Oh man, now I don't know what or whom to believe.

[alexfoleyc]

Our university occasionally has med school admission officers come and speak to us. And it seems like some schools are ALL about the numbers while others are more about the individual. One of the adcoms said "After you made the initial gpa and mcat screening, we do not go back and look at your numbers. We do from here on look at your other qualities that a piece of paper will not represent." We had an adcom from another med school say "It is not explicitly stated, but it is really important that you get As in your pre-reqs. We pay special attention to each of your science classes." ---This statement killed me. Seriously. What are you comments about these statements? I know it is no big news that you should do well in your pre-reqs, but saying that getting nothing but an A is kind of harsh. I mean a B or a B+ here and there in a science class will not kill your chances.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoSpursGo]

It's definitely a school-by-school thing, and hearing one thing from one adcom won't tell you anything about how another school does things. That's why people have to apply to 20ish schools because what works good at one school might not work at another, and there's just no good way to know which schools your app looks good at for sure before you go in.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Our university occasionally has med school admission officers come and speak to us. And it seems like some schools are ALL about the numbers while others are more about the individual. One of the adcoms said "After you made the initial gpa and mcat screening, we do not go back and look at your numbers. We do from here on look at your other qualities that a piece of paper will not represent." We had an adcom from another med school say "It is not explicitly stated, but it is really important that you get As in your pre-reqs. We pay special attention to each of your science classes." ---This statement killed me. Seriously. What are you comments about these statements? I know it is no big news that you should do well in your pre-reqs, but saying that getting nothing but an A is kind of harsh. I mean a B or a B+ here and there in a science class will not kill your chances.

i call bs on both..
adcoms care a buttload about your numbers and stats too the point that its 70% of what base whether or not your accepted or not. EC's of course are important too.. but stats are very very important

and you dont need A's in every pre-req.. adcoms care more about your ugpa and bcpm rather then individual courses.. however he was likely saying that you should aim for A's in every pre-requisite so you have a good gpa.

 

[DrYoda]

One of the adcoms said "After you made the initial gpa and mcat screening, we do not go back and look at your numbers. We do from here on look at your other qualities that a piece of paper will not represent."

This statement doesn't necessarily mean they are less about numbers. For all we know these style schools set their initial screen #'s sky high.

 

[FallenHero]

As stated above numbers do play a huge role even if the school claims to be about the whole applicant. Lets get that name changed from alexfoleyC to alexfoleyA.

 

[boaz]

Our university occasionally has med school admission officers come and speak to us. And it seems like some schools are ALL about the numbers while others are more about the individual. One of the adcoms said "After you made the initial gpa and mcat screening, we do not go back and look at your numbers. We do from here on look at your other qualities that a piece of paper will not represent." We had an adcom from another med school say "It is not explicitly stated, but it is really important that you get As in your pre-reqs. We pay special attention to each of your science classes." ---This statement killed me. Seriously. What are you comments about these statements? I know it is no big news that you should do well in your pre-reqs, but saying that getting nothing but an A is kind of harsh. I mean a B or a B+ here and there in a science class will not kill your chances.

But this could also mean that they consider top numbers a sine qua non ALONG WITH strong clinical experience etc. I can't imagine that there still exist schools that care almost EXCLUSIVELY about numbers.

 

[Usernamed]

Some of the worst experiences I've ever had have precipitated from talking to health professions advisers and med school adcoms. I always try to put what they're saying in context: who are they talking to (just me or a large group of pre-meds), what question (if any) are they answering, etc.

And if I still can't shake the nerves, I think, well, it's a statistical improbability that everyone else if going to have a pristine academic h(x). Or, if I'm really desperate (like I was during o.chem), I say to heck with the numbers, I'm going through with it anyway.

These are dark times, young padawan, focus on the Force. I'm a fairly good student, but I think we all have crappy days/weeks/semesters like this and SDN is not always confidence-building. Keep your head up and eye on the prize.

 

[skyblue2000]

Is there a way to tell which ones pay more attention to stats versus anything else?

 

[long]

It's definitely a school by school thing, which is why you have to try to do all the right things AND apply broadly, because it's hard to tell what every school is looking for. I applied to a bunch of schools last year and didn't get in with only 2 late interviews. This year, with very little change on my application, I have 6 interviews so far and at least 1 acceptance and only one of the schools I interviewed at was one I applied to last year. There was no way for me to know that those "new" (to me) schools were going to like me more than the ones I applied to last year, so it definitely involves a little bit of luck.

 

[Usernamed]

Some of the best advise I've ever received came from a buddy of mine who went straight through college to MD school, "I literally did everything my health professions adviser told me not to do." He never took more than 12-hours a semester and only ever took 1 or MAYBE 2 science courses a semester.

When he decided he wanted to be a pre-med, he had a sub 2.5 GPA. He ended up having to double-major to fix it (still, it was only a 3.4 or something by the time he applied) and only scored a 28 on the MCAT. He's a white, male, 20-something. He was accepted to 3 different programs, ended up accepting a spot a UT-Southwestern. He only finished in the middle of his MD school class and STILL got an ortho residency at Michigan, no less.

Look, I know these are med school adcoms you're talking to and not HP advisers, but you gotta have confidence in the application you're going to be putting together. I'm convinced it's exactly why the guy I described above has been able to get a spot at one of the best public MD schools in the country and one of the most competitive residencies out there.

Work hard, do your best, and have confidence. Finish your plan, apply and interview with confidence.

[dismount soapbox]

 

[avo]

Is there a way to tell which ones pay more attention to stats versus anything else?

Not really. Some people might say use the GPA/MCAT averages of accepted applicants at a given school, but that's not really accurate, since the applicant pool at Harvard obviously has higher average statistics than that at Podunk Medical School.

So, Harvard might not look at numbers as heavily, but by virtue of their applicant pool, they get students with higher statistics. Meanwhile, Podunk might be all about the numbers, but if the highest MCAT score in their pool is a 32, it's not going to be reflected in their averages.

Therefore, no, there's no real objective way to look at what a school emphasizes. The best way to figure out what they're about is to go to the interview and get a feel for the students.

 

[avo]

Assuming you get an interview. The spreadsheet also shows 10th percentile stats, so you can get a feel of the minimum stats also. It gives you a rough idea of whether or not you'll be screened out before they even consider interviewing you, or looking further into your app. beyond GPA/MCAT.

If you don't even get an interview, there are more gaps in your application than ECs that are just barely off, or an MCAT score a couple points too low, at least in the context of that institution.

Again, though, no matter how you calculate these 10th percentile stats, it doesn't change the fact that Harvard is naturally going to look higher than some random school. What if everyone who scored a 40 or higher on the MCAT suddenly started avoiding Harvard? Obviously those numbers will dip; does that mean that Harvard cares less about numbers at that point?

When there are so many variables, and so much self-selection, and so many different schools, each with a slightly different agenda, it's impossible to calculate any sort of statistics with simple methodology.

 

[JJMrK]

i call bs on both..
adcoms care a buttload about your numbers and stats too the point that its 70% of what base whether or not your accepted or not. EC's of course are important too.. but stats are very very important

and you dont need A's in every pre-req.. adcoms care more about your ugpa and bcpm rather then individual courses.. however he was likely saying that you should aim for A's in every pre-requisite so you have a good gpa.

Where are you coming up with this percentage. Just making it up?

If you don't even get an interview, there are more gaps in your application than ECs that are just barely off, or an MCAT score a couple points too low, at least in the context of that institution.

Again, though, no matter how you calculate these 10th percentile stats, it doesn't change the fact that Harvard is naturally going to look higher than some random school. What if everyone who scored a 40 or higher on the MCAT suddenly started avoiding Harvard? Obviously those numbers will dip; does that mean that Harvard cares less about numbers at that point?

When there are so many variables, and so much self-selection, and so many different schools, each with a slightly different agenda, it's impossible to calculate any sort of statistics with simple methodology.

Not necessarily. Schools have plenty of insanely qualified applicants to interview. Not getting an interview could just be 1-2 points on the MCAT.

 

[avo]

Where are you coming up with this percentage. Just making it up?



Not necessarily. Schools have plenty of insanely qualified applicants to interview. Not getting an interview could just be 1-2 points on the MCAT.

I suppose that's fair enough, although I still feel that if you don't even get an interview, then asking what you need for an acceptance is a ways off.

 

[FluffyRabbit]

I suppose that's fair enough, although I still feel that if you don't even get an interview, then asking what you need for an acceptance is a ways off.

The general impression I have gotten is that all people who are invited to interview are qualified to attend that school - otherwise, they wouldn't be bothering to meet you in person. However, as everyone is sick of hearing, there are more qualified applicants than spots, and the interview helps them make that decision.

Actually, if any particular medical school were to give out acceptances completely randomly from their interviewed pool, it would probably work out a lot better than one might expect.

 

[apumic]

Yeah, there is a spreadsheet floating around that breaks down all of the schools by the stats of accepted/matriculated students. Maybe someone will be nice and send it to you if you give them your e-mail address.

It's not going to answer the question asked specifically, though; however, it does use the US News and other rankings of schools to help estimate what might be most important to a given school (i.e., schools w/ a TON of NIH funding probably care quite a bit more as to whether or not an applicant has research experience than, say, a school w/ virtually no such funding; likewise w/ schools that are near the top in clinical training -- schools like Denver -- #4 in Clinical Training/#29 Research, IIRC -- care an awful lot about clinical experience as a premed, for instance). The spreadsheet may, therefore, given you some idea of what a school likely focuses on, as will looking at their avg stats. (Obviously, a school averaging 3.85 GPAs and with a 10% of 3.7 probably isn't going to take you seriously at all if you have a 3.6 or less, barring some extreme mitigating factors to your app.)

 

[apumic]

Not really. Some people might say use the GPA/MCAT averages of accepted applicants at a given school, but that's not really accurate, since the applicant pool at Harvard obviously has higher average statistics than that at Podunk Medical School.

So, Harvard might not look at numbers as heavily, but by virtue of their applicant pool, they get students with higher statistics. Meanwhile, Podunk might be all about the numbers, but if the highest MCAT score in their pool is a 32, it's not going to be reflected in their averages.

Therefore, no, there's no real objective way to look at what a school emphasizes. The best way to figure out what they're about is to go to the interview and get a feel for the students.

Actually, you can. If you look at the percentiles and approximate an SD, including the level of skew to the distribution, you can see whether or not a given school seems to accept applicants from a wide range or not. Additionally, looking at %s of matriculants w/ a given set of ECs (i.e., research, clinical, volunteer) gives you some indication as well. These are what the spreadsheet uses to approximate just how important ECs are. The methodology used is obviously imperfect (how could it not be?) but for a basic idea of where you might want to shoot as far as apps go, I believe it is at least an useful tool for what the OP asked there.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Where are you coming up with this percentage. Just making it up?



Not necessarily. Schools have plenty of insanely qualified applicants to interview. Not getting an interview could just be 1-2 points on the MCAT.

its more a statistic advisors at my school say..
30% EC's and life experiences 20% mcat and 50% grades

 

[JJMrK]

its more a statistic advisors at my school say..
30% EC's and life experiences 20% mcat and 50% grades

I don't think it's quantifiable in that way. Or it it is, it's a tiered system.

Tier I: 100% do you have the numbers?
If yes, move on.

Tier II: 100% do you have the ECs?
If yes, an interview is possible.

 

[avo]

Actually, you can. If you look at the percentiles and approximate an SD, including the level of skew to the distribution, you can see whether or not a given school seems to accept applicants from a wide range or not. Additionally, looking at %s of matriculants w/ a given set of ECs (i.e., research, clinical, volunteer) gives you some indication as well. These are what the spreadsheet uses to approximate just how important ECs are. The methodology used is obviously imperfect (how could it not be?) but for a basic idea of where you might want to shoot as far as apps go, I believe it is at least an useful tool for what the OP asked there.

Are you referring to this 'Chance Me' spreadsheet that was floating around? When plugging in my numbers into that sheet, I was given a 90 percent chance of an interview at some of the top schools. In my opinion, that's completely off base for ANY school.

Additionally, no statistical process can take into account the self selection that occurs. If person A with great extracurriculars but a 32 MCAT doesn't apply to Harvard, you're not going to get an accurate picture of the entire range. Same with the person with a 40 MCAT who doesn't apply to their local schools.

As for the bolded portion, you assume that matriculants are a representative sample of the accepted pool. Especially at 'lower-tier' schools, that's inaccurate. Plenty of extremely qualified candidates get into those schools, and also get into top 10 schools, and decline the acceptances at the 'lower-tier' schools. That's going to throw off that analysis. Furthermore, you're trying to QUANTIFY stuff like a letter of recommendation from a volunteer supervisor. Doesn't that strike you as a little ridiculous?

Finally, how does one factor in the correlation between a good MCAT/GPA and ECs? People who have better grades (if you remove the outliers who don't study much and get good grades) generally have put more effort into their medical school preparation as a whole. That means they usually put more time into ECs to buff up their application.

What does that above paragraph mean? Well, it means that when Harvard accepts a class that has an average MCAT score of 36, the accepted most likely ALSO have strong extracurriculars. How do you figure out if Harvard actually emphasizes one or the other more than another medical school, or if it's just the natural correlation between the two?



Without accounting for the factors mentioned here, I don't think any sort of quantification of a process where SO many steps involve human reasoning is possible. Maybe you can compare between schools that share a similar perception to pre-med students. For example, comparing statistics/ECs between Stanford and Harvard might work. Comparing them across all medical schools? Nay.


EDIT: The one thing that really grated me on that spreadsheet was the idea that you tried to give points for things like 'Does your extracurricular activity show you have a good work ethic?' How do you expect a student who's filling in blanks on that thing to have the perspective of a committee member when they go through it?

And what information did you use to calculate the impact of a letter of recommendation from a research supervisor? Or from a volunteer supervisor? Does anyone even publish information regarding from where students got their letters of recommendation? How about the schools that say letters of recommendation from academic faculty >> anything else?

 

[halekulani]

schools screen so numbers are important
once you pass a certain threshold (3.7/34 if i were to be an adcom; at this point the quality of candidate is really in the ECs), it's more about your application.

of course, they RANK your application which means the more above their screening values, the better your chances


which ultimately brings me to my final point
numbers will provide you the best opportunity
but you still need to do the basic hospital volunteer, leadership position stuff

 

[youngMeddy]

80% of what is said on SDN is bs. so I would talk to your premed advisor. you dont need straight A's, but it would sure make a convincing case. Whenever you apply just make sure you put your best foot forward. psh, if i listened to sdn, I wouldnt have already been accepted

 

[halekulani]

sdn is a better source of information than any premed advisor, hands down.
it's not hard to filter what is real info and what isn't.
you could just search all posts by lizzy m and have all of your questions answered

 

[MaryLennox]

80% of what is said on SDN is bs. so I would talk to your premed advisor. you dont need straight A's, but it would sure make a convincing case. Whenever you apply just make sure you put your best foot forward. psh, if i listened to sdn, I wouldnt have already been accepted

to be honest, i was lurking on sdn for a couple years before my application cycle (now) and i think it has helped me immensely. i found that i knew a lot more about the schools i was interested in, AMCAS deadlines, interview styles at different schools, etc. in than my advisors did.

to the OP, getting a few low grades might very well keep you out of SOME schools- but not all. this is basially just a rehash of what's been said, but each school values things differently and that's why you need to apply broadly. whatever may be a dealbreaker to one school won't be at another. and believe it or not, anecdotal stuff and rumors on sdn, i've found many to actually be kinda true. for instance, i heard MCW puts a lot of emphasis on how early you are complete, and also that once they decided to interview you, the decision rests more on your interview than on your numbers. I made sure to get my stuff done there ASAP, and i got an interview and an acceptance. I also got an interview at UIC, but I saw someone mention on that thread how, after the interview, they go back and look at your numbers again before deciding. sure enough, despite the fact that i thought my interviews went fine (of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they were as good as i thought, but they were definitely no worse than my MCW interviews) and I am not yet accepted there. so, unless i happened to offend one of my interviewers without realizing it, i think that (true to what was said on sdn) my GPA-about 3.4- is keeping me from getting accepted there. my mcat is high, so i think it balances out at most places, but i can still understand how my GPA would make an adcom hesitate. anyway, my point is that something i read on sdn seems to be (gasp) true!!

regarding staight A's in prereqs . . . i had a C in one of my prereqs, and probably about an even mix of a's and b's for the rest of them- and i got into med school. would i have gotten more acceptances if i had more A's? I'm sure of it*. but you only need one. so do the best you can but if you're occasionally less than perfect, don't freak out. and don't stop reading sdn- it might make some people neurotic, but personally i'd rather be overprepared than underprepared. getting one C in physics may keep you out of Harvard, but it won't keep you out of med school. and you don't need to go to Harvard. really.

*i am also sure i would have gotten more interviews if i had applied as early as possible, and to more places. i applied to 15 schools and was complete in august. if you're concerned, apply to 30 schools and do it in June.