Originally posted by Gbemi24
Another thing to note is that the algorithm does not tell you where you will be "accepted", it tells who where you are "competitive." There is a distinct difference between those 2 words. "Competitiveness" in this case means "probability of acceptance". This is why the anecdotes on this thread do not establish the ineffectiveness of the algorithm. The only you can establish its ineffectives with just your(ice_23) numbers is to apply with your current GPA/MCAT to the same school a 1000 times and see how often you get accpeted as opposed to someone with a lower GPA/MCAT and the same state of residence as you.
Whoa, no one ever said that anecdotal evidence refutes statistical arguments. So you can step down from your pedestal on that point.
And that's EXACLTY the point. I can't apply to the same school 1000 times, (nor has anyone that I know of been able to do so). Intangible factors ARE a big deal to any given school, and if you ignore that, then you are ignoring a huge part of the process.
However, anecdotal evidence DOES point out the reality of the algorithm's blatant inaccuracies (which does not refute the statistical correlation of GPA/MCAT vs. med school acceptance). You know, whether you'd like to admit it or not, that people who are on the cusp of applying will take this algorithm, apply their stats to it, and base who they apply to on that. MOST people know that GPA/MCAT scores are a huge deal; however, a purported magical "algorithm" makes it seem all the more as if those are the only two parameters in garnering a medical school acceptance. You may call these people dumb, but I think it is highly disruptive to the psyche of a potential applicant.
And yes, it does use categories such as "less competitive" and "highly competitive." Yet, there are many people (such as URM's & legacies) that would be highly competitive within their own pool, but not as much when considered strictly by their numbers. Here the algorithm is NOT very accurate; and what's worse, although it hints at GPA and MCAT not being the be all and end all of med school admissions, it never really delineates what other factors there might be. A URM might not even know that he or she has an advantage (and whether you like the system or not, the disclaimer has an obligation to mention these "other" factors rather than just allude to them).
Additionally, you use the idea that because it uses the word "competitive" and not "guaranteed admission/rejection" that then that absolves the formula from being wrong or right. Given the large number of people claiming to have contradictory results with the formula and their actual experiences within the application process, I'd have to say that you're using this reasoning to hide behind the fact that it seems (at least, in this thread) to be wrong for many people. If the theory doesn't fit the data (from what I have seen here), then it's a pretty much a useless theory (or a highly inaccurate one at that).
Finally, in regards to your postulates, even the disclaimer of the algorithm itself remarks about it's own limitations that:
"Medical school acceptances are based on many factors in addition to (and sometimes in spite of) GPA, MCAT scores and primary residence. This algorythm [sic] does not take any of these factors into account."
In fact, it is acknowledged that sometimes (and I would assert that many times) intangible factors are taken in spite of GPA & MCAT scores. A potential applicant might not follow this link to this page, and may think his or her final decision is solely based on numbers. This sort of assertion, I believe, is harmful to an applicants potential future. That is why I hate such formulaic approaches to admissions.
-Ice
