MCAT higher the better?

[limetree6]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been thinking for the past two days from a statistical point of view.
I don't want to argue that other factors such as ECs, LOR, PS can be more important. I'm stating this argument on the basis that EC, LOR, etc. are about par for everyone.

Let's say a University A has a mean MCAT of 34. Assuming a bell-shaped curve (which is most likely to be) roughly 50% of the students will lie below 34 and other half above 34.
However, MCAT's mean lies around 24 with a bell shaped curve. By the time it reaches around 34, it represents top 7~8% of the test takers. The number of applicants with above 34 gets slimmer. Yet they compromise the 50% of acceptances at University A. What this implies is that statistically, (and only statistically with assumptions above) is that a point higher on MCAT will increase your chances of acceptance.

 

[DrBowtie]

You did way too much statistical analysis to restate the obvious.
However, a 43 is looked down upon since you couldn't get 4-6 more total questions right to get the perfect 45.

 

[Shredder]

What this implies is that statistically, (and only statistically with assumptions above) is that a point higher on MCAT will increase your chances of acceptance.

😕 sorry i have a feeling this will not make the nightly news

 

[Will Hunting]

😕 sorry i have a feeling this will not make the nightly news

of course a higher MCAT score increases your chances. What was the point of your post? One point won't make a difference, 3-4 above probably will.

 

[ti89]

One point could make quite a bit of diff. getting all double digits versus not is quite big from what I have heard. However this post doesn't do much other then state the obvious..didn't need to spend 2 days on of thinking about this.

 

[tacrum43]

One point could make quite a bit of diff. getting all double digits versus not is quite big from what I have heard. However this post doesn't do much other then state the obvious..didn't need to spend 2 days on of thinking about this.

Is all 10s that different from a 9, 10 and 11 (like I have)?

 

[ti89]

I have been told...however I do find it hard to believe. But my premed counsler did say that.

 

[limetree6]

true true.
It's stating the obvious.
People say one point difference is nothing but in a statistical sense
maybe it DOES make a difference although it may be small.
And there are people who say 30+ is a competitive score and no need to
take the test again. Once again, maybe bringing one point higher can be worth it.
Also there are people who want to academically compensate for their
slight lack of ECs.

 

[Wiggy73]

of course a higher MCAT score increases your chances. What was the point of your post? One point won't make a difference, 3-4 above probably will.

Not necessarily true...see my mdapps. I think "numbers discrimination" is real. If your numbers are too high, adcoms sometimes seem to think that either you're an antisocial robot with no outside interests, or you'll get in somewhere else and won't want to go to their school (an adcom member actually told me the latter). Some of the top tens get a little snobbish, like "we could have filled our class with 4.0's and 40's, but we picked you people with lower stats because want the world to know that we look at the whole applicant;" so while they're making a political point by accepting lower stats people, where does that leave the ones with high stats? (I'm not saying that those people with "lower" stats don't deserve their acceptances and won't make excellent doctors, and I'm not saying that stats are the whole story and that the only reason to accept "lower" stats people is to make a political point. Just so we're clear here. Now don't flame me!)

 

[UMMedM1]

As far as MCAT scores are concerned, I say the higher the better. I'd like to just let you know about an unfortunate case that happened with one of my friends as he was applying this past year, though: He got a 35M, and never got accepted anywhere as far as I know. Maybe he just got in off of a waitlist at the last minute, but I think he's going to have to reapply. He had everything going for him, except that M on the writing sample, and he's really mad that he didn't spend more time preparing for that. Just a word of advice: Make sure you take the writing sample seriously, because, while it won't get you in, it can certainly keep you out.

 

[gujuDoc]

Not necessarily true...see my mdapps. I think "numbers discrimination" is real. If your numbers are too high, adcoms sometimes seem to think that either you're an antisocial robot with no outisde interests, or you'll get in somewhere else and won't want to go to their school (an adcom member actually told me the latter). Some of the top tens get a little snobbish, like "we could have filled our class with 4.0's and 40's, but we picked you people with lower stats because want the world to know that we look at the whole applicant;" so while they're making a political point by accepting lower stats people, where does that leave the ones with high stats? (I'm not saying that those people with "lower" stats don't deserve their acceptances and won't make excellent doctors, and I'm not saying that stats are the whole story and that the only reason to accept "lower" stats people is to make a political point. Just so we're clear here. Now don't flame me!)

No flaming here. I'm surprised that you didn't get in any top 10 schools. That was a bit shocking to read.

That said.........

I think many lower state schools often reject people with too high scores of 4.0 and 40 kinda scores because they think those people will most likely not attend given the choice anyhow. Its the same with with job interviews. Sadly, but truly, many people don't like hiring people that are overqualified any more then they like to accept someone way tooooooooo underqualified.

 

[DrBowtie]

Not necessarily true...see my mdapps. I think "numbers discrimination" is real. If your numbers are too high, adcoms sometimes seem to think that either you're an antisocial robot with no outside interests, or you'll get in somewhere else and won't want to go to their school (an adcom member actually told me the latter). Some of the top tens get a little snobbish, like "we could have filled our class with 4.0's and 40's, but we picked you people with lower stats because want the world to know that we look at the whole applicant;" so while they're making a political point by accepting lower stats people, where does that leave the ones with high stats? (I'm not saying that those people with "lower" stats don't deserve their acceptances and won't make excellent doctors, and I'm not saying that stats are the whole story and that the only reason to accept "lower" stats people is to make a political point. Just so we're clear here. Now don't flame me!)

Wiggy, you didn't get number discriminated. You got clinical experience discriminated.

 

[Wiggy73]

Wiggy, you didn't get number discriminated. You got clinical experience discriminated.

It can't be both? 😛 😉

 

[DrBowtie]

Good luck at Vandy...Their is an asian invasion coming down I-65 from the Ville who is a really cool guy. It is def. a top choice of mine.

 

[gujuDoc]

Wiggy, you didn't get number discriminated. You got clinical experience discriminated.

Wow good catch. I shoulda reread the EC section more closely rather then skimming it.

But that's a good call. A lot of great applicants get rejected due to lack of clinical exposure or things of that nature.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

As far as MCAT scores are concerned, I say the higher the better. I'd like to just let you know about an unfortunate case that happened with one of my friends as he was applying this past year, though: He got a 35M, and never got accepted anywhere as far as I know. Maybe he just got in off of a waitlist at the last minute, but I think he's going to have to reapply. He had everything going for him, except that M on the writing sample, and he's really mad that he didn't spend more time preparing for that. Just a word of advice: Make sure you take the writing sample seriously, because, while it won't get you in, it can certainly keep you out.

Seriously? I was under the impression that the writing section was worth squat. Did your friend have a lot of ECs? Medically related work? Hmmm.

 

[BeatArmy]

Not necessarily true...see my mdapps. I think "numbers discrimination" is real. If your numbers are too high, adcoms sometimes seem to think that either you're an antisocial robot with no outside interests, or you'll get in somewhere else and won't want to go to their school (an adcom member actually told me the latter). Some of the top tens get a little snobbish, like "we could have filled our class with 4.0's and 40's, but we picked you people with lower stats because want the world to know that we look at the whole applicant;" so while they're making a political point by accepting lower stats people, where does that leave the ones with high stats? (I'm not saying that those people with "lower" stats don't deserve their acceptances and won't make excellent doctors, and I'm not saying that stats are the whole story and that the only reason to accept "lower" stats people is to make a political point. Just so we're clear here. Now don't flame me!)

"Numbers discrimination" is a figment of neurotic Pre-med imaginations. Higher numbers will help your application....always. If your numbers suggest no outside interests, the ADCOM member can just flip to the EC section. If they still think that, then yes, you are screwed. You needed more/better ECs or needed to write them up better. No "high numbers, anti-social" stigma will keep you out unless you show up at the interview and act anti-social.

I'm not flaming because you clearly understand that the Adcoms are looking for the best whole applicants. I'm just pointing out that higher numbers NEVER hurt you. Every one of the "lower stats" individuals that gets into a top ten school would still have gotten into that specific school, that specific year if their numbers had been higher. The schools are not intentionally trying to bring down their 4.0, 40 average. They are just selecting applicants they consider outstanding, despite their numbers.

My favorite myth, though, is the one about the state schools that don't accept high stat applicants because the applicants will probably go somewhere else anyway. Like any good urban legend, this one occasionally gets supported by some phantom adcom member that somebody knows. Usually it turns out that the member in question is saying they heard that other schools do that, but their school doesn't. Or they were trying to comfort someone who got rejected. "Tough break, dude. I guess your MCAT was just too high." Ridiculous. ADCOMS accept the best applicants available to them. Applicants, of all stat levels, matriculating elsewhere is part of the standard routine for ADCOMS. Many state schools ultimately accept 3 people for every seat filled. The waitlist shuffle is old hat to them. They are not going to pass on you because they fear rejection. Now don't get me wrong, Adcoms do not want disgruntled students in their class. So if you indicate to them that you don't want to go there and they are only a safety school, then you are minus one safety school. This situation perpetuates the myth, but the school is not passing on you because they are afraid you'll go somewhere else if they accept you, they are passing on you because they are afraid you might actually show up as the only unhappy person at orientation. You better convey at every interview your desire to be at that school, or you just wasted plane fare.

So, nobody needs to worry about "numbers discrimination." (unless their numbers are low...that kind exists) Of course, telling some Pre-Meds not too worry about something is a waste of time. Hopefully they'll respond to the fear by developing other aspects of their application instead of getting an ulcer.

 

[Shredder]

Not necessarily true...see my mdapps. I think "numbers discrimination" is real. If your numbers are too high, adcoms sometimes seem to think that either you're an antisocial robot with no outside interests, or you'll get in somewhere else and won't want to go to their school (an adcom member actually told me the latter). Some of the top tens get a little snobbish, like "we could have filled our class with 4.0's and 40's, but we picked you people with lower stats because want the world to know that we look at the whole applicant;" so while they're making a political point by accepting lower stats people, where does that leave the ones with high stats? (I'm not saying that those people with "lower" stats don't deserve their acceptances and won't make excellent doctors, and I'm not saying that stats are the whole story and that the only reason to accept "lower" stats people is to make a political point. Just so we're clear here. Now don't flame me!)

wiggy i think your situation is absurd. you shouldve taken it straight to foxnews, all the way to the supreme court. what the hell is wrong with our med school admissions. unfortunately in this case 'only in america' is a bad thing

 

[Flopotomist]

I'm stating this argument on the basis that EC, LOR, etc. are about par for everyone.

Not sure I agree with you on this one. What evidence do you make this claim on?

 

[DrBowtie]

Not sure I agree with you on this one. What evidence do you make this claim on?

Very True. That is the most overused assumption on SDN. Everyone thinks they have "good EC's, good LOR's"

 

[radioh3ad]

Very True. That is the most overused assumption on SDN. Everyone thinks they have "good EC's, good LOR's"

yes.

either you have to be an amazing liar with other liars to back it up for you, or you're going to have to truly have had motivating/influential experiences during your EC's for them to warrant that "good" title. it'll come through in your descriptions and when the adcoms ask you probing questions about your time during them.

exceptionally good LOR's are, however, less hard to come by.

 

[sunnyjohn]

Give me the high MCAT score. I'm willing to take my chances with a 40.

 

[QofQuimica]

However, a 43 is looked down upon since you couldn't get 4-6 more total questions right to get the perfect 45.

Hey, be nice. 😳 We had to deal with the test getting postponed two weeks because of Hurricane Charley. 😛

In all seriousness, I think there is a level of diminishing returns with MCAT scores. A score that is lower than the mean (less than 24) is likely to keep you out of many schools even if they have no miminum MCAT requirement, and it definitely will keep you out of the ones that set a minimum MCAT requirement of 24. A score of 30 will make you reasonably competitive for most schools, and a score of 35 will put you at or above the mean at just about all schools. So it's rational to want to at least score 30 or even 35 if you can. However, scoring higher than 35 will not greatly increase your chances of getting in anywhere, because after that point your score is already highly competitive at all schools. The difference between one student who scores 36 and another student who scores 38 (or even one who scores 43 😉 ) isn't going to significantly distinguish them with regards to their academic qualification for medical school. I mean, would anyone here really care to argue that someone who "only" scores 36 on the MCAT is academically unqualified for medical school???

So, there is a lesson for us all here: astronomically high academic numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to get you into medical school. It's essential to keep up with the volunteering, shadowing, clubs, mentoring, and other activities that are personally significant to you. Your ECs ought not be fluff or irrelevant afterthoughts on your application.

 

[gujuDoc]

Hey, be nice. 😳 We had to deal with the test getting postponed two weeks because of Hurricane Charley. 😛

In all seriousness, I think there is a level of diminishing returns with MCAT scores. A score that is lower than the mean (less than 24) is likely to keep you out of many schools even if they have no miminum MCAT requirement, and it definitely will keep you out of the ones that set a minimum MCAT requirement of 24. A score of 30 will make you reasonably competitive for most schools, and a score of 35 will put you at or above the mean at just about all schools. So it's rational to want to at least score 30 or even 35 if you can. However, scoring higher than 35 will not greatly increase your chances of getting in anywhere, because after that point your score is already highly competitive at all schools. The difference between one student who scores 36 and another student who scores 38 (or even one who scores 43 😉 ) isn't going to significantly distinguish them with regards to their academic qualification for medical school. I mean, would anyone here really care to argue that someone who "only" scores 36 on the MCAT is academically unqualified for medical school???

So, there is a lesson for us all here: astronomically high academic numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to get you into medical school. It's essential to keep up with the volunteering, shadowing, clubs, mentoring, and other activities that are personally significant to you. Your ECs ought not be fluff or irrelevant afterthoughts on your application.

I agree with you, especially the very last sentence in this post.

 

[MoosePilot]

Very True. That is the most overused assumption on SDN. Everyone thinks they have "good EC's, good LOR's"

Yep.

Except me.

 

[bwells46]

Hey, be nice. 😳 We had to deal with the test getting postponed two weeks because of Hurricane Charley. 😛

A friend told me that we were graded on a different (i.e. tougher) curve than everyone else since our test was postponed. Do you know if this is true? He was saying something along the lines that our overall scores were about 1 to 2 points lower due to statistical adjustment.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Some of the top tens get a little snobbish, like "we could have filled our class with 4.0's and 40's, but we picked you people with lower stats because want the world to know that we look at the whole applicant;" so while they're making a political point by accepting lower stats people, where does that leave the ones with high stats?

A political point by accepting lower stats huh. With 6000 applicants do you really think that adcoms let a few slip by just for the hell of it? I doubt it, all those accepted at "top-tens" have something in their application that attracts notice. It's a lot easier to standout with unique EC's than high grades. With that said, having a 4.0/40 is a gift that should get your foot in the door anywhere. I'd say that you fouled things up during the interviews. To say that you were discriminated against because your numbers are so high is absurd.

 

[Steiner]

I think many lower state schools often reject people with too high scores of 4.0 and 40 kinda scores because they think those people will most likely not attend given the choice anyhow. Its the same with with job interviews. Sadly, but truly, many people don't like hiring people that are overqualified any more then they like to accept someone way tooooooooo underqualified.

This is the story of my life. I got rejected from everywhere I applied to with a 38, and now I can't get a job anywhere with a Masters degree because I'm overeducated. I just caved in and applied at a grocery store to bag groceries and still haven't heard back. This is after I applied at tons of restaurants, doctors' offices, and hospitals with no replies.

 

[happydays]

I've been thinking for the past two days from a statistical point of view.
I don't want to argue that other factors such as ECs, LOR, PS can be more important. I'm stating this argument on the basis that EC, LOR, etc. are about par for everyone.

Let's say a University A has a mean MCAT of 34. Assuming a bell-shaped curve (which is most likely to be) roughly 50% of the students will lie below 34 and other half above 34.
However, MCAT's mean lies around 24 with a bell shaped curve. By the time it reaches around 34, it represents top 7~8% of the test takers. The number of applicants with above 34 gets slimmer. Yet they compromise the 50% of acceptances at University A. What this implies is that statistically, (and only statistically with assumptions above) is that a point higher on MCAT will increase your chances of acceptance.

That 7-8% actually translates into ~5,000 people! Remember that med schools take a TOTAL of ~17,000. So 7-8% is not a small number and can therefore comprise 50% of top tier schools.

 

[gujuDoc]

This is the story of my life. I got rejected from everywhere I applied to with a 38, and now I can't get a job anywhere with a Masters degree because I'm overeducated. I just caved in and applied at a grocery store to bag groceries and still haven't heard back. This is after I applied at tons of restaurants, doctors' offices, and hospitals with no replies.

Wow that really really really sucks. I hope things work out this cycle.

On a side note, in regards to what Brett said....

You make a good point about ECs. It is real hard to tell what is good and what is not because they try to look for unique things that set apart applicants. Some people will never have shadowed or volunteered a day in their life. Others will have done 100's of hours of both. It just depends on what the adcom is feeling that day.

 

[bwells46]

This is the story of my life. I got rejected from everywhere I applied to with a 38, and now I can't get a job anywhere with a Masters degree because I'm overeducated. I just caved in and applied at a grocery store to bag groceries and still haven't heard back. This is after I applied at tons of restaurants, doctors' offices, and hospitals with no replies.

Wow! What is your master's degree in? Anything business related? The reason I'm asking is that there are TONS of finance jobs out there.

 

[willthatsall]

Very True. That is the most overused assumption on SDN. Everyone thinks they have "good EC's, good LOR's"

I can't wait for the first person to say, "What are my chances? I have decent GPA and MCAT, but my EC's are pedestrian and my LOR's are below average?"

That brings up something I've been thinking. Does anyone think that LOR's don't really matter that much? I mean, if you get people who like you, they are probably going to write glowing accounts to make you seem like an amazing person. Since everyone usually gets people who like them to write letters, what are the chances that most med school LOR's read very similarly? Do ADCOM's really put much value into them?

 

[Shredder]

I can't wait for the first person to say, "What are my chances? I have decent GPA and MCAT, but my EC's are pedestrian and my LOR's are below average?"

That brings up something I've been thinking. Does anyone think that LOR's don't really matter that much? I mean, if you get people who like you, they are probably going to write glowing accounts to make you seem like an amazing person. Since everyone usually gets people who like them to write letters, what are the chances that most med school LOR's read very similarly? Do ADCOM's really put much value into them?

personally i think LOR are pretty worthless, dunno what adcoms think of them. i think all they show is your ability to judge people who you think like you. you will never heard anyone say "2 good lors, 1 ok, 1 kinda bad". theyre never bad, always good, just depends on the extent of goodness. i think they should be done away with.

i would say that your first comment applies to me, and if i wasnt averse to what are my chances threads i would say that i have pretty decent numbers but little else.

 

[willthatsall]

I guess committee letters might count for a little more since people are normally required to get one. On the other hand, I think most committees still tend to write nice things. I do know of a few students who have gotten the shaft by a pre-med committee. And I'll say this: I'm not sure if a good LOR helps, but I am pretty sure that a really bad LOR from the committee can kill your chances.

 

[CTSballer11]

personally i think LOR are pretty worthless, dunno what adcoms think of them. i think all they show is your ability to judge people who you think like you. you will never heard anyone say "2 good lors, 1 ok, 1 kinda bad". theyre never bad, always good, just depends on the extent of goodness. i think they should be done away with.

i would say that your first comment applies to me, and if i wasnt averse to what are my chances threads i would say that i have pretty decent numbers but little else.

i never really understood why adcoms want someone else's opinion (LOR writer) on you. What is the point of an interview then. Sometimes I wish we adopted a numbers only system. Take the best people with the highest GPA and MCAT scores. Oh well. 🙁

 

[willthatsall]

i never really understood why adcoms want someone else's opinion (LOR writer) on you. What is the point of an interview then. Sometimes I wish we adopted a numbers only system. Take the best people with the highest GPA and MCAT scores. Oh well. 🙁

The nice part about that would be how much money everyone could save on the process. In fact, med schools would probably even make more money because they could charge a little more for secondaries and each school would receive more applications because people would likely apply to more places if they weren't worried about all the money and time they would be losing on interview trips. I'm sure there are valid reasons for interviews too, but if I had to revamp the system I'd probably do without them in favor of phone interviews or maybe videotaped personal statements or something.

 

[gujuDoc]

If they adopted a numbers only system, then most people would never have to worry about doing ECs, etc so they'd be able to devote more time to fully studying, well unless they had to work to pay the bills. 😀

This is sort of what Australia does. They take people mostly based on MCAT/GPA and interview. A friend told me this, cuz that is where she wants to live and go to med school.

Although, I can kinda see the point of doing a bit of shadowing and clinical stuff, just not the over excessive essays on secondaries, secondaries in general, LORs which are most likely going to tell good things about you anyways, etc.

 

[roboyce]

I think that the whole process is built around a series of hoops through which every applicant must pass, with each additional step confirming the previous. As you progress, I think each step carries less weight, but is only there as a confirmation process. In the end, however, I think it is the little things that set you apart that are essential.

Here's how I see this warped little world progressing:
Step 1: GPA - Most basic means of comparing students; gets you in the door or closes the door.
Step 2: MCAT - Confirms your GPA, continues to open/close doors but can throw up questions marks. For example:
High GPA/Low MCAT - ADCOM might question quality of undergraduate program
Low GPA/High MCAT - ADCOM might question work ethic of applicant during undergraduate period
Step 3: AMCAS - Ensures that you meet the standards of Volunteer/Shadow/Research; As long as it's there, you continue on the process. However, this is the first chance to really separate yourself from the pack if you've done something outside the norm.
Step 4: PS/Secondaries - Confirms that you've thought this out. Doesn't have to be super, just has to make sense to keep you moving. Second Opportunity to be unique.
Step 5: LORs: Compares what you've said about yourself with what others say about you. As previous OPs have said, I don't think this can help you all that much, but can certainly sink you.
Step 6: Interview: Confirms Steps 1-5 in person. Makes sure you can interact with other, living breathing humans.

I think if you can get through all of the steps (ie your grades/gpa were on par with the school's average), you stand a 50/50 chance, assuming you don't have anything that makes you unique. If you do, I think the odds increase. Any thoughts?

 

[willthatsall]

If they adopted a numbers only system, then most people would never have to worry about doing ECs, etc so they'd be able to devote more time to fully studying, well unless they had to work to pay the bills. 😀

This is sort of what Australia does. They take people mostly based on MCAT/GPA and interview. A friend told me this, cuz that is where she wants to live and go to med school.

Although, I can kinda see the point of doing a bit of shadowing and clinical stuff, just not the over excessive essays on secondaries, secondaries in general, LORs which are most likely going to tell good things about you anyways, etc.

I think they could look at ECs and clinical experience and things like that, just don't do interviews. That is where all the time and money are wasted. It's just not a very efficient process.

 

[gujuDoc]

I think they could look at ECs and clinical experience and things like that, just don't do interviews. That is where all the time and money are wasted. It's just not a very efficient process.

Very true, interviews do account for the reason behind secondary fees.

But I think you made a good point with LORs. The fact of the matter is, if you know someone can't write you a strong letter, you aren't go to ask for one from them. So most likely, they are all going to say the most glowing things about an applicant, and hence making them totally pointless.

 

[DrBowtie]

I think an interview is more important than many of the other factors. Not so much the interview but the trip to see the potential school. Didn't you guys ever go on college visits? I wouldn't drop any of my current EC's but I wouldn't be sweating the standard hospital gig. The secondary is truly worthless. What should really happen is AMCAS could extend their app to include the 3 most popular secondary questions. Eliminate secondaries and pay for expenses incurred on the interview itself. 85$ fee vs 5$ free lunch...which would you rather pay for.

 

[gujuDoc]

I think that the whole process is built around a series of hoops through which every applicant must pass, with each additional step confirming the previous. As you progress, I think each step carries less weight, but is only there as a confirmation process. In the end, however, I think it is the little things that set you apart that are essential.

Here's how I see this warped little world progressing:
Step 1: GPA - Most basic means of comparing students; gets you in the door or closes the door.
Step 2: MCAT - Confirms your GPA, continues to open/close doors but can throw up questions marks. For example:
High GPA/Low MCAT - ADCOM might question quality of undergraduate program
Low GPA/High MCAT - ADCOM might question work ethic of applicant during undergraduate period
Step 3: AMCAS - Ensures that you meet the standards of Volunteer/Shadow/Research; As long as it's there, you continue on the process. However, this is the first chance to really separate yourself from the pack if you've done something outside the norm.
Step 4: PS/Secondaries - Confirms that you've thought this out. Doesn't have to be super, just has to make sense to keep you moving. Second Opportunity to be unique.
Step 5: LORs: Compares what you've said about yourself with what others say about you. As previous OPs have said, I don't think this can help you all that much, but can certainly sink you.
Step 6: Interview: Confirms Steps 1-5 in person. Makes sure you can interact with other, living breathing humans.

I think if you can get through all of the steps (ie your grades/gpa were on par with the school's average), you stand a 50/50 chance, assuming you don't have anything that makes you unique. If you do, I think the odds increase. Any thoughts?

While I suppose the following is true, I still question parts of the process.

 

[gujuDoc]

I think an interview is more important than many of the other factors. Not so much the interview but the trip to see the potential school. Didn't you guys ever go on college visits? I wouldn't drop any of my current EC's but I wouldn't be sweating the standard hospital gig. The secondary is truly worthless. What should really happen is AMCAS could extend their app to include the 3 most popular secondary questions. Eliminate secondaries and pay for expenses incurred on the interview itself. 85$ fee vs 5$ free lunch...which would you rather pay for.

I like your idea. 👍 👍

I still think LORs are pointless because you wouldn't get one to write a letter for you unless you know they are going to write a good positive letter for you, thereby defeating their purpose.

 

[DrBowtie]

I mainly think that LOR are the lazy man's way of confirming that we aren't lying about activities. If you get a letter from your PI, they better talk about how you did research under them.

 

[CTSballer11]

I mainly think that LOR are the lazy man's way of confirming that we aren't lying about activities. If you get a letter from your PI, they better talk about how you did research under them.

That is a good point. I never thought about it that way. So med schools don't make you confirm your EC's? To many applicants not enough time?

 

[DrBowtie]

Thats what I would say would be the main reason. Pure volume of applicants.
Another Idea what I would like to see get put in place would be a match system. The only sticky issue would be dealing with FA.

 

[CTSballer11]

Thats what I would say would be the main reason. Pure volume of applicants.
Another Idea what I would like to see get put in place would be a match system. The only sticky issue would be dealing with FA.

Interesting... 🙄

Can you elaborate, I don't understand what you mean by a match system? Thanks

 

[DrBowtie]

All applicants submit their applications to the schools they want to attend.
The school then interviews the candidates.
After all the interviews have been conducted, both the applicant and school rank each other (apps rank schools, schools rank apps).
Then a computer matches the students to the highest school they ranked that ranked them.

This would virtually eliminate waitlists since it would be a contract to enroll in the school you match. If you didn't match, you would get to start on next years app immediately.

 

[willthatsall]

Thats what I would say would be the main reason. Pure volume of applicants.
Another Idea what I would like to see get put in place would be a match system. The only sticky issue would be dealing with FA.

Yeah I was thinking about the match system idea, too. I think the FA is too big of an issue to be dealt with though. And the schools wouldn't like it either because think about your top schools that aren't quite at the very top of US News (say 10-25 in the rankings). They use scholarships to attract top students that might usually choose schools above them. With a match system in place, those students that they attract with scholarships would often match higher and be out of the picture. And then waitlists would be a mess too.

 

[CTSballer11]

All applicants submit their applications to the schools they want to attend.
The school then interviews the candidates.
After all the interviews have been conducted, both the applicant and school rank each other (apps rank schools, schools rank apps).
Then a computer matches the students to the highest school they ranked that ranked them.

This would virtually eliminate waitlists since it would be a contract to enroll in the school you match. If you didn't match, you would get to start on next years app immediately.

I like the idea, it is identical to the system they use to place people into residency.