Med School admissions is getting too competitive.

[Hildace]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I studied for both as well. I decided to

take the 2015 simply and solely because of

less physics, less ochem, more biochem = not more material, same amount just differently dispersed across categories

and if you took both tests and did well, why? Why would you take both exams if you did not need to?

Harder process? meh. More people alive today than 30 years ago, yes. More people applying? the %s are similar. Not sure that makes one or the other harder.

Not more material? Did you completely forget about the fact that they added a 4th section, the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior? Also, there is a significantly higher amount of biochemistry on the new exam, while physics and general chemistry were left relatively the same (even though the percentage of questions on those topics on the physical sciences section was reduced).

I took it again because I wanted to apply to some higher tier medical schools and increase my chances across the board.

 

[Hildace]

Nothing significant has changed in the physics or chemistry that you will be tested on. Certainly nothing has changed in the verbal material you need to know, and since you aren't tested on math or general knowledge, you have much less to study in those two areas. The only thing that's changed is that you might need to know a few more metabolic pathways or enzymes in biochemistry, and I doubt that the material you will be expected to know in that area will exceed the preparation time you would need for a math and general knowledge section. Your suggestion that you have to know ten times more material on this exam is just silly.

However, if you really believe that that amount of extra material is going to make a big difference in your competitiveness for medical school, you had better hope that you don't get in, because you will be in for quite a shock when you come face to face with your medical school curriculum.

I only made that suggestion to make a point.

I had a 3.97 GPA in a masters program; I'm not the slightest bit worried about the medical school curriculum.

 

[Ad2b]

So, you had a good score (assuming 30+) and then retook it to get? 515+ Did you get that?

Let's talk about the psych/soc part:

it's not that bad. A lot of neuro that came from bio before; a lot of biochem that had to be learned for the biochem.

What remained: theorists. Piaget did this, Maslow's pyramid shows you this, Freud was one wonky dude, Erickson did that over there; Gestalt Principles are pretty cool to think about but easy. Then we have all the disease states that with media we've all heard about... can't imagine any premed not knowing what OCD or BP or BPD or NPD or ... are. We're inundated with the information (thankfully so as to de-stigmatize brain chemistry issues)

I think this test is by far, EASIER than the old one. There are fewer discrete questions, more "can you think" questions which is what a doctor should be able to do.

Think. Not be spoon fed but think. Not memorize data but think. I see it with some of the premeds I take courses with. "Do I have to know this or that?" Well, yah and how to apply it. They don't like that they have to "think" about application they just want to memorize it and barf it out on an exam.

 

[efle]

Clearly on both tests, an examinee would ideally need to beat out 80% of his or her fellow examinees to be competitive. The difference is that the amount of effort and hard work required to be in that top 20% has gone up. For example, would you say there's a difference in difficulty between a test in which one needs to know 100 pieces of information, and a test in which one needs to know 1000 pieces of information? Would it take the same amount of time to study for each? What if you also needed to know a higher percentage of the information to be competitive?

IMO what it takes to be top 20% has not gone up. If the test was primarily of knowledge and much more knowledge was required id agree with you. But, the content-testing emphasis is reduced on the new MCAT and reasoning even more focused on. I think the amount of study time that was typical for the old test remains plenty to familiarize yourself with content and the top fifth of the curve is still spread out by reasoning abilities just as it used to be. The only real change I see is something like Lucca mentioned, that perhaps a few unlucky people that could handle the old test might struggle more than their peers to keep the focus going for the longer version

 

[Ad2b]

perhaps a few unlucky people that could handle the old test might struggle more than their peers to keep the focus going for the longer version

And in that regard, most med students and residents howl with fits of laughter at premeds whining about the MCAT (any iteration) for they face Steps 1,2,3 and shelf exams. Stamina > all in their lives.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

IMO what it takes to be top 20% has not gone up. If the test was primarily of knowledge and much more knowledge was required id agree with you.

Something like 2k- 3k people per year put together an application that close to guarantees success. This number has not changed much in decades. The goal is to be one of those people.

 

[efle]

Something like 2k- 3k people per year put together an application that close to guarantees success. This number has not changed much in decades. The goal is to be one of those people.

Top 20% is an order of magnitude more than 2k people

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Top 20% is an order of magnitude more than 2k people

elfe - you may be correct. But my point is, students should aim to be in the group that is almost certain to be admitted.

 

[CallieMed]

Medical school admissions are not too competitive. Competition during the admissions process is a very good thing for medicine - we need smart, hardworking, and responsible people to be doctors.

My biggest problem with the admissions process is that it costs way too much. Applications and secondaries fees are way too high, and it is classist, in my opinion. It's no surprise most doctors come from upper middle class backgrounds. I spent around $1500 applying to and interviewing at medical school, and that is ridiculous. Not to mention the hundreds of dollars I spent to study for and take the MCAT.

 

[efle]

Fee assistance. Loans.

 

[CallieMed]

Fee assistance. Loans.

These things aren't necessarily easy to get. And a lot of people who might need them might not qualify for them.

It isn't as easy as just saying "Fee assistance. Loans."

The cost of medical school admissions is too damn high!

 

[Gandyy]

Your premise is incorrect. First of all, the percentage of applicants who are accepted to med school today has not changed in the past 40 years. Back then the acceptance rate ranged between 40 to 50 percent, with some year to year variation. That is still the case. You can look up the exact numbers if you wish. Most years, they were in the low 40's, exactly as they are now.

Forty years ago, the minimum competitive GPAs and MCAT scores were exactly what they are today: 3.5 and at least 80th percentile on the MCAT.

Forty years ago, you were expected to volunteer and shadow, and if you didn't, it hurt you chances of acceptance. Perhaps those activities were not done as much as they are today, but I have no way to quantify the difference, if any.

Back then, you certainly needed great LORs, and the interview process was just as rigorous as it is today, although there were no MMI interviews at that time. Extracurricular activities were valued just as much then as they are now. Med school classes always had their share of PhDs, athletes, and musicians. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed in terms of the admissions process.

What has changed is that residency spots have become somewhat more competitive, and the USMLE scores seem to be more important. However, I can tell you that derm residencies were competitive back then, and so were plastic surgery residencies ( per what older specialists have told me ). It might be the case that some of the surgery specialties were less competitive then, but otherwise, things are really no different now.

I can also tell you that the really good applicants stand out, both on paper and in person, and get into med school without breaking a sweat. The process is very straightforward if you have the proper qualifications.

If older doctors are telling you otherwise, it's because they don't remember all the details of what they went through, or because they were particularly well qualified applicants, or most likely, due to "survivor bias" ( i.e. you are only talking to people who are doctors, so therefore, by definition they all got in. If you talked to people who applied to med school 40 years ago and were rejected, you would hear how hard it was to get in back then.)

A 3.5 is not competitive for MD schools. Its OK, but its not competitive. Also back then, you DID NOT need a 80 percentile MCAT to be competitive. Hell 10 years ago my state school's average MCAT was a 28. Now its a 31.

lol.. its gotten a lot harder in just 10 years. 40 years? Are you kidding me.. its a totally different universe now.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

its gotten a lot harder in just 10 years. 40 years? Are you kidding me.. its a totally different universe now.

Nope. See multiple posts above. Y'all know what needs to be done to assure success. Roughly the same number (2-3k perhaps) do this each year and have done so for 40+ years.

There are multiple new schools (see the multiple DO new school threads; Cal Northstate thread). Plus, SGU and the like placing a combined 2000+ people in match. So it's only a "different universe" in that it may be easier now.

 

[efle]

Nope. See multiple posts above. Y'all know what needs to be done to assure success. Roughly the same number (2-3k perhaps) do this each year and have done so for 40+ years.

There are multiple new schools (see the multiple DO new school threads; Cal Northstate thread). Plus, SGU and the like placing a combined 2000+ people in match. So it's only a "different universe" in that it may be easier now.

Why do you keep using this 2-3k number? That's the number that are competitive for top 10 programs, far more than that are MD likely each year

 

[Nietzschelover]

Nope. See multiple posts above. Y'all know what needs to be done to assure success. Roughly the same number (2-3k perhaps) do this each year and have done so for 40+ years.

There are multiple new schools (see the multiple DO new school threads; Cal Northstate thread). Plus, SGU and the like placing a combined 2000+ people in match. So it's only a "different universe" in that it may be easier now.

With the median numbers, for both MCAT and GPA, going up every year, and quite significantly over the past 5-10 years, one wonders how in the world you could term med school admissions currently as "easier."

 

[ZedsDed]

With the median numbers, for both MCAT and GPA, going up every year, and quite significantly over the past 5-10 years, one wonders how in the world you could term med school admissions currently as "easier."

Part of that can probably be attributed to the universal grade inflation that has occurred in the U.S. in the past 40 years. MCAT? No idea.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Why do you keep using this 2-3k number? That's the number that are competitive for top 10 programs, far more than that are MD likely each year

It maybe that a somewhat larger number guarantee their success, but my point is -- it's in the thousands, has been in the thousands since most of us have been on this planet, and it's very clear what one needs to do to attain this status.

And behold, there are new medical schools opening every year.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

With the median numbers, for both MCAT and GPA, going up every year, and quite significantly over the past 5-10 years, one wonders how in the world you could term med school admissions currently as "easier."

I will agree to disagree with most of the SDN posters. I don't view the changes in median numbers as significant; there are new DO and MD schools opening monthly, it seems, adding to the available seats.

 

[efle]

I will have to agree to disagree with most of the SDN posters. I don't view the changes in median numbers as significant; there are new DO and MD schools opening monthly, it seems, adding to the available seats.

Then perhaps you'd agree the competition for "physician" is relatively static but for top MD programs and the most competitive specialties it is increasingly tough

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Then perhaps you'd agree the competition for "physician" is relatively static but for top MD programs and the most competitive specialties it is increasingly tough

Top 10 med school in 1990: get a 4.0 and break 35 on the MCAT.

Top 10 med school in 2015: get a 4.0 and try to get a couple points over 35 on MCAT.

Honestly, strikes me as more of the same ol', same ol'

 

[BurghStudent]

Top 10 med school in 1990: get a 4.0 and break 35 on the MCAT.

Top 10 med school in 2015: get a 4.0 and try to get a couple points over 35 on MCAT.

Honestly, strikes me as more of the same ol', same ol'

Except in 1990, you shadowed a doc a few times, maybe tinkered in a lab. In 2015, you saved Africa, published a clinical trial in NEJM, and started a non-profit charity organization.

 

[efle]

Top 10 med school in 1990: get a 4.0 and break 35 on the MCAT.

Top 10 med school in 2015: get a 4.0 and try to get a couple points over 35 on MCAT.

Honestly, strikes me as more of the same ol', same ol'

If only a 4.0 and 35+ really gave good odds for Stanford or WashU 🙁

 

[Gandyy]

Top 10 med school in 1990: get a 4.0 and break 35 on the MCAT.

Top 10 med school in 2015: get a 4.0 and try to get a couple points over 35 on MCAT.

Honestly, strikes me as more of the same ol', same ol'

What?

 

[Nietzschelover]

Grade inflation (to the extent that's true) cuts both ways. If indeed grades are higher then one has to hit those targets to keep up.

Don't know how median MCAT numbers going up and up is insignificant.

I would also argue that the competition among undergrads in general, and pre-meds specifically, is more intense because college in general is viewed differently than 30-40 years ago. Used to be that many went to college to explore, academically and otherwise, but due to the costs of college nowadays, students as a whole are more focused, driven, and pre-professionally and career-oriented than ever before. There's no time or room for a B or B+ in 19th Century Continental Philosophy (despite all the cries about more well-roundedness for applicants).

 

[Gandyy]

Grade inflation (to the extent that's true) cuts both ways. If indeed grades are higher then one has to hit those targets to keep up.

Don't know how median MCAT numbers going up and up is insignificant.

I would also argue that the competition among undergrads in general, and pre-meds specifically, is more intense because college in general is viewed differently than 30-40 years ago. Used to be that many went to college to explore, academically and otherwise, but due to the costs of college nowadays, students as a whole are more focused, driven, and pre-professionally and career-oriented than ever before. There's no time or room for a B or B+ in 19th Century Continental Philosophy (despite all the cries about more well-roundedness for applicants).

Truth.

There is no real argument here. We have one attending physician here arguing that medical school competition is the same when pretty much everyone here knows that it is in fact much more difficult to get accepted to medical school nowadays. Furthermore, any adcom would probably come in here and say the same thing. So would any pre-med advisor (although their word carries less weight for many obvious reasons) and so would any one else who knows anything about current medical school admissions.

There is no real debate here.

 

[Gandyy]

It maybe that a somewhat larger number guarantee their success, but my point is -- it's in the thousands, has been in the thousands since most of us have been on this planet, and it's very clear what one needs to do to attain this status.

And behold, there are new medical schools opening every year.

"Attain this status"


😕...........................................................................

 

[GrapesofRath]

I will agree to disagree with most of the SDN posters. I don't view the changes in median numbers as significant; there are new DO and MD schools opening monthly, it seems, adding to the available seats.

Compare 10th percentile and average MCAT stats of top 20 schools the past decade. They have clearly gone up. Doesn't get much clearer than that that is harder to get into top schools now .

While it's true there are a fair number of DO programs opening up ask DO ADCOMs like Goro himself about med school admission; he himself has said not that long ago it wasn't too uncommon for their school to interview applicants with under 3.0's. Long gone are those days. The standards for DO's have gone up; I'm not sure how anybody disputes that.

As for MD schools lets actually look at the number of recent ones to open up

UC Riverside
Seton Hall(opening up next year)
Central Michigan
Dell and Rio Grande(2 schools which will have their first class in 2016)
Oakland
Western Michigan
Va Tech
Quinnipac
TCMC
Texas Tech
Cooper Rowan
FSU
FIU
UCF
Hofstra
Cleveland Clinic

Note we haven't had a single MD school open up since 1981 that's not covered here. And out of these schools the majority have fairly strong IS biases. So that leaves for a typical applicant, Hofstra, Quinnipac, Va Tech, Western Michigan and Oakland(maybe TCMC in some cases). You really think the addition of 5 new MD schools over that time and addition of IS biased schools for a select few states balances out the increase in median MD matriculant stats and makes it no less competitive than it was years back? Not really sure what evidence there is for that; rather the evidence that MD admission is more competitive is pretty clear cut.

 

[Meeehai]

Except in 1990, you shadowed a doc a few times, maybe tinkered in a lab. In 2015, you saved Africa, published a clinical trial in NEJM, and started a non-profit charity organization.

This is the big difference in my opinion if we want to look a long way back. There's just much more expected of you beyond numbers in the admission process nowadays and most of it feels like jumping through hoops to prove your commitment to getting in rather than truly being a diverse applicant.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

In the end, we will have to agree to disagree. I think the changes in the median MCAT scores/GPAs are not significant in the big picture; I feel the increase in schools is more important.

 

[bc65]

A 3.5 is not competitive for MD schools. Its OK, but its not competitive

"Competitive" means "able to compete successfully with others", i.e., that you have a chance, not that you are guaranteed admission. How is that different from saying it's "ok"? But let's put aside your reading comprehension issues. Here are the hard numbers.

Admission percentiles: 1971- 42.3%
1972- 38.1%
1973- 35.4%
1974- 35.3%
1975- 36.3%

Today, about 42%. You still think it was easier back when the percentile was 35%?


Average MCAT for admitted students in 1975 was a composite score of 615 ( on an 800 scale, like the SAT ). I don't have percentiles for that exact exam, but based on several SAT and old LSAT scores I could find, a 615 is approximately 83rd percentile.

Average MCAT for admitted students in 2003: 29.6 which is approximately the 76th percentile
in 2014: 31.4, which is approximately the 83rd percentile.


GPA: 1975: 3.47
2003: 3.62
2014 3.69

Given the well-documented grade inflation over the past 40 years, I suspect that in 1975 a 3.47 was harder to achieve than a 3.7 today, but I'll let someone else look that up. The evidence that this is the case is the fact that the MCAT percentiles are no different with that GPA than today's, although apparently it was easier in 2003 than in 1975.

See this article which gives you the admissions percentile from 1924-2011. Note the ratio in the 1970's ( 40 years ago)

http://report.nih.gov/investigators_and_trainees/acd_bwf/pdf/AAMC-
Applicants_Matriculants_Enrollment_and_Graduates-1924-2011.pdf

 

[RustBeltOnc]

"Competitive" means "able to compete successfully with others", i.e., that you have a chance, not that you are guaranteed admission. How is that different from saying it's "ok"? But let's put aside your reading comprehension issues. Here are the hard numbers.

http://report.nih.gov/investigators_and_trainees/acd_bwf/pdf/AAMC-
Applicants_Matriculants_Enrollment_and_Graduates-1924-2011.pdf

I like 2x

 

[Gandyy]

"Competitive" means "able to compete successfully with others", i.e., that you have a chance, not that you are guaranteed admission. How is that different from saying it's "ok"? But let's put aside your reading comprehension issues. Here are the hard numbers.

Admission percentiles: 1971- 42.3%
1972- 38.1%
1973- 35.4%
1974- 35.3%
1975- 36.3%

Today, about 42%. You still think it was easier back when the percentile was 35%?


Average MCAT for admitted students in 1975 was a composite score of 615 ( on an 800 scale, like the SAT ). I don't have percentiles for that exact exam, but based on several SAT and old LSAT scores I could find, a 615 is approximately 83rd percentile.

Average MCAT for admitted students in 2003: 29.6 which is approximately the 76th percentile
in 2014: 31.4, which is approximately the 83rd percentile.


GPA: 1975: 3.47
2003: 3.62
2014 3.69

Given the well-documented grade inflation over the past 40 years, I suspect that in 1975 a 3.47 was harder to achieve than a 3.7 today, but I'll let someone else look that up. The evidence that this is the case is the fact that the MCAT percentiles are no different with that GPA than today's, although apparently it was easier in 2003 than in 1975.

See this article which gives you the admissions percentile from 1924-2011. Note the ratio in the 1970's ( 40 years ago)

http://report.nih.gov/investigators_and_trainees/acd_bwf/pdf/AAMC-
Applicants_Matriculants_Enrollment_and_Graduates-1924-2011.pdf

Explain to me how gpa is inflated when most public state schools have science professors who give you an A based on if you are top 20 percent of that specific lecture class or not.

The only way there would be grade inflation in school systems like this is if the people literally got dumber over time. Which I dont think college kids on average got dumber somehow. Lets assume the worst and say college kids are much dumber now compared to students in the 70's and 80's ... its still based on top 25 percent.

Unless of course there was no such thing as curving a test or a class in the 1970's or 1980's.

Which I doubt.

 

[ZedsDed]

Explain to me how gpa is inflated when most public state schools have science professors who give you an A based on if you are top 20 percent of that specific lecture class or not.

The only way there would be grade inflation in school systems like this is if the people literally got dumber over time. Which I dont think college kids on average got dumber somehow. Lets assume the worst and say college kids are much dumber now compared to students in the 70's and 80's ... its still based on top 25 percent.

Unless of course there was no such thing as curving a test or a class in the 1970's or 1980's.

Which I doubt.

There are measurably more A's given today then there were 50 years ago. In other words, the grade distributions have changed. When people talk about an increase in inflation, that is what they are talking about, not an increase in raw scores. This is especially true for top-50 schools.

 

[bc65]

Explain to me how gpa is inflated

Sorry, but if you plan on being a physician you'll have to stop having information spoon-fed to you, and start taking responsibility for your own education. You should also consider doing a little research on your own, rather than just making stuff up and guessing. So, try using Google and / or Wikipedia, and learn about grade inflation.

Also, I didn't see any comments from you about the MCAT scores or the lower acceptance rates.

Another useful skill in medical school would be to be able to admit when you're wrong.

 

[Gandyy]

Sorry, but if you plan on being a physician you'll have to stop having information spoon-fed to you, and start taking responsibility for your own education. You should also consider doing a little research on your own, rather than just making stuff up and guessing. So, try using Google and / or Wikipedia, and learn about grade inflation.

Also, I didn't see any comments from you about the MCAT scores or the lower acceptance rates.

Another useful skill in medical school would be to be able to admit when you're wrong.

I can admit when I"m wrong and I have on this forum in the past before. But dont insult my intelligence because I'm questioning your bold statements.

It seems that instead of having a civil discussion you are more intent on throwing out insults.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument now. I have no wish to do this dramatic "dance" with you. Argue with the other 6 or 7 people telling you two that admissions are lot more competitive nowadays.

 

[Nietzschelover]

We wouldn't expect folks who have been physicians prior to the last 5-10 years to want the competitive difficulty of their own experiences downgraded.

 

[Gandyy]

We wouldn't expect folks who have been physicians prior to the last 5-10 years to want the competitive difficulty of their own experiences downgraded.

Yep, thats exactly what it is too.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

We wouldn't expect folks who have been physicians prior to the last 5-10 years to want the competitive difficulty of their own experiences downgraded.

I didn't know the acceptance rate in the mid 70s was as low as 30s %. I am somewhat surprised the other posters have just dismissed this.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

We wouldn't expect folks who have been physicians prior to the last 5-10 years to want the competitive difficulty of their own experiences downgraded.

It's not that so much as we don't think these minor changes in numbers matter much. It's a matter of perspective. I see that the acceptance rates have remained roughly the same since I have been following these things (actually increased for a while) and I see that there are more medical schools. On a personal level, I know my numbers if applied to this year would have landed me in the same program or the other one I considered.

So, you will have a hard time convincing me it is "more competitive."

 

[Gandyy]

It's not that so much as we don't think these minor changes in numbers matter much. It's a matter of perspective. I see that the acceptance rates have remained roughly the same since I have been following these things (actually increased for a while) and I see that there are more medical schools. On a personal level, I know my numbers if applied to this year would have landed me in the same program or the other one I considered.

So, you will have a hard time convincing me it is "more competitive."

I will say that you are at least much more civil than the other attending physician in this thread.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

I will say that you are at least much more civil than the other attending physician in this thread.

Honestly, I want all of you to thrive and matriculate into the program of your choice.

 

[Gandyy]

Honestly, I want all of you to thrive and matriculate into the program of your choice.

We can only hope.

 

[Holmwood]

1) I don't think it's wise to look purely at the numbers. If anyone has data on what the average applicant in the 1990s looks like in terms of extra curricular and educational requirements vs the average applicant in 2015, then we can start putting those numbers into context.

2) Acceptance rate has been going up and down... it's not linear. The acceptance rate has been going down year after year from 2005 even with the new medical schools being added. Check out the SDN admissions handbook.

3) Is medical school admissions becoming more competitive? I think so. Look at all the extra coursework we have to take vs 10 years ago. Can't say much about ECs, but I'm pretty sure significant research wasn't a soft requirement 2o years ago . . .

 

[Cotterpin]

So is it becoming more competitive because there are way more applicants with strong stats, increasing the importance of ECs? Because I think it's been well established here that the gpa and MCAT requirements haven't gotten tougher.