My Application Cycle -- Input?

[Insig]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi –

I’ve been following the SDN forums over the course of this application cycle silently. After having suffered through a miserable application cycle and finally being accepted to an MSTP, I would like to share my story and take input from anyone willing to share an experienced opinion – it will be greatly appreciated.

Summary 2010-2011 application summary

- Applied 25 schools (weighted heavily to the top 20 medical schools as defined by USNEWS) – MSTP only. I put together this list after discussing with MSTP program directors. All Secondaries were in by Oct 15, 2010.

- Undergrad
Philadelphia Ivy League Biochemistry c/o 2010, cGPA 3.90, sciGPA 3.86, Summa Cum Laude

- MCAT
Summer 2009 – 33M (BS12/PS12/V9)
Summer2010 – 33Q (BS14/PS11/V8)
Super score (if this matters?) – 35Q

- Research
6 months in physiology lab washing dishes/lab management etc…
1.5 years (3rd&4th years) in another physiology lab: My OWN project studying the role of GSK3 regulating lipid accumulation in liver using a mouse model (about 25-30 hrs/week???). Hypothesis was wrong (no pubs); however, in my time, I also managed to optimize an assay and thereby solve a technical problem that has been an issue for the field. Contd work in this lab during application cycle working on my project as well as others.
Two poster presentations/talks (one was part of the Undergrad Biochem Dept).

- Clinical
120+ Hours volunteer work in Hospital
Trained as an Emergency Medical Technician; however, did not practice due to crazy work schedule.

- Misc.
Running club & personal fitness hobbies, intramural sports, creative writing (Published for creative writing), other things which I cannot recall at the moment.

4 Interviews: Philadelphia MSTP, New Haven MSTP, Houston MSTP, Boston MSTP (Not Harvard)

Philadelphia – Rejected
New Haven – WL
Houston – WL à Rejected
Boston – Accepted

Interviews ranged from great to outstanding (except in Houston where one PI really didn’t warm-up to me – I asked her what “Obstetricians” do… *sigh* It had been a long day… and she happened to be OB/GYN…). How do I know? Well either they either flatly told me they were quite impressed or my interviews took a clear likening toward me as he or she would loosen up and begin to engage me in interesting (generally science-related) discussion probing the science from perspectives that would be valuable or interesting to their own work… as opposed to asking me questions in order to gauge my understanding of my research and my overall competency and a student. A number of my interviews extended-far-beyond the allocated 30-45 min.

I suppose what I am looking for is a broad evaluation of the overall quality of my candidacy. I will not be re-applying, but I would like to know: did I over-achieve, under-achieve, or perform as predicted? I might have been fooling myself; however, I did expect to receive more interviews (based on evaluations by Medical School PIs I met with at my Undergrad School’s Medical School).

Updates which did not make it into my application:
- Contributing author pub in a high-quality journal (not nature or science)
- PhiBetaKappa
- Community volunteering (non-clinical)

Would you re-apply if you were in my place? Is it worth going after a bigger program? My only concern is that I am foremost versed and intrigued by physiology and metabolism and potentially cancer biology from the point-of-view of metabolism (energy, cell growth& proliferation); however, my MSTP does not have a substantial department in metabolism. That said, I am always willing to learn something new and I know I will find interest in that too (as long as it pertains to physiology).

Thanks.

 

[Insig]

5 Great letters of rec.

Not URM

 

[silvermuse]

Your list of schools was too top-heavy. You have decent stats but not exceptional for MD/PhD - hence, the low interview:application ratio.

Personally, if I was in your situation, I would not re-apply. You got into a MSTP (NIH-funded, right?). You should be content, if not excited/thrilled. If you look at AAMC stats, there are about 40% or so (I don't recall the exact number) of people who apply MD/PhD who don't even receive one acceptance.

Congrats on your acceptance!

 

[Raziela]

Congrats on your acceptance! However, I was under the impression that UPenn did not reject post-interview?

 

[gbwillner]

First off, congrats on your acceptance. Take it and don't look back.

Second, based on your stats (quick rundown: Summa Kum Laude from Penn, 3.9 GPA, good MCAT) you were an excellent applicant. your 20:4 application:interview ratio is exceptionally low for your stats, IMHO. This leads me to believe there is something you are not telling us.

Either:
1. You have a criminal record or something of the sort killing your ap
2. One of your LOR sucks and they call you "douchebag"
3. Schools are questioning your intelligence for taking the MCAT 3 times when your score the first time was good enough to get into any program in the country. Seriously, what were you thinking?

 

[Taikonaut]

3 things may have been responsible:

1. MCAT - assuming your "super score" is the composite of all the highest scores from all categories, you took the MCAT twice. With no improvement. With a sub-10 verbal score. Both times. I think this may have weeded you out from many interview invites. The sub-10 verbal, no improvement, and lopsided score may have prevented schools from seeing the rest of your application.

2. Research - no offense meant, but I think your research is average based on friends currently in the MSTP at various places and applicants I have met over the years. What I am trying to say is, even if they saw your application there is nothing about your research that was exceptional. Perhaps crappy research and why MD/PhD essays contributed to this sentiment.

3. Timing - your app was submitted kind of late.

Your GPA, clinical hours and other stuff are all great. I really think the MCAT verbal is holding you back since this was an interview invite problem. That said, you performed as expected in my opinion unless there is some huge red flag in your application. Then you have overachieved. I commend you for wanting to improve yourself even after such a brutal app cycle for you. Now take your acceptance and go enjoy life. Do not even think about retaking the MCAT and reapplying.

 

[Insig]

Boston MSTP = Tufts -- The Program is NIH funded.

No red-flags -- I believe in the utmost transparency.

I retook the MCAT upon the suggestion of a program director (in hindsight, it was a terrible idea; I studied a few hours everynight after a full day of lab). That and I have only recently learned why I performed poorly on the verbal section (focusing too much on detail rather than tone -- if I took it again I would score much better, but I am not going to retake the test!).

My letters were outstanding (I talked to directors of programs that rejected me after the fact and they emphasized the quality of my letters). Most of the programs held my application until the very last deliberation meeting and rejected me at the last possible minute (which eliminated me for consideration my medical school committees).

I do appreciate the feedback. Thanks! And I'll definately be taking the offer at Tufts.

 

[24thGrade]

Maybe you wrote really crappy essays or did something sloppy on your application? That's really all I could think of. Your verbal undoubtedly hurt you some places, but it wouldn't along count for that many rejections. What you're saying really doesn't add up. You may not have a good perception of how well your interviews went... but that wouldn't explain the lack of interviews. It pretty much has to be you application(s) or letters.

 

[whiteshadodw]

Maybe you wrote really crappy essays or did something sloppy on your application? That's really all I could think of. Your verbal undoubtedly hurt you some places, but it wouldn't along count for that many rejections. What you're saying really doesn't add up. You may not have a good perception of how well your interviews went... but that wouldn't explain the lack of interviews. It pretty much has to be you application(s) or letters.

could be the time of the application. i read at one school (can't remember) that they interview in october, and november.

 

[24thGrade]

could be the time of the application. i read at one school (can't remember) that they interview in october, and november.

Ah. skimmed over that. Definitely a big factor.

 

[Ombret]

Insig, first and foremost congratulations on your acceptance, there are many people who would love to have even one MSTP offer. It sounds like you know this and are grateful even if you are still a little disappointed.

It sounds to me like you did get a little bit screwed. You sound like a perfectly dandy applicant (not unlike my own profile back in the day, to be frank) and I would have expected more interviews AND acceptances for you. The admissions equation is obviously a lot more complicated and random than we can capture with statistics; there must be some residual variation in the system, otherwise the admissions predictors would be accurate 100% of the time.

MCAT verbal probably lost you some interviews, mostly at places where MD and MSTP both get to vet the applicants at the outset. Remember, this is the MOST important subscore. So that is an unfortunate one to be weaker on. Beyond that I can't see anything I would really blame this on.

In this line of work, you will encounter lots of these random speedbumps along the way and it is a rare (and benighted) individual who does not eventually get screwed in some way. Your PhD project goes south even though you did everything right... you try hard on the wards but your attending hates you... you write a great grant application and it gets hosed anyway (like MOST great grants currently do). So you are just learning the lesson early and will be a better person for it.

 

[koston7]

Congrats on the acceptance...maybe try listing the schools by name instead of city next time....New Haven MSTP....kinda douchey

 

[StIGMA]

For top 20 programs, your MCAT and research experiences are below average. You were given a fair shot at a few top programs, and you should have applied more broadly/earlier based on your below average MCAT and research.

For the program I am in, your MCAT is ~3 points below average and your research (and research intensity) ~1 year less than average, for comparison. We have identical verbal scores, and we both would have had more interviews if the verbal score was higher, but I do not think this limited you - the MCAT sum limited you. I would have expected around the same number of interviews (perhaps a handful more) and a few more acceptances with your application, depending on how well you interviews went. I greatly expect that your less than average research led you to perform below average when discussing your research at interviews, which is one of the most important factors in admission.

 

[Insig]

Essays: My undergrad offers pre-med advisors who review applicant essays (at least as far as the primary application goes). I also made it a point to take help from friends in Medical School already and even mentors who are at Penn MSTP. Several post-docs in my lab reviewed my research statement. I am confident in the quality of my essays. However, I should point out that I went back and talked to some program directors and it is worth noting that the board at UWisc brought up the point that my MD-PhD essay did not come across as compelling enough for their taste; however, this was secondary to the MCAT score. UCLA and Duke only highlighted my cumulative MCAT score as problematic.

Research: With all due respect, even though I may not have as many years of research as many of the more qualified applicants, I think it is unfair for one to suggest that my limited research time will necessarily limit my ability to discuss my work on a higher level. In fact, given my below average MCAT score and less than impressive research (superficially), I think it was the interview that swayed things in my favor. Being a Penn undergraduate, I contacted a few of the professors I interviewed with at Penn and they told me that apart from my paper app, they were surprised that I was eliminated at Penn (Also note: Penn assures interview spots for Penn undergrads in good standing -- this may have played a role).

I feel as though I should have had more interviews -- yes. However, I feel given the interviews I did receive, it was extremely difficult for me to promise myself even 1 acceptance (even Tufts only accepts 5 people/~100 interviewed -- I was at the top of the waitlist). Something must have set me apart: either the letters of rec, essays, or interviews. It is my bias that my letters of rec and interviews were the game changers. An interviewer at Baylor felt it was not worth his time to interview me because of the quality of my letters; he figured I wouldn't even attend BCM should I be admitted. Does this suggest anything?

Sorry about the 'City Name' MSTP -- I was in an odd/frustrated mood. Its surprising how cathartic posting on SDN can actually be...

Thanks for the input everyone.

 

[Insig]

Tier 2 -- Rejection

 

[skiing]

I think your stats are good (not great), but your research is average/below average and that goes for clinical as well. You've only done 1.5 years of "real" research, and had zero pubs going in. A lot of people have done 4 or more years, have pubs, and have participated in numerous research programs like scholarships/etc (amgens, beckman, howard hughes, for example) - indicating independence, creativity, and leadership on their own project. Just to highlight what you might have been up against at top schools. If you wanted to do better, I would suggest doing 2 more years of research and planning, leading, and publishing your own project and getting significantly more research experience. Since your stats were ok (about average or below for some mstp's) and your research/clinical acceptable but not outstanding, I think that you did fine this cycle and should not reapply. Anyway, didn't mean to be harsh, but just giving my analysis from an objective point of view. Besides, 'tier' has zero bearing on future earning potential or academic job potential. So congrats on your acceptance, be proud of yourself!

 

[StIGMA]

Research: With all due respect, even though I may not have as many years of research as many of the more qualified applicants, I think it is unfair for one to suggest that my limited research time will necessarily limit my ability to discuss my work on a higher level.

I fully suspect you are as talented, intelligent, and hard-working as the top applicants in the country. I suggested two areas (MCAT and research) that are undeniably lacking in your application (and they have no bearing to your intelligence/talent/work ethic/future potential, imo).

As for research, in my year ~50% of the students (of 15) have taken 1+ years off, and 20% of them took 3 or 4 years off post-graduation for full-time research or research-related activities, in addition to their extensive undergraduate research. If you had more research experience (eg, decided to apply 1-2 years later than you did), it very well may have increased your program options. Many of these students were accepted to Penn and Yale, although they also had around the MCAT range I suggested previously.

More research would have also allowed you to discuss research at a higher level- and to suggest otherwise is naive. I cannot say if taking time off for research at this point will help your future application chances, but this is a point you should bring up to the UPenn program if you are seriously considering reapplying.

 

[Ombret]

For the sake of any potential applicants out there I am going to dissent a little and say that I have not seen that 4 years of research, or taking up to 4 years off to do extra research, are necessary to successfully apply for MSTP. Sure, it wouldn't hurt. But some of those people sound like they've already virtually earned their PhD!

Programs want to see that you have proven that you understand the research life, that you like it (you show this by doing so much of it that you could not possibly have just been beefing up your app), that you can do it successfully (this is where papers help), that you were not just getting spoonfed (this is where being in multiple labs helps), and that you look, talk and reason like a scientist (this is why they want to talk about science in interviews, notwithstanding that they probably don't care about your favorite protein). That is all. It is still OK to be an undergraduate-grade researcher, you just have to be particularly promising as a grad school prospect as well as as a med school prospect.

I did about three years of research as an undergrad including three summers, but I would not say my work set the world on fire. Nonetheless this seemed very adequate at the very fancy MSTP that I attended. My classmates were all in about the same league. Sure, more is better; the OP may be a little bit on the low side of average. But he was not delusional to apply (I know, no one is saying he was).

 

[rrxr]

Sure, more is better; the OP may be a little bit on the low side of average. But he was not delusional to apply (I know, no one is saying he was).

I'm just a lowly undergrad, but from what I've gathered from average stats and general thinking here, what WAS kind of delusional of the OP (no offense meant) was to apply "weighted heavily to the top 20 medical schools" when he was a little low on research and MCAT. aka, he was overconfident. Would you agree with that?

 

[Neuronix]

Shrug, all we can give on SDN is crystal-ball style general advice. It's hard to comment why one person does well and another does not do so well. Regardless, I wouldn't call this a miserable application cycle. The OP made it into a MSTP funded MD/PhD program. From there, they have all the opportunity in the world.

I absolutely would not reapply.

 

[bobow98]

Congrats on Tufts, OP.
I declined to interview due to the crazy snowstorm on the Tuesday evening I was supposed to drive down.

I wouldn't mind living next to Boston's chinatown to get good food whenever I wanted.