Negative aspects of reapplying

[MDJatt here]

Well, i guess your chances of getting accepted the second or third time are much less ( could be 50% or even more) than the first.
What do y'all have to say about it????
and do mention all the negative aspects of reapplying
thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[megaman1x]

Since you are in Toronto I'll say this, there are zero aspects to re-applying in Canada. In fact, if anything, it helps you. Since you will gain experience. As well I know UBC favors re-applicants.

Negative stigma around re-applicants is an American thing. Canadian schools throw out your application and do not even know you are a re-applicant unless you wish to state it in your essay you have to submit or state it in your interview.

 

[MDJatt here]

Since you are in Toronto I'll say this, there are zero aspects to re-applying in Canada. In fact, if anything, it helps you. Since you will gain experience. As well I know UBC favors re-applicants.

Negative stigma around re-applicants is an American thing. Canadian schools throw out your application and do not even know you are a re-applicant unless you wish to state it in your essay you have to submit or state it in your interview.

oh is that rite!!, i did'nt know that but in most of the cases they ask the same question in the interview, so there are bright chances of you being rejected rite away if they get to know you cud'nt make it in the first attempt, isn't this a possibility???
thanks

 

[MDJatt here]

oh is that rite!!, i did'nt know that but in most of the cases they ask the same question in the interview, so there are bright chances of you being rejected rite away if they get to know you cud'nt make it in the first attempt, isn't this a possibility???
thanks

But i ll try to be optimistic in my approach

 

[megaman1x]

oh is that rite!!, i did'nt know that but in most of the cases they ask the same question in the interview, so there are bright chances of you being rejected rite away if they get to know you cud'nt make it in the first attempt, isn't this a possibility???
thanks

They are not allowed to ask if you've applied before. If they ever do, you can file a complaint and be granted another interview by a different panel.

 

[MDJatt here]

They are not allowed to ask if you've applied before. If they ever do, you can file a complaint and be granted another interview by a different panel.

thx a lot buddy
i respect your statements

 

[musiclink213]

Assuming that you have improved your app from the last time you applied, I don't see why reapplying is so bad, or why it should decrease your chances any. Call me naive, but considering the average age of matric. is around 24, you bettya there were a few reapps in there.

 

[datsa]

Some med schools in the U.S. limit how many times you can reapply; most will state so if you ask them; 2 or three is usually the norm.

 

[Law2Doc]

Call me naive, but considering the average age of matric. is around 24, you bettya there were a few reapps in there.

The average age is driven by nontrads to a much greater extent than by reapps. Most reapps are only a year or two out. Nontrads can be decades, hence a relatively small number of them can drive the average age pretty significantly. But yes, there are reapps in there as well.

 

[FoughtFyr]

The average age is driven by nontrads to a much greater extent than by reapps. Most reapps are only a year or two out. Nontrads can be decades, hence a relatively small number of them can drive the average age pretty significantly. But yes, there are reapps in there as well.

Not true at all. In my class there were two male non-URMs who didn't reapply (out of 40). When I worked on an adcom, we ABSOLUTELY favored reapplicants. It showed commitment to becoming a physician. That commitment is key to finishing the program.

- H

 

[Law2Doc]

Not true at all.

I have no clue as to how your post negates my post. The fact that one school has a lot of reapplicants has nothing to do with the fact that the national average age is higher largely due to an increase in nontrads.

 

[FoughtFyr]

I have no clue as to how your post negates my post. The fact that one school has a lot of reapplicants has nothing to do with the fact that the national average age is higher largely due to an increase in nontrads.

I disagree. Highly. It is not merely my school - talk to residents, or matriculants in medical school. The reapplication rate is MUCH higher than you think. I've been active on an adcom, served as a peer mentor to many applicants, and was on several AMSA committees, one specifically dealing with non-trads. While the age increase may be due in part to non-trads, the re-application rate is MUCH higher than you seem to believe.

- H

 

[Law2Doc]

I disagree. Highly. It is not merely my school - talk to residents, or matriculants in medical school. The reapplication rate is MUCH higher than you think. I've been active on an adcom, served as a peer mentor to many applicants, and was on several AMSA committees, one specifically dealing with non-trads. While the age increase may be due in part to non-trads, the re-application rate is MUCH higher than you seem to believe.

- H

Again, I don't think I ever said what I thought the rate was, or even that it was low. It's just that even if there are ten times as many reapps as nontrads, that wouldn't necessarilly move the average age as much as a bunch of 30+ year olds would. And from what I've seen this latter is more the case, as most of the reapplicants are only a year or two out of college.

 

[scpod]

...that wouldn't necessarilly move the average age as much as a bunch of 30+ year olds would. And from what I've seen this latter is more the case, as most of the reapplicants are only a year or two out of college.

Agreed. The two MD schools in my home state typically accept 20 to 25% of each class as re-applicants. 95% of those are second-time applicants (most right out of undergrad). However, they are not particulary accomodating when it comes to non-trads (unless they are under 30).

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

So theoretically, if I wanted to apply to 5 or 6 schools a year earlier than originaly planned, just to see if I get in and save me the aggrevation of applying to rear 30 schools later on...could it hurt me being a reapplicant?

 

[QofQuimica]

Well, i guess your chances of getting accepted the second or third time are much less ( could be 50% or even more) than the first.
What do y'all have to say about it????
and do mention all the negative aspects of reapplying
thanks

I think that what matters is how much you improve your application from one attempt to the next. If you get rejected, do nothing new, and simply reapply the following year without improving your app, you're not likely to get a different response than you did the last time. But if you find out what your weak areas are and work to improve them (ex. do a post bac, retake the MCAT, get new LORs, write new essays, add new ECs, etc.), you can make yourself a competitive applicant, and I don't think your status as a reapplicant is held against you. I can tell you that I was extremely successful as a reapplicant on my fourth attempt, and I'm now an M1 on scholarship.

 

[dr. dreigh]

I think that what matters is how much you improve your application from one attempt to the next. If you get rejected, do nothing new, and simply reapply the following year without improving your app, you're not likely to get a different response than you did the last time. But if you find out what your weak areas are and work to improve them (ex. do a post bac, retake the MCAT, get new LORs, write new essays, add new ECs, etc.), you can make yourself a competitive applicant, and I don't think your status as a reapplicant is held against you. I can tell you that I was extremely successful as a reapplicant on my fourth attempt, and I'm now an M1 on scholarship.

Congrats! I applied for med school last year and didn't get in. I didn't even get an interview. I had spoken to admissions counselors about my app and they all agreed that my weaknesses are my numbers: undergrad sci gpa is 2.8, total undergrad gpa is 3.1, and some postbacc classes at a community classes (gpa 4.0) helped those numbers out a bit. My MCAT score is 26Q.

I plan to retake the MCAT in 2007 or 2008. Right now, I am enrolled in an informal post-baccalaureate program at a California State University. I plan to take 3 to 4 upper division science courses for 2 to 3 semesters. Recently, I have been accepted to a Master in Forensics Science Program at Drexel University. It is a new program that started in fall 2005. It lasts for 18-months and includes Anatomy and Physiology, Pathology, and Toxicology for Forensics Scientists among other courses.

I would be happy to pursue the informal post-baccalaureate program or the MFS program. However, I am hearing mixed opinions on which path would help my application more and potentially increase my chances of being accepted into a medical school. I have posted up someting about this before but didn't get much feedback. From your experiences, what do you think is more important: improving the existing undergrad gpa or showing schools that you can succeed in a grad program?

I would appreciate any help that you could give me. Thank you!

 

[QofQuimica]

Congrats! I applied for med school last year and didn't get in. I didn't even get an interview. I had spoken to admissions counselors about my app and they all agreed that my weaknesses are my numbers: undergrad sci gpa is 2.8, total undergrad gpa is 3.1, and some postbacc classes at a community classes (gpa 4.0) helped those numbers out a bit. My MCAT score is 26Q.

I plan to retake the MCAT in 2007 or 2008. Right now, I am enrolled in an informal post-baccalaureate program at a California State University. I plan to take 3 to 4 upper division science courses for 2 to 3 semesters. Recently, I have been accepted to a Master in Forensics Science Program at Drexel University. It is a new program that started in fall 2005. It lasts for 18-months and includes Anatomy and Physiology, Pathology, and Toxicology for Forensics Scientists among other courses.

I would be happy to pursue the informal post-baccalaureate program or the MFS program. However, I am hearing mixed opinions on which path would help my application more and potentially increase my chances of being accepted into a medical school. I have posted up someting about this before but didn't get much feedback. From your experiences, what do you think is more important: improving the existing undergrad gpa or showing schools that you can succeed in a grad program?

I would appreciate any help that you could give me. Thank you!

I'm not on an adcom, so my opinion should be taken with a whole shaker of salt. I think that the best thing for you to do is to call the schools where you want to apply and ask them what you should do. I would say that a large part of my success was due to getting pre-application counseling from the admissions directors at my state schools. They were super helpful; one of them (REL) even posts here on SDN sometimes. You can contact any school that rejected you last cycle and ask them for advice on how to improve your apps. Some may not want to speak to you, but some will take the time to do it, and again, it's invaluable advice straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

With that caveat, my understanding is that doing a post bac is more helpful than doing a grad program, for two reasons: first, grad grades tend to be higher for everyone (most programs don't let you go below a 3.0 if you want to stay in good academic standing); and second, your MS coursework will not raise your UG GPA (it gets calculated separately), but your post bac GPA will. Since your overall GPA is below a 3.0, and it seems that a lot of schools screen out people below that minimum GPA, I think it would be helpful for you to get your GPA up to a 3.0. Only the post bac option would allow you to do that. At the same time, if you really want to do the MS, then I think you shouldn't not do it just because it won't raise your GPA. It's just that if you're making your decision solely based on what will help your app, and you don't care which way you wind up going, I think that the post bac will help you more. But again, I'd check with the schools first before doing anything. Hope this helps, and best of luck to you.

 

[NY Musicologist]

I can tell you that I was extremely successful as a reapplicant on my fourth attempt, and I'm now an M1 on scholarship.

I'm just AMAZED that you, of all people, didn't get in the very first time you tried. What were they thinking?!? Makes me scared for me...

 

[QofQuimica]

I'm just AMAZED that you, of all people, didn't get in the very first time you tried. What were they thinking?!? Makes me scared for me...

I wasn't a very competitive (or strategic) applicant ten years ago as a trad.

 

[dr. dreigh]

Thanks for the advice about post-bac vs. masters program. I've been getting mixed opinions from counselors, so it's becoming a pretty confusing and stressful decision for me. I still have a few more admissions people to talk to, so hopefully the choice becomes clearer.