Medical Students on Admission Boards

[GotaQuestion]

Hey Everyone,

I'm looking for information if medical schools have students have a voice in their admissions process. I currently attend a school that does not have this option, but I would like to write a proposal to hopefully get students on the admissions board. I've heard other schools have their med students as part of the board and for different schools the responsibilities/tasks are different. I wanted to get pretty much a survey if you've ever been on a medical school's admission board and answer a few questions, or give me some advice to try and present this proposal.

I need to know:
1. Do you have students as part of the admissions committee.
2. If so, what are your tasks and responsibilities.
3. Do you have a say in the final result or do you give recommendations.
4. Do you think there is a benefit/downside in having students as part of the admissions committee? 5. Any tips on trying to propose this to my school?

Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks y'all!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lannister]

1. Yes.

2. My school has student interviewers and student admissions committee members.

3. We have a say. Our vote holds just as much weight as anyone else.

4. Absolutely. I know what kind of person makes a good classmate, and I know what kind of person I want nothing to do with. Faculty either have lost this insight after years of not being a student, or don't care, because they're not the ones who have to spend four years studying with these people. I also find that faculty generally care more about stats, whereas younger adcoms, who are mostly students at my school, tend to look at applicants more holistically.

 

[GotaQuestion]

Thanks for the reply! Definitely useful info to bring up to the faculty.

 

[Lannister]

I think it also benefits the students who get the opportunity to serve on the admissions committee. It's a way to give back to the school and it gives the students more power to shape the community that they are a part of.

 

[Redpancreas]

1. Yes.

2. My school has student interviewers and student admissions committee members.

3. We have a say. Our vote holds just as much weight as anyone else.

4. Absolutely. I know what kind of person makes a good classmate, and I know what kind of person I want nothing to do with. Faculty either have lost this insight after years of not being a student, or don't care, because they're not the ones who have to spend four years studying with these people. I also find that faculty generally care more about stats, whereas younger adcoms, who are mostly students at my school, tend to look at applicants more holistically.

I completely agree that students have a very important role and are better at knowing good classmates. To say that you'll be able to determine the bolded from an application/PS is kind of presumptuous though. An interview, maybe but people can easily put on a fake impression for 30 minutes. This attitude will only hurt people who don't interview well, not those who are necessarily less than stellar people deep down.

 

[Lannister]

I completely agree that students have a very important role and are better at knowing good classmates. To say that you'll be able to determine this from an application/PS is kind of presumptuous. An interview, maybe...

I only review applicants post-interview. It's pretty easy to identify the psychos once they've interviewed.

 

[Redpancreas]

I only review applicants post-interview. It's pretty easy to identify the psychos once they've interviewed.

So if you review them post-interview do you see the interview? Interested to hear some examples?

 

[Lannister]

So if you review them post-interview do you see the interview? Interested to hear some examples?

Haha as much as I'd like to share some of the great stories I have, I try not to talk about specific applicants on SDN. I'd be pretty pissed if I found out someone was revealing the details of my application/interview to the internet, even if it's supposedly anonymous.

 

[Redpancreas]

Haha as much as I'd like to share some of the great stories I have, I try not to talk about specific applicants on SDN. I'd be pretty pissed if I found out someone was revealing the details of my application/interview to the internet, even if it's supposedly anonymous.

All I'm saying is I think you're overstating your ability to read people as you say "it's pretty easy to identify the psychos", "and I know what kind of person I don't want to deal with [post-interview]". You don't have to go into specific scenarios but what are some things that set you off? Are you finding lies in their application? Are they insulting their interviewers? That's what I'm asking. Overall, we're in agreement that students are critical in the process as we know what it takes to have these accomplishments.

 

[Lannister]

All I'm saying is I think you're overstating your ability to read people as you say "it's pretty easy to identify the psychos", "and I know what kind of person I don't want to deal with [post-interview]". You don't have to go into specific scenarios but what are some things that set you off? Are you finding lies in their application? Are they insulting their interviewers? That's what I'm asking.

Yes, there are people who make disparaging comments and assumptions about certain racial groups, low-income individuals, rural populations, etc. There are people who come across as extremely full of themselves and over-confident. There are people who lack the ability to be introspective and are incapable of admitting fault. There are people who are totally incapable of making conversation, not just during the interview but throughout the entire interview day. And if people are behaving that way during interview day, when you're supposed to be on your best behavior, I can only assume that those problems would be amplified when no one is watching. The vast majority of applicants are normal, good people. But there are absolutely some who stand out in a negative way. Sure, some of these people probably just had off days, but I can only judge applicants based on what we see during the interview day.

Edit: also, in response to the insulting the interviewer thing, I actually have had a student get frustrated with the task, roll their eyes, and stomp out of the room lol.

 

[Redpancreas]

Yes, there are people who make disparaging comments and assumptions about certain racial groups, low-income individuals, rural populations, etc. There are people who come across as extremely full of themselves and over-confident. There are people who lack the ability to be introspective and are incapable of admitting fault. There are people who are totally incapable of making conversation, not just during the interview but throughout the entire interview day. And if people are behaving that way during interview day, when you're supposed to be on your best behavior, I can only assume that those problems would be amplified when no one is watching. The vast majority of applicants are normal, good people. But there are absolutely some who stand out in a negative way. Sure, some of these people probably just had off days, but I can only judge applicants based on what we see during the interview day.

Edit: also, in response to the insulting the interviewer thing, I actually have had a student get frustrated with the task, roll their eyes, and stomp out of the room lol.

Oh goodness! Thanks for sharing. Sorry that my prodding came off as a tad confrontational. One of my personal beliefs I feel very strongly about is that you can’t really judge a person by their superficial mannerisms which is why I always try to challenge people who are making such assumptions, but what you’re saying here is very reasonable in my opinion. I too am astounded by what some med students and even residents say about racial groups and poor groups on rounds. The lack of introspection’s one of the roots to all of this IMO.

 

[Lannister]

Oh goodness! Thanks for sharing. Sorry that my prodding came off as a tad confrontational. One of my personal beliefs I feel very strongly about is that you can’t really judge a person by their superficial mannerisms which is why I always try to challenge people who are making such assumptions, but what you’re saying here is very reasonable in my opinion. I too am astounded by what some med students and even residents say about racial groups and poor groups on rounds. The lack of introspection’s one of the roots to all of this IMO.

Haha no problem, I meant the "psycho" thing jokingly, that didn't translate very well over the internet. We don't judge their worth as human beings, only their ability to succeed as medical students and physicians. And I suppose the process isn't foolproof. Sometimes people just say something without thinking it through, or things that made sense in their brain don't sound right out loud, and it's hard to differentiate those people from those who have serious character flaws.

 

[Redpancreas]

To get back on track since I kind of derailed this conversation, I think one strong point you can bring up OP is that students can see through bull****. We as students jump through the same hoops as future applicants and know shadowing and volunteering hours may be slightly rounded up (as an example) and may not be as easily impressed with some things while seeing other things as bigger deals.

 

[GotaQuestion]

To get back on track since I kind of derailed this conversation, I think one strong point you can bring up OP is that students can see through bull****. We as students jump through the same hoops as future applicants and know shadowing and volunteering hours may be slightly rounded up (as an example) and may not be as easily impressed with some things while seeing other things as bigger deals.

Yea, I will definitely bring that up. Thanks to the both of you for all the great points and personal stories. Wish me luck! Hopefully Admin sees our point of view in this.

 

[Redpancreas]

Yea, I will definitely bring that up. Thanks to the both of you for all the great points and personal stories. Wish me luck! Hopefully Admin sees our point of view in this.

It’s cool to see you care about a cause greater than yourself. Good luck. Also while Lannister was the only one who answered, I believe it’s standard practice to have an admissions committee with students on it and they definitely have it at my school where they get votes. I went on a lot of medical school interviews across the nation a few years back and most schools had figured out that was a good idea back then. I’m surprised it isn’t an LCME requirement, personally.

 

[Stagg737]

Hey Everyone,

I'm looking for information if medical schools have students have a voice in their admissions process. I currently attend a school that does not have this option, but I would like to write a proposal to hopefully get students on the admissions board. I've heard other schools have their med students as part of the board and for different schools the responsibilities/tasks are different. I wanted to get pretty much a survey if you've ever been on a medical school's admission board and answer a few questions, or give me some advice to try and present this proposal.

I need to know:
1. Do you have students as part of the admissions committee.
2. If so, what are your tasks and responsibilities.
3. Do you have a say in the final result or do you give recommendations.
4. Do you think there is a benefit/downside in having students as part of the admissions committee? 5. Any tips on trying to propose this to my school?

Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks y'all!

1. No
2. N/A
3. If we see/hear something really off or see an applicant that does something really outstanding, we're encouraged to talk to our admissions staff so they can relay this to the ADCOM. Idk how much weight this actually holds, but I am aware of one or two instances where an applicant was auto-rejected after something overheard/seen during the interview day when it was just applicants and student ambassadors.
4. Benefit.
5. Have a solid proposal/plan when you present it to your school. Tell them what responsibilities the students would have, how this would be organized, how you would attend ADCOM meetings with a med student schedule if you're proposing that, as well as how you'd select those students if the school doesn't have student ambassadors. Also, be open and flexible with suggestions, and make sure there's a solid number of people in your class/other classes supporting this plan. Admins tend to take things like this far more seriously when there are numbers behind it and it is well thought out (like most things in life).

All I'm saying is I think you're overstating your ability to read people as you say "it's pretty easy to identify the psychos", "and I know what kind of person I don't want to deal with [post-interview]". You don't have to go into specific scenarios but what are some things that set you off? Are you finding lies in their application? Are they insulting their interviewers? That's what I'm asking. Overall, we're in agreement that students are critical in the process as we know what it takes to have these accomplishments.

I'm at a DO school, so some of these may not apply. Have heard students lie. One literally said they didn't do any real volunteering and that during all their hospital volunteering they were basically in a room studying. Almost never talked to a patient. Had one applicant who literally spent the entire day on his phone when admins weren't around including the campus tour. Had someone answer a phone call and talk to someone else in the middle of me answering his question, and it wasn't a "I'm busy, let me call you later" answer. Answered and literally had a conversation. Those were personal experiences and I doubt any of them got in (maybe the first did, but idk).

I've also been told treating non-admissions staff poorly during the day or being generally an a-hole is grounds for our ADCOM to reconsider an applicant. On the positive side, going out of the way to help others during the day or somehow showing your generosity or compassion was a very good thing, though these seemed to be completely situational and would be less common than doing something to make yourself stand out negatively.

Edit: Also, trash talking someone you just interviewed with to students or other applicants is also a big no-no, possibly worth of an auto-reject.

 

[Redpancreas]

1. No
2. N/A
3. If we see/hear something really off or see an applicant that does something really outstanding, we're encouraged to talk to our admissions staff so they can relay this to the ADCOM. Idk how much weight this actually holds, but I am aware of one or two instances where an applicant was auto-rejected after something overheard/seen during the interview day when it was just applicants and student ambassadors.
4. Benefit.
5. Have a solid proposal/plan when you present it to your school. Tell them what responsibilities the students would have, how this would be organized, how you would attend ADCOM meetings with a med student schedule if you're proposing that, as well as how you'd select those students if the school doesn't have student ambassadors. Also, be open and flexible with suggestions, and make sure there's a solid number of people in your class/other classes supporting this plan. Admins tend to take things like this far more seriously when there are numbers behind it and it is well thought out (like most things in life).



I'm at a DO school, so some of these may not apply. Have heard students lie. One literally said they didn't do any real volunteering and that during all their hospital volunteering they were basically in a room studying. Almost never talked to a patient. Had one applicant who literally spent the entire day on his phone when admins weren't around including the campus tour. Had someone answer a phone call and talk to someone else in the middle of me answering his question, and it wasn't a "I'm busy, let me call you later" answer. Answered and literally had a conversation. Those were personal experiences and I doubt any of them got in (maybe the first did, but idk).

I've also been told treating non-admissions staff poorly during the day or being generally an a-hole is grounds for our ADCOM to reconsider an applicant. On the positive side, going out of the way to help others during the day or somehow showing your generosity or compassion was a very good thing, though these seemed to be completely situational and would be less common than doing something to make yourself stand out negatively.

Edit: Also, trash talking someone you just interviewed with to students or other applicants is also a big no-no, possibly worth of an auto-reject.

Thanks for the additional posts. See this is what I’m getting at. That first guy/girl who said they spent most the time on their phone during volunteering...do you fault the lack of clinical experience and stupidity of admitting that or do you reward the honesty? I think we as people (in life in general including myself, not anyone in particular) are quick to make decisions based on small things like that. I’ve heard of interviewers making comments about colors of suits as an extreme example. The answering the phone scenario is kind of hard to make an excuse for and I am in agreement there as even though it’s one instance, it’s such a lack of situational awareness. As for being an ass to the secretary, that’s wrong as well, but I don’t think all things on the interview day should be taken under a microscope. Sometimes small things can set off large reactions in our minds. As future physicians, we all like to see ourselves as analytical people who can diagnose things and see red-flags and I feel judgment is made too quickly at times. Ultimately I think stats should matter most as should substantial ECs. Writing ability should be a small factor and then as long as they don’t stick out consistently on the interview day and seem like decent communicators (they pay close attention to the exact question, seem introspective, etc) during the interview, we shouldn’t hyperfocus on minor gaffes we sometimes see and we shouldn’t develop these rules (this is an auto-reject, etc.).

 

[bumpy]

Hey Everyone,

I'm looking for information if medical schools have students have a voice in their admissions process. I currently attend a school that does not have this option, but I would like to write a proposal to hopefully get students on the admissions board. I've heard other schools have their med students as part of the board and for different schools the responsibilities/tasks are different. I wanted to get pretty much a survey if you've ever been on a medical school's admission board and answer a few questions, or give me some advice to try and present this proposal.

I need to know:
1. Do you have students as part of the admissions committee.
2. If so, what are your tasks and responsibilities.
3. Do you have a say in the final result or do you give recommendations.
4. Do you think there is a benefit/downside in having students as part of the admissions committee? 5. Any tips on trying to propose this to my school?

Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks y'all!

I find it super strange that there are med students who volunteer to interview applicants. Don't these students have more interesting things to do with their time? Like seriously these people who are so obsessed with med school freak me out with their brown nosing ways.

 

[GotaQuestion]

I find it super strange that there are med students who volunteer to interview applicants. Don't these students have more interesting things to do with their time? Like seriously these people who are so obsessed with med school freak me out with their brown nosing ways.

The reason I'm asking and wanting to go forward with this isn't to get points with admin or kiss ass. I would say this proposal is actually going to hurt me in their eyes. I'm trying to get it approved because some students that are getting accepted have the grade qualifications to join our school, but not the professionalism. We've had issues of students purposefully giving false information, sexual harassment, racist comments from students accepted for the following year, and the list goes on. My purpose in trying to do this is to have students be able to pick up on these things and hopefully limit these types of students from being accepted. If that's "brown nosing" then I guess that's what I'm doing?

 

[Lannister]

I find it super strange that there are med students who volunteer to interview applicants. Don't these students have more interesting things to do with their time? Like seriously these people who are so obsessed with med school freak me out with their brown nosing ways.

Half my school does it. We like our school, and want to give back.

 

[W19]

The reason I'm asking and wanting to go forward with this isn't to get points with admin or kiss ass. I would say this proposal is actually going to hurt me in their eyes. I'm trying to get it approved because some students that are getting accepted have the grade qualifications to join our school, but not the professionalism. We've had issues of students purposefully giving false information, sexual harassment, racist comments from students accepted for the following year, and the list goes on. My purpose in trying to do this is to have students be able to pick up on these things and hopefully limit these types of students from being accepted. If that's "brown nosing" then I guess that's what I'm doing?

There will be a lot of unqualified people. You would be shocked to find out what people are saying about other races when they are talking with someone within their own race...

 

[GotaQuestion]

There will be a lot of unqualified people. You would be shocked to find out what people are saying when they are talking with someone within their own race about other races...

Yea, finding out was a big shock, but the bigger issue was this accepted student said that directly to a current student with other med students as witnesses. When it was brought up to the adcom they basically said they would deal with it internally, but what ended up happening is the student was still accepted and received an unprofessionalism mark on their record.

 

[Stagg737]

Thanks for the additional posts. See this is what I’m getting at. That first guy/girl who said they spent most the time on their phone during volunteering...do you fault the lack of clinical experience and stupidity of admitting that or do you reward the honesty? I think we as people (in life in general including myself, not anyone in particular) are quick to make decisions based on small things like that. I’ve heard of interviewers making comments about colors of suits as an extreme example. The answering the phone scenario is kind of hard to make an excuse for and I am in agreement there as even though it’s one instance, it’s such a lack of situational awareness. As for being an ass to the secretary, that’s wrong as well, but I don’t think all things on the interview day should be taken under a microscope. Sometimes small things can set off large reactions in our minds. As future physicians, we all like to see ourselves as analytical people who can diagnose things and see red-flags and I feel judgment is made too quickly at times. Ultimately I think stats should matter most as should substantial ECs. Writing ability should be a small factor and then as long as they don’t stick out consistently on the interview day and seem like decent communicators (they pay close attention to the exact question, seem introspective, etc) during the interview, we shouldn’t hyperfocus on minor gaffes we sometimes see and we shouldn’t develop these rules (this is an auto-reject, etc.).

If they openly tell their interviewer that their volunteering wasn't really volunteering, then I'm fine with that. If they're telling me one thing and their interviewer that they had all this patient contact, that's a problem. Additionally, if that's their only listed clinical volunteering, it's also a problem, as it says they don't have any real clinical volunteering.

To your point about being a jerk to a secretary, it goes to their character. It's like the idea that you shouldn't date someone who is nice to you but treats waiters or people in 'lower' positions like crap. I'm also not talking about instances of questionable or misconceived rudeness, I'm talking about applicants making derogatory comments or being blatantly demeaning to students or staff while admissions staff/interviewers aren't present. As to whether that's too much of a snap-judgment, it's literally a single day (not even a whole day in most cases) where someone is supposed to present the "best" version of themselves that they can. So when a person is acting like a tool when they're supposed to be at their best, it says they either have some questionable judgment/behavior, or they're presenting their real self and their real self is an a$$. Neither of which is someone I'd prefer to go to medical school with or have treating patients.

 

[Stagg737]

Yea, finding out was a big shock, but the bigger issue was this accepted student said that directly to a current student with other med students as witnesses. When it was brought up to the adcom they basically said they would deal with it internally, but what ended up happening is the student was still accepted and received an unprofessionalism mark on their record.

Depending on whether or not the school discloses the reason for the mark against their professionalism in dean's letters or to residencies. If they do, it would be an auto-reject from many programs and will shut more doors than you'd think. If they don't, it's still going to be a red flag for many programs when the match time comes.

 

[GotaQuestion]

One other thing I forgot to ask was how do you actually choose the students to be a part of the admissions committee? I want it to be fair for every student that would like to take part, but also limit who is actually chosen.

 

[Lannister]

One other thing I forgot to ask was how do you actually choose the students to be a part of the admissions committee? I want it to be fair for every student that would like to take part, but also limit who is actually chosen.

At my school anyone can participate as an interviewer, it's first come first serve. If someone does a bad job, they're just not scheduled in the future. For admissions committee there was an application process, I don't think it was super competitive but I dunno their exact process for that.

 

[Redpancreas]

If they openly tell their interviewer that their volunteering wasn't really volunteering, then I'm fine with that. If they're telling me one thing and their interviewer that they had all this patient contact, that's a problem. Additionally, if that's their only listed clinical volunteering, it's also a problem, as it says they don't have any real clinical volunteering.

To your point about being a jerk to a secretary, it goes to their character. It's like the idea that you shouldn't date someone who is nice to you but treats waiters or people in 'lower' positions like crap. I'm also not talking about instances of questionable or misconceived rudeness, I'm talking about applicants making derogatory comments or being blatantly demeaning to students or staff while admissions staff/interviewers aren't present. As to whether that's too much of a snap-judgment, it's literally a single day (not even a whole day in most cases) where someone is supposed to present the "best" version of themselves that they can. So when a person is acting like a tool when they're supposed to be at their best, it says they either have some questionable judgment/behavior, or they're presenting their real self and their real self is an a$$. Neither of which is someone I'd prefer to go to medical school with or have treating patients.

Ok, so yeah treating a secretary was bad and an automatic red flag. I’m ok with that. I just didn’t insert a transition in my last post so my earlier post made it seem like I was kk with that which I’m not. As for the treating patients, this again goes at the subtle point. Again I like all the people in this discussion so far so please none of you take this personally but my concern is when you give some people authority, sometimes they let it go to their heads a bit and start being judgmental. Who are we to say we know who’d be the best treating patients? Like racism, all the -isms we hear about are wrong. There are subtle areas where I feel certain people can be too uptight enforcing social standards. I’m going to stop here because I think I’ve made my point a few times now. Anyone reading this on an admissions committee realize that those who are a bit quieter, may stutter, are a bit hesitant, think more before answers are not always weaker candidates than those who are glib conversationalists.

 

[Lannister]

Who are we to say we know who’d be the best treating patients?

Very true, what do I know as an M2? Thankfully most of my committee is made up of physicians who have more insight into this than I do. I'm glad there's a committee that makes these decisions and not just one person.

 

[Stagg737]

Ok, so yeah treating a secretary was bad and an automatic red flag. I’m ok with that. I just didn’t insert a transition in my last post so my earlier post made it seem like I was kk with that which I’m not. As for the treating patients, this again goes at the subtle point. Again I like all the people in this discussion so far so please none of you take this personally but my concern is when you give some people authority, sometimes they let it go to their heads a bit and start being judgmental. Who are we to say we know who’d be the best treating patients? Like racism, all the -isms we hear about are wrong. There are subtle areas where I feel certain people can be too uptight enforcing social standards. I’m going to stop here because I think I’ve made my point a few times now. Anyone reading this on an admissions committee realize that those who are a bit quieter, may stutter, are a bit hesitant, think more before answers are not always weaker candidates than those who are glib conversationalists.

I agree with most of that. I'd just like to emphasize that the situations I'm talking about are those in which the interviewee/applicant does something that is obviously off, not a situation that may just be misinterpreted.

 

[Goro]

I need to know:
1. Do you have students as part of the admissions committee.

Yes
Students serve as interviewers, and some also vote on the committee.


3. Do you have a say in the final result or do you give recommendations.

Yes


4. Do you think there is a benefit/downside in having students as part of the admissions committee?
Students can be quite harsh on candidates!

 

[mehc012]

Thanks for the additional posts. See this is what I’m getting at. That first guy/girl who said they spent most the time on their phone during volunteering...do you fault the lack of clinical experience and stupidity of admitting that or do you reward the honesty? I think we as people (in life in general including myself, not anyone in particular) are quick to make decisions based on small things like that. I’ve heard of interviewers making comments about colors of suits as an extreme example. The answering the phone scenario is kind of hard to make an excuse for and I am in agreement there as even though it’s one instance, it’s such a lack of situational awareness. As for being an ass to the secretary, that’s wrong as well, but I don’t think all things on the interview day should be taken under a microscope. Sometimes small things can set off large reactions in our minds. As future physicians, we all like to see ourselves as analytical people who can diagnose things and see red-flags and I feel judgment is made too quickly at times. Ultimately I think stats should matter most as should substantial ECs. Writing ability should be a small factor and then as long as they don’t stick out consistently on the interview day and seem like decent communicators (they pay close attention to the exact question, seem introspective, etc) during the interview, we shouldn’t hyperfocus on minor gaffes we sometimes see and we shouldn’t develop these rules (this is an auto-reject, etc.).

If they were being honest, they wouldn't have listed that experience as clinical experience on their app; they barely interacted with patients, and contributed pretty much nothing.

 

[Dr. Souk]

I think it also benefits the students who get the opportunity to serve on the admissions committee. It's a way to give back to the school and it gives the students more power to shape the community that they are a part of.

I think this is very important. It is always good to make sure that there is effective student perspective on so many committees (not just admissions) at a school. Also provides a wonderful experience to those involved. i know i enjoyed any committee membership I've had.