelings hurt, especially when you have so many fish in the sea and can just move on to the next one?

 

[gyngyn]

I'm pretty sure he's saying that those candidates would have been accepted into the class under normal circumstances (e.g. earlier in the cycle), but because the adcom is now looking for more niche/better-quality candidates, those candidates who would have normally gotten accepted are waitlisted instead.

Of course, those candidates just need to be of higher quality or be able to fill a particular niche in the class
-----

In reference to the original purpose of this thread, I got to say that people keep referencing how schools don't give much weight to LOIs when the writer/applicant has no acceptances anywhere else. Today is the 11th; no school (besides those that have already accepted you) can see where you are waitlisted/accepted. If a letter of intent were submitted and read right now, one from an applicant with 0 acceptances would theoretically hold the same amount of weight as one from an applicant with 5 acceptances. Granted, the person with 5 acceptances might objectively be a better candidate, but you get my point; the aspect of having a stronger letter of intent due to already holding acceptances is not yet present.

To give a personal spin to this post, I have been thus far rejected/waitlisted at all my safeties and mid-tier schools. The only school that I have gotten into so far was a far-reach. Yes, med school apps are a total crap shoot, but I like to think that my letter of intent that I sent to this 1 school made a difference. I applied to ~15 schools, and the one school I did not get rejected/waitlisted from is one of my reach schools? It doesn't make much sense, but I feel like I can see some logic in what came about if I take a look at this scenario with the letter that I submitted in mind. I sent my letter before decisions came out (non-rolling school) and before the date when schools can see if you are holding any acceptances. Obviously, the school did not see that I was holding 0 acceptances, and I think that this played to my advantage.

So to come back full-circle, these are my conclusions about letters of intent. They are helpful before the date at which schools can see if you are holding any acceptances or not (shows initiative, doesn't show any weakness). They can be hurtful if you don't listen to a school's directions (e.g. do not send us letters, do not send us updates, etc.). They can be good, bad, or neutral when sent after the date that schools can see your acceptances and you are holding 0 acceptances; it depends completely on the quality of your letter as well as the mood/personality/pull of the reader.

Because we are so close to the day when so much information will be revealed, every sane admissions officer is going to wait until the 15th for decisions. OP's LOI is still moot.

 

[Goro]

Hurt? Of course not.

Annoyed? Definitely. Ever get annoyed at politicians making the same lie over and over? This is same thing. We know they don't mean it in politics and admissions. Humans tend to have a low threshold for tolerating deceit, unless you're a believer of supply-side economics.

I will respect you in the morning. I promise 😉

P.S. Are you suggesting that adcoms have their feelings hurt, especially when you have so many fish in the sea and can just move on to the next one?

 

[IlDestriero]

Can we make it 5 adcoms telling you that a LOI when you don't hold a single offer reeks of desperation and is off putting. A school may not want to make an offer if they aren't sure you will accept (for example, drop your current offer for their offer from the waitlist) but when they can SEE that you don't have any offers yet, there really is no question that you'll accept if offered a spot.

This is exactly where I think a LOI can make a difference, and not much if at all in someone like the OP. I got into my #1 school off their wait list when the Dean called me and asked me if I wanted to come there. A faculty colleague I did research with who wrote me a LOR ran into him and told him I was disappointed to be on the wait list. My anatomy lab partner called the dean late in the season to tell him that that university was his #1 choice, and he got off the list immediately. If you're a quality student holding a spot at your state school and/or another prestigious school, they may not offer you the spot off the list, as they think you are likely to attend the other school(s). That's when they need to know that they're #1 and they're about to make a mistake letting you go elsewhere.
Everyone knows the kid with no admissions will come if you offer them a spot.


--
Il Destriero

 

[KungFuPanda123]

Because we are so close to the day when so much information will be revealed, every sane admissions officer is going to wait until the 15th for decisions. No LOI is well-timed now.

I can see that; thank you for that information! Do you think though that LOIs sent significantly before the 15th-release-date hold some weight? Although I am only n=1, I can't help but feel like it was a significant factor towards my acceptance, despite everything that I read on this website

 

[MaxPlancker]

I'm not going to quote anyone but as of now, there is enough evidence here that can be easily linked to particular people. A lawsuit can be won fairly easily IMHO if some rich brat's kids find out that adcoms at a particular school negatively consider LOIs which have good intention and have not been warned to not send such material.

 

[KungFuPanda123]

I'm not going to quote anyone but as of now, there is enough evidence here that can be easily linked to particular people. A lawsuit can be won fairly easily IMHO if some rich brat's kids find out that adcoms at a particular school negatively consider LOIs which have good intention and have not been warned to not send such material.

Mmmmm I agreed with some of your earlier posts, but I'm not sure about this one... heh

 

[MaxPlancker]

Mmmmm I agreed with some of your earlier posts, but I'm not sure about this one... heh

Well many of the adcoms have been verified and even if not, its not hard in this day and age to track down users. But yes, if an application is about to be taken off the WL and a nice LOI outs them the acceptance without prior warning regarding LOIs, that is certainly up for a big lawsuit lol.

Edit: I only even raise this possibility because it illustrates the morality/whateveryouwanttocallit of such doings by those in such positions.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Not at all moving goal posts. The small group dynamics are no different than any other set of humans under workload, time constraints, and stress of decision making, I point these dynamics out to counter the comment I hear from applicants all the time. "try it, you got nothing to lose." All actions have implications. While the risks of my previous comments are indeed small, remember that a very large number of applications need to be whittled down to a very small number with many highly qualified candidates competing . I've seen "applicant impression" influence decision making in such a small group dynamic as as adcom is, especially in the fluid time of WL selection.

Understood. I would expect "applicant impression" to weigh quite heavily in your decision-making. No quarrel with that at all. Applicants obviously have to be very mindful of that. And no doubt that's why we see so many ask "how does school XYZ feel about updates/LOIs?"

Here's the applicant's greatest fear.....you are looking at the next 10 on the WL, and 9 of them confirmed strong interest. The one who didn't is panicked that that action (not sending something) will be interpreted as not interested or as not needing you that much.

 

[p0gono]

Because we are so close to the day when so much information will be revealed, every sane admissions officer is going to wait until the 15th for decisions. OP's LOI is still moot.

This makes a lot of sense and it probably generally true - but I was surprised to see a couple U Chicago Pritzker acceptances off the "continued" list just a couple days ago!

 

[MaxPlancker]

Because we are so close to the day when so much information will be revealed, every sane admissions officer is going to wait until the 15th for decisions. OP's LOI is still moot.

This makes a lot of sense and it probably generally true - but I was surprised to see a couple U Chicago Pritzker acceptances off the "continued" list just a couple days ago!

This is the exact problem with using absolutes and generalising one's own experiences and opinions to all else. In fact, it is offensive to other sane adcoms who have different thought processes.

 

[EaglesontheWarpath]

This thread now:
Adcoms-In my experience and my professional view, an LOI would not be recommended.
Everyone else: But in my/someone else's specific experience/n=1 this is what an LOI did...

This is the exact problem with using absolutes and generalising one's own experiences and opinions to all else. In fact, it is offensive to other sane adcoms who have different thought processes.

This is still based off of the assumption that there are other adcoms who think drastically different than the five here. You are doing the exact same thing, and one could say your views are offensive to other applicants who have different thought processes. Unless both sides hear from the adcoms at the school's OP is talking about directly, it's a moot point-we're both not wrong yet.

 

[p0gono]

This is the exact problem with using absolutes and generalising one's own experiences and opinions to all else. In fact, it is offensive to other sane adcoms who have different thought processes.

To be fair, "continued" is not exactly the same as a waitlist. It is possible they were just not through the whole pile yet. But still surprising they wouldn't wait a week to have more information.

 

[MaxPlancker]

This thread now:
Adcoms-In my experience and my professional view, an LOI would not be recommended.
Everyone else: But in my/someone else's specific experience/n=1 this is what an LOI did...


This is still based off of the assumption that there are other adcoms who think drastically different than the five here. You are doing the exact same thing, and one could say your views are offensive to other applicants who have different thought processes. Unless both sides hear from the adcoms at the school's OP is talking about directly, it's a moot point-we're both not wrong yet.

You still don't see the point made when it's sitting right in this quote of yours. The point is that OP should receive more than one perspective and decide what is best her/himself. If you go back to my first post, I merely offered the alternate view and then had several jump down my throat for disagreeing with the viewpoints of our limited sample of adcoms.

Put more shortly, there are multiple views and you shouldn't force one down anyone's throat.

And to respond to the second part, I am not doing the exact same thing. I agreed with the adcoms on many points. All I did was share the other side of the coin.

 

[Nietzschelover]

This thread now:
Adcoms-In my experience and my professional view, an LOI would not be recommended.
Everyone else: But in my/someone else's specific experience/n=1 this is what an LOI did...


This is still based off of the assumption that there are other adcoms who think drastically different than the five here. You are doing the exact same thing, and one could say your views are offensive to other applicants who have different thought processes. Unless both sides hear from the adcoms at the school's OP is talking about directly, it's a moot point-we're both not wrong yet.

On the table in this discussion is what to do about schools that explicitly state they accept and/or want LOIs. I'm curious if the adcoms here believe that even with these schools LOIs are contraindicated and potentially damaging.

 

[gyngyn]

To be fair, "continued" is not exactly the same as a waitlist. It is possible they were just not through the whole pile yet. But still surprising they wouldn't wait a week to have more information.

If they have not officially given a decision (registered with AMCAS), information about those candidates will not be forthcoming in 4 days. So there is no advantage to waiting in that case.

 

[EaglesontheWarpath]

You still don't see the point made when it's sitting right in this quote of yours. The point is that OP should receive more than one perspective and decide what is best her/himself. If you go back to my first post, I merely offered the alternate view and then had several jump down my throat for disagreeing with the viewpoints of our limited sample of adcoms.

Put more shortly, there are multiple views and you shouldn't force one down anyone's throat.

And to respond to the second part, I am not doing the exact same thing. I agreed with the adcoms on many points. All I did was share the other side of the coin.

I think what you're missing in my quote is that I'm agreeing with you that both sides of the argument hold valid points and should be considered by the individual, but it's impossible to know who is right without talking to school-specific adcoms. I personally don't feel strongly either way, but since I am just a lowly applicant when I hear something unanimous from five other established adcoms, my bet is that they're right. Honestly if I was in OP's shoes I have no clue what I would do. I think you are doing the exact same thing, as you said "This is the exact problem with using absolutes and generalising one's own experiences and opinions to all else" since you are taking your own experience with interview at similar schools and generalizing that to other applicants (atlthough I do agree everyone including me jumped down your throat when you were merely being suggestive, not absolute in your advice.)

On the table in this discussion is what to do about schools that explicitly state they accept and/or want LOIs. I'm curious if the adcoms here believe that even with these schools LOIs are contraindicated and potentially damaging.

This goes all the way back to the beginning of the thread-we don't know if the schools OP interviewed at want LOI's, simply that they are top-20 and @MaxPlancker has interviewed at other (or the same) schools that have said they are receptive to LOI's.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Under what circumstance? Character an of an applicant, as an LOI may be indicative of, is a legitimate factor in admissions as it is for a medical student, certainly upheld by courts

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/01/case_western_reserve_universit_41.html

Yes, but that would require that you actually read and take the quality of the LOI into account, which certainly has not been the suggested case above. Merely beginning that process or dismissing the LOI with a preconceived negative bias would be that circumstance.

 

[MaxPlancker]

To be fair, "continued" is not exactly the same as a waitlist. It is possible they were just not through the whole pile yet. But still surprising they wouldn't wait a week to have more information.

Ah yes, my mistake on mixing the two.

 

[MaxPlancker]

I think what you're missing in my quote is that I'm agreeing with you that both sides of the argument hold valid points and should be considered by the individual, but it's impossible to know who is right without talking to school-specific adcoms. I personally don't feel strongly either way, but since I am just a lowly applicant when I hear something unanimous from five other established adcoms, my bet is that they're right. Honestly if I was in OP's shoes I have no clue what I would do. I think you are doing the exact same thing, as you said "This is the exact problem with using absolutes and generalising one's own experiences and opinions to all else" since you are taking your own experience with interview at similar schools and generalizing that to other applicants (atlthough I do agree everyone including me jumped down your throat when you were merely being suggestive, not absolute in your advice.)

This goes all the way back to the beginning of the thread-we don't know if the schools OP interviewed at want LOI's, simply that they are top-20 and @MaxPlancker has interviewed at other (or the same) schools that have said they are receptive to LOI's.

I was taking my experience and offering it as the alternative to the OP's specific case specifically because he said highly ranked school. Otherwise, without that context, I would probably not have posted as I would not have had anything new to add to the thread at that point in time. I'm not generalising my experience to other applicants but my bad if it came off that way. I also used specific examples of other applicants who had success with LOIs to illustrate that there is indeed two sides (or more) to the matter and not as black and white as our adcoms portray the issue.

 

[IlDestriero]

Good luck with all the lawsuits.
It's a subjective process, that's life.
Send a poorly worded letter coming off as a desperate wacko, treat people unprofessionally, expose personality disorders during the interviews, etc. and it shouldn't surprise you that you'll lose ground in your application.



--
Il Destriero