LizzyM vs WARS

[deleted1064759]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I wanted to inquire about those from previous years with a discrepancy between their LM and WARS and how their cycle turned out.
LM is obviously much more objective, but did anyone have success at schools where your WARS indicated you to target but your LM made them a reach?

10+ points are what I would consider a discrepancy but any discrepancies are welcome. I would also be interested in hearing about the inverse scenarios (high LM, low WARS).

I think this information could be valuable for future cycles and I'll definitely post the results of my cycle.

 

[deleted987519]

There is a thread for this ... anyone remember the title?

 

[deleted1064759]

There is a thread for this ... anyone remember the title?

I know threads have discussed the results of the cycle using WARS but I couldn't find any people who specifically shared their LM and WARS with their results.

 

[Isoval]

Your WARS score is going to be much more accurate in terms of your application's strength as it is much more comprehensive than a LM score.

 

[KnightDoc]

Your WARS score is going to be much more accurate in terms of your application's strength as it is much more comprehensive than a LM score.

This^^^^^^.

WARS is definitely more subjective because you have to score the quality of your experiences, but it is much more comprehensive, so it should be much more accurate. I didn't design it, and don't work for @WedgeDawg, but I would argue any weakness in WARS outcomes is due to operator error (garbage in-garbage out) rather than a problem with the methodology.

If I am correct, surveying individual results is not going to help you, because your results will be determined by the accuracy of your inputs, and not by the accuracy of someone else's inputs in a prior cycle. LM is nothing more than a brute force summary of your stats. We all know stats are but one input in the admission matrix, and that's its limitation.

It does what it's supposed to do very well, but it's not designed to capture all the other inputs in an admission decision. There is therefore no sense in obsessing on inputs it doesn't capture that you know make you more competitive than mere stats alone would indicate. That's the value and the beauty of WARS. WARS should always be more accurate, unless someone under or over estimates the quality of their ECs.

Edit: The only valid criticism I've seen of WARS relates to the so-called low yield schools. @WedgeDawg is absolutely correct in pointing out how ridiculously difficult it is to be accepted by those schools, relative to their stats and reputations, and therefore advises staying away. And yet, they do admit full classes every year, so someone is being accepted. If you like the location or the school, you should definitely ignore the tool and apply.

Other than that, the tool is GREAT at generating accurate schools lists. I used it myself, and it generated a list almost exactly the same as those provided by @Faha and @Goro to people asking for help who have profiles very similar to my own.

 

[Goro]

They're both rules of thumb, that's all.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

This^^^^^^.

WARS is definitely more subjective because you have to score the quality of your experiences, but it is much more comprehensive, so it should be much more accurate. I didn't design it, and don't work for @WedgeDawg, but I would argue any weakness in WARS outcomes is due to operator error (garbage in-garbage out) rather than a problem with the methodology.

If I am correct, surveying individual results is not going to help you, because your results will be determined by the accuracy of your inputs, and not by the accuracy of someone else's inputs in a prior cycle. LM is nothing more than a brute force summary of your stats. We all know stats are but one input in the admission matrix, and that's its limitation.

It does what it's supposed to do very well, but it's not designed to capture all the other inputs in an admission decision. There is therefore no sense in obsessing on inputs it doesn't capture that you know make you more competitive than mere stats alone would indicate. That's the value and the beauty of WARS. WARS should always be more accurate, unless someone under or over estimates the quality of their ECs.

Edit: The only valid criticism I've seen of WARS relates to the so-called low yield schools. @WedgeDawg is absolutely correct in pointing out how ridiculously difficult it is to be accepted by those schools, relative to their stats and reputations, and therefore advises staying away. And yet, they do admit full classes every year, so someone is being accepted. If you like the location or the school, you should definitely ignore the tool and apply.

Other than that, the tool is GREAT at generating accurate schools lists. I used it myself, and it generated a list almost exactly the same as those provided by @Faha and @Goro to people asking for help who have profiles very similar to my own.

How did you generate a list without MCAT score? 😎

 

[KnightDoc]

How did you generate a list without MCAT score? 😎

Estimate based on nothing more than how I have performed in the past on standardized tests, knowing full well the MCAT is very different from anything I have ever seen before, but I needed something, and that was as good as anything else. I also haven't completed ECs yet, but I know what I intend to do.

Remember -- no harm because I haven't submitted anything yet, but it gave me a list of schools to look at. Also remember, it's a tool, not a bible!! 🙂

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Estimate based on nothing more than how I have performed in the past on standardized tests, knowing full well the MCAT is very different from anything I have ever seen before, but I needed something, and that was as good as everything else. I also haven't completed ECs yet, but I know what I intend to do.

Remember -- no harm because I haven't submitted anything yet, but it gave me a list of schools to look at. Also remember, it's a tool, not a bible!! 🙂

I think you should focus on MCAT and ECs than running school list scenarios 🙂 Yes, both are tools and at the end you should make list based on your scores and ECs.

 

[KnightDoc]

I think you should focus on MCAT and ECs than running school list scenarios 🙂 Yes, both are tools and at the end you should make list based on your scores and ECs.

No worries -- I ran the tool in March 2019 when I first discovered it, and again in March 2020 after I had another year of everything (other than MCAT) under my belt. Compared to the amount of time I spend just going back and forth with you, let alone MCAT prep, ECs and attending school, the amount of time I spent playing with the tool was very insignificant!!! 🙂

 

[LizzyM]

I think the WARS is better than the LizzyM but if you can be brutally honest with yourself.

 

[KnightDoc]

I think the WARS is better than the LizzyM but if you can be brutally honest with yourself.

But LizzyM was first, and will always have a place in our hearts! 🙂 LizzyM is great for boiling down stats to one number, but, as you know, as admissions have become more holistic, it lost its predictive value. As @Goro is fond of pointing out, if we are unable to be brutally honest with ourselves, we are doomed to subjecting ourselves to the evil secondary tax. 🙂

 

[deleted1064759]

I think the WARS is better than the LizzyM but if you can be brutally honest with yourself.

I personally think WARS is being outdated since more people are taking gap years but I'm inclined to agree. I just wanted to solicit people who had higher WARS than LM scores and see how they did.

 

[OfMiceAndWomen]

I personally think WARS is being outdated since more people are taking gap years but I'm inclined to agree. I just wanted to solicit people who had higher WARS than LM scores and see how they did.

I think my WARS score is substantially higher than my LM (even being conservative with the subjective categories, have UG prestige + upward trend going for me), and I think I feel more optimistic about my app than other candidates with similar LM. But only time will tell lol, will check back in at the end of the cycle.

However, I do think the tiering system is the most important aspect of WARS, not the number itself. So anything above 85 is pretty arbitrary & not conclusive of much.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

No worries -- I ran the tool in March 2019 when I first discovered it, and again in March 2020 after I had another year of everything (other than MCAT) under my belt. Compared to the amount of time I spend just going back and forth with you, let alone MCAT prep, ECs and attending school, the amount of time I spent playing with the tool was very insignificant!!! 🙂

I agree tools don't take my much time, but think about it and talking about the scores after takes longer my friend LOL.

 

[Zorax]

WARS was a little confusing to me in terms of Research or UG prestige. For example, would you say that any of the UC’s are Level 2? Or just UCLA/UCB/UCSD? Or even just UCLA/UCB? For Research, what if you had a few years but no posters then where would you lie?

it’s open to interpretation in some aspects.

 

[KnightDoc]

WARS was a little confusing to me in terms of Research or UG prestige. For example, would you say that any of the UC’s are Level 2? Or just UCLA/UCB/UCSD? Or even just UCLA/UCB? For Research, what if you had a few years but no posters then where would you lie?

it’s open to interpretation in some aspects.

It's literally just one point, so I'm not sure it's worth getting worked up over, but the way I read it, no public school would be above Level 1, since all of the schools listed as examples are private. JMHO, since I didn't design the tool!

Same with research. It's just another point, and you are either a 3 or a 4. If you have no publication, poster, thesis or anything, it's probably a 3. I'd always be conservative and take the lesser number, but it's totally your call.

 

[Zorax]

It's literally just one point, so I'm not sure it's worth getting worked up over, but the way I read it, no public school would be above Level 1, since all of the schools listed as examples are private. JMHO, since I didn't design the tool!

Same with research. It's just another point, and you are either a 3 or a 4. If you have no publication, poster, thesis or anything, it's probably a 3. I'd always be conservative and take the lesser number, but it's totally your call.

Well actually just taking the above 2 factors into account, with a multiplier of 3 for each point, that’s a difference between people applying to B class schools vs. S.

I’m just pointing out the possible discrepancies between each applicant as they’re evaluating themselves, that’s all.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Use both as starting points, it’s up to you to navigate the rest of the way

 

[proudofmykids]

Everyone also needs to remember that there will be candidates with nearly ‘perfect’ LizzyM or WARS scores who don’t get into the overwhelming majority of their school list; while others with lower, the same or higher scores might get into their majority of schools based off of the recommendations list.
It’s a guide, not a hard rule.

 

[LizzyM]

The whole idea is to avoid creating a list that is 90% reaches and then wonder why you didn't get in anywhere.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Everyone also needs to remember that there will be candidates with nearly ‘perfect’ LizzyM or WARS scores who don’t get into the overwhelming majority of their school list; while others with lower, the same or higher scores might get into their majority of schools based off of the recommendations list.
It’s a guide, not a hard rule.

with so many categories and regional biases that's expected. I think WARS is useful for those with very strong ECs but lower stats.

 

[proudofmykids]

The whole idea is to avoid creating a list that is 90% reaches and then wonder why you didn't get in anywhere.

My point was more along the lines that even when not a reach, most applicants do Not get an acceptance.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

My point was more along the lines that even when not a reach, most applicants do Not get an acceptance.

Top 20 schools are reach even with perfect stats is what most adcoms say.

 

[LizzyM]

Top 20 schools are reach even with perfect stats is what most adcoms say.

Someone with "perfect stats" and a decent personality (big caveat) should get an offer from at least one top 20 if they apply to all of them. Those that get offers from my school have, on average, 4 other offers.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Someone with "perfect stats" and a decent personality (big caveat) should get an offer from at least one top 20 if they apply to all of them. Those that get offers from my school have, on average, 4 other offers.

True. However some complain about not getting interviews from all T20s or getting from T10 but not T10-T20 and I was addressing that 🙂

 

[LizzyM]

If we assume that the top 20 have 100 seats each (some have more) there are 2,000 seats to be filled at the T20 schools. That's about 10% of the total number of admitted applicants. Being in that top 10% of the admitted applicants or the top 4% of the ~50,000 ovreall applicants is to be the cream of the crop. The point of these assessment tools is to determine if you have a shot at being in the top 4% of the applicant pool or if you need to set your sights a bit lower in order to meet with the goal of being interviewed at 3 schools and have at least 1 offer at the end of the cycle.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Anyone who has gone thru T20 UG admissions should not be surprised by similar outcomes for medical schools.

 

[lacrossegirl420]

regarding T20 UG to MD admissions, i've always been confused as to how the vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc. don't end up at similar-tier med schools. Didn't they need like near perfect GPA's/SATs/strong ECs in high school to even get into those in the first place? in which case their GPA/MCAT/ECs will probably be similarly strong / not significantly worse. idk

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

regarding T20 UG to MD admissions, i've always been confused as to how the vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc. don't end up at similar-tier med schools. Didn't they need like near perfect GPA's/SATs/strong ECs in high school to even get into those in the first place? in which case their GPA/MCAT/ECs will probably be similarly strong / not significantly worse. idk

Ivies use holistic process so not purely driven by stats. some students have rough transition period in UG due to variety of reasons and won't be in contention for Ivy medical schools.

 

[LizzyM]

Ivies use holistic process so not purely driven by stats. some students have rough transition period in UG due to variety of reasons and won't be in contention for Ivy medical schools.

The average MCAT for the Harvard Medical School class of 2024 is reported, by Harvard, to be 519.82. and the average GPA is 3.9

Admissions at a Glance

meded.hms.harvard.edu

I guess holistic admission explains how people with CARS < 130 get admitted. /sarcasm

It is not necessary to be perfect but the matriculants to the top schools are the top candidates.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I guess holistic admission explains how people with CARS < 130 get admitted. /sarcasm

Anything below 132 is holistic for those with 132 🙂

 

[KnightDoc]

regarding T20 UG to MD admissions, i've always been confused as to how the vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc. don't end up at similar-tier med schools. Didn't they need like near perfect GPA's/SATs/strong ECs in high school to even get into those in the first place? in which case their GPA/MCAT/ECs will probably be similarly strong / not significantly worse. idk

The answer is simple math. Besides the fact that all of the HS superstars do not become UG studs, you are forgetting that there are far more "students at Ivy's / T10's etc." than there are seats at top MD schools. Add into the mix the fact that there are a TON of really good candidates who for whatever reason (money, late bloomer, etc.) don't go to top UGs, and you have your answer.

The "vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc." are not that much more impressive, if at all, than other top candidates from around the country. In fact, many of them are significantly less impressive, because oftentimes their admission to that top school is tied to a UG admission preference that isn't meaningful for med school (Harvard legacy, crew team, etc.).

"The vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc." were not 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, HS research animals, and aren't 528, 4.0 GPA, multiple first author premeds. Those that are have no trouble. The rest of them are forced to compete with us mere mortals for the remaining spots.

 

[MyOdyssey]

The average MCAT for the Harvard class of 2024 is reported, by Harvard, to be 519.82. and the average GPA is 3.9

Admissions at a Glance

meded.hms.harvard.edu

I guess holistic admission explains how people with CARS < 130 get admitted. /sarcasm

It is not necessary to be perfect but the matriculants to the top schools are the top candidates.

That's the Harvard Medical School class. For a second, I thought you meant the premeds from the Harvard College class that would be graduating in 2024...

 

[MyOdyssey]

The answer is simple math. Besides the fact that all of the HS superstars do not become UG studs, you are forgetting that there are far more "students at Ivy's / T10's etc." than there are seats at top MD schools. Add into the mix the fact that there are a TON of really good candidates who for whatever reason (money, late bloomer, etc.) don't go to top UGs, and you have your answer.

The "vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc." are not that much more impressive, if at all, than other top candidates from around the country. In fact, many of them are significantly less impressive, because oftentimes their admission to that top school is tied to a UG admission preference that isn't meaningful for med school (Harvard legacy, crew team, etc.).

"The vast majority of students at Ivy's / T10's etc." were not 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, HS research animals, and aren't 528, 4.0 GPA, multiple first author premeds. Those that are have no trouble. The rest of them are forced to compete with us mere mortals for the remaining spots.

A lot of the perfect stats types that have the "social competence" to be admitted by a top Ivy or Stanford end up going into far more lucrative fields like hedge funds, venture capital, management consulting, investment banking, etc.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

A lot of the perfect stats types that have the "social competence" to be admitted by a top Ivy or Stanford end up going into far more lucrative fields like hedge funds, venture capital, management consulting, investment banking, etc.

I think he was talking about those who chose premed but couldn't make it to Ivy med schools.

 

[KnightDoc]

I think he was talking about those who chose premed but couldn't make it to Ivy med schools.

That's true!!! I was trying to tell @brainscience2 that the vast majority of premeds at those schools he is straining his neck looking up at aren't the megastuds he is imagining they are, and that's why, while they are certainly overrepresented at top schools, they don't all (or even the "vast majority" 🙂) go there.

 

[M&L]

The average MCAT for the Harvard Medical School class of 2024 is reported, by Harvard, to be 519.82. and the average GPA is 3.9

Admissions at a Glance

meded.hms.harvard.edu

I guess holistic admission explains how people with CARS < 130 get admitted. /sarcasm

It is not necessary to be perfect but the matriculants to the top schools are the top candidates.

makes me feel so inadequate. hahahha

 

[Abcdefghijklmno1]

WARS is so subjective, I believe it’s hardly useful at all. Two people with identical applications can have vastly different scores. The rating system is so vague and unspecific that it’s nearly impossible to rate yourself accurately.

It’s more of a measure of your own self confidence.

 

[Zorax]

WARS is so subjective, I believe it’s hardly useful at all. Two people with identical applications can have vastly different scores. The rating system is so vague and unspecific that it’s nearly impossible to rate yourself accurately.

It’s more of a measure of your own self confidence.

Well now that I think about it, med school applications are mostly subjective too. Your metrics have to be good, yes, but afterwards it's how you present yourself on the ec's you have. 100% on you.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

WARS is so subjective, I believe it’s hardly useful at all. Two people with identical applications can have vastly different scores. The rating system is so vague and unspecific that it’s nearly impossible to rate yourself accurately.

It’s more of a measure of your own self confidence.

It is good if you know how to assess yourself, otherwise you can blame it on the holistic process 🙂

 

[deleted1064759]

WARS is so subjective, I believe it’s hardly useful at all. Two people with identical applications can have vastly different scores. The rating system is so vague and unspecific that it’s nearly impossible to rate yourself accurately.

It’s more of a measure of your own self confidence.

The parameters you input into WARS are objective: one year of volunteering is one year of volunteering, but it can vary based on how you write about it. For example, one year working with a battered women's shelter and a strong narrative of empowering women is much stronger than spending a year with meals on wheels when it's the only community service you have.

Either way, I think it's not a bad idea to subtract 5-10 points from WARS to adjust for 'inflation'. Perhaps even add 3-5 points more for URM if you're African American this year. I'm not too sure how the LizzyM algorithm determines the chance of acceptance since any given LM would be 'worth' less every upcoming year.

 

[KnightDoc]

While people claim to intellectually understand what WARS is designed to do, many of the comments here reveal that people really believe that it is a flawed crystal ball that sucks at telling candidates where they will be admitted.

Its value and purpose is to help you curate a realistic list of where to apply. Like everything else, however, garbage in, garbage out. Its value hinges on your ability to honestly evaluate the quality of your inputs, just like an adcom does, while overcoming the bias of inflating the quality of your experiences that we all naturally have the tendency to do.

As @Zorax astutely observed, it IS as subjective as the process itself. That's why it is so good, when used correctly. It gathers relevant inputs, helps you distill them to a single numerical value, and then suggests schools based on that number.

MCAT and GPA are easy. Beyond that, if you tell yourself cleaning test tubes for 3 years, proof reading an article and receiving credit as an author makes you Level 5 in research, yes, it is subjective, but, no, you are not honestly evaluating your experience like an adcom will, and the tool will fail you. That's your fault, not the tool's!

Same thing for every other category and description. If you judge yourself honestly and conservatively, the tool is great at curating a list. From there, admission is the same crapshoot it is for everyone else.

If you want to inflate your grade, nobody will stop you, and then you are free to complain that the tool sucks when you don't get in to Harvard.

 

[deleted987519]

While people claim to intellectually understand what WARS is designed to do, many of the comments here reveal that people really believe that it is a flawed crystal ball that sucks at telling candidates where they will be admitted.

Its value and purpose is to help you curate a realistic list of where to apply. Like everything else, however, garbage in, garbage out. Its value hinges on your ability to honestly evaluate the quality of your inputs, just like an adcom does, with the bias of inflating the quality of your experiences that we all naturally have the tendency to do.

As @Zorax astutely observed, it IS as subjective as the process itself. That's why it is so good, when used correctly. It gathers relevant inputs, helps you distill them to a single numerical value, and then suggests schools based on that number.

MCAT and GPA are easy. Beyond that, if you tell yourself cleaning test tubes for 3 years, proof reading an article and receiving credit as an author makes you Level 5 in research, yes, it is subjective, but, no, you are not honestly evaluating your experience like an adcom will, and the tool will fail you. That's your fault, not the tool's!

Same thing for every other category and description. If you judge yourself honestly and conservatively, the tool is great at curating a list. From there, admission is the same crapshoot it is for everyone else.

If you want to inflate your grade, nobody will stop you, and then you are free to complain that the tool sucks when you don't get in to Harvard.

just take one night off

 

[KnightDoc]

just take one night off

I did -- last Wednesday and Friday. I'm pretty sure there's an "ignore" function if you really need more than that! 🙂

 

[deleted1064759]

While people claim to intellectually understand what WARS is designed to do, many of the comments here reveal that people really believe that it is a flawed crystal ball that sucks at telling candidates where they will be admitted.

Its value and purpose is to help you curate a realistic list of where to apply. Like everything else, however, garbage in, garbage out. Its value hinges on your ability to honestly evaluate the quality of your inputs, just like an adcom does, with the bias of inflating the quality of your experiences that we all naturally have the tendency to do.

As @Zorax astutely observed, it IS as subjective as the process itself. That's why it is so good, when used correctly. It gathers relevant inputs, helps you distill them to a single numerical value, and then suggests schools based on that number.

MCAT and GPA are easy. Beyond that, if you tell yourself cleaning test tubes for 3 years, proof reading an article and receiving credit as an author makes you Level 5 in research, yes, it is subjective, but, no, you are not honestly evaluating your experience like an adcom will, and the tool will fail you. That's your fault, not the tool's!

Same thing for every other category and description. If you judge yourself honestly and conservatively, the tool is great at curating a list. From there, admission is the same crapshoot it is for everyone else.

If you want to inflate your grade, nobody will stop you, and then you are free to complain that the tool sucks when you don't get in to Harvard.

A level five on the research section of WARS is not simply reduced to a time commitment. It is based on productivity that is fairly objective e.g. first author publication(s), high-impact journal publication, or a PhD. The Misc section is probably the most vulnerable to subjective bias, but it's pretty easy to realize you're not a Mother Teresa 😉.

My point is that stats and ECs, in general, are inflated due to people taking gap years but this will probably be different next year.

Harvard is a reach for anyone, especially with a 25% acceptance rate post-interview.

By the way, I still welcome people from last year to share their cycle results if they had a discrepancy between LM and WARS.

 

[KnightDoc]

A level five on the research section of WARS is not simply reduced to a time commitment. It is based on productivity that is fairly objective e.g. first author publication(s), high-impact journal publication, or a PhD. The Misc section is probably the most vulnerable to subjective bias, but it's pretty easy to realize you're not a Mother Teresa 😉.

My point is that stats and ECs, in general, are inflated due to people taking gap years but this will probably be different next year.

Harvard is a reach for anyone, especially with a 25% acceptance rate post-interview.

By the way, I still welcome people from last year to share their cycle results if they had a discrepancy between LM and WARS.

No, I'm not a Mother Teresa, but my comment was meant to be a sarcastic exaggeration, not to be taken literally. Garbage in, garbage out, on the other hand, was meant to be taken literally. My point was simply that if you are conservative and honest, the tool works. If not, it doesn't. And yes, lots of the inputs are indeed subjective, so you need to be honest with yourself.

 

[Lawpy]

WARS is mainly a tool to help craft your school lists rather than being a definite tool. There's a lot of subjective factors involved in the formula that really works best if you rate yourself conservatively.

Although I'm sure LizzyM scores are correlated with WARS scores and app success to a decent degree since people with high stats usually have good ECs and so high WARS scores and ending up at good schools

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I did -- last Wednesday and Friday. I'm pretty sure there's an "ignore" function if you really need more than that! 🙂

You did and I was worried ☺️

 

[LizzyM]

I'm not too sure how the LizzyM algorithm determines the chance of acceptance since any given LM would be 'worth' less every upcoming year.

The original point of the LIzzyM was to identify the schools that would be most likely to invite you for interview. It cannot account for interview performance which is a big part of the admission process. That said, the LizzyM score you have should be compared to the most recently available data from the admitted applicants (matriculants wil work but is usually somewhat lower as everyone admits and counts the top candidates, who also have the most interviews) but only one school can claim each superstar as a matriculant. Anyway, as the metrics creep up, an applicant will need a higher LizzyM score to have a chance at an interview at a given school.