Optimum application strategies

[MoosePilot]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I got to thinking about what would be the optimum application strategy.

My thoughts:

1. Get your application to the point where you're in the ballpark. Your average GPA and MCAT should be somewhat close to the schools you're applying to. You should have some EC type stuff, including something clinical.

2. Apply to schools as early as you can, it will increase your chance of admissions at rolling schools. Primary app filled out and transcripts mailed to AMCAS in mid-late May, app submitted in early June. Secondaries and letters of rec sent to schools ASAP, preferably in August (pre-med committee or LOR writers might be obstacle to this, consider asking them if they can have your letters ready by 1 August when you request them in the spring timeframe). Interviews will come in from August of the year before - spring of the entry year. Attend the earliest interview you can at a rolling school.

3. Pick some schools you're very competitive at, some you're about average for, and some that might be a stretch. The number is a question... what does everyone think? I personally thought 20, because my GPA is low, even though my MCAT makes up for it a bunch. I think most people can apply to fewer. I think the main thing that drives up the number is how many "reach" schools you choose to apply to, because the number of schools you're competitive at shouldn't change much.

4. Research schools. Practice interviewing. Buy and wear a nice, conservative suit to your interview.

Then another question is how many interviews it takes to be reasonably assured you'll get in. Generally schools accept between 25-75% of interviewees. My thought was that if it was pure random chance, then interviewing at 2 schools that accept 50% knocks your chance of not getting in down to 25%, 3 schools down to 13%, etc. But if you think about it, the schools will usually want the same interviewees. So many of the 50% that are getting the acceptances will get multiple acceptances, while many of the 50% who don't get an acceptance at one school, won't get them at several, because they interview poorly. What do you think?

 

[MoosePilot]

bump

 

[pseudoknot]

I agree with you about interview numbers, although this is just an hypothesis with no data for or against.

As for picking schools where you should be competitive, this becomes harder the further you are from the "typical" applicant. I would think you of all people would appreciate this. Taking myself as an example, I have a 3.3 undergrad GPA. That's about one standard deviation below the mean accepted applicant nationwide; I'm not aware of any school where that would be competitive, and for top schools it seems very low indeed. On the other hand, my MCAT was 37, which is pretty good anywhere but WashU. Finally, I'm in the process of completing a PhD. So, I have two pluses and a minus, and it all depends on how those factors are weighted. Is there any way to predict that? I don't think so, which is why I decided to apply to a large number of schools across the spectrum.

 

[MoosePilot]

I agree with you about interview numbers, although this is just an hypothesis with no data for or against.

As for picking schools where you should be competitive, this becomes harder the further you are from the "typical" applicant. I would think you of all people would appreciate this. Taking myself as an example, I have a 3.3 undergrad GPA. That's about one standard deviation below the mean accepted applicant nationwide; I'm not aware of any school where that would be competitive, and for top schools it seems very low indeed. On the other hand, my MCAT was 37, which is pretty good anywhere but WashU. Finally, I'm in the process of completing a PhD. So, I have two pluses and a minus, and it all depends on how those factors are weighted. Is there any way to predict that? I don't think so, which is why I decided to apply to a large number of schools across the spectrum.

I do understand completely what you're saying about the schools. I just eyeballed it. I've heard some people who think MCAT is more important, some that think GPA is more important. I think they're mostly equal. So I figured my MCAT would balance my GPA and applied to a range of schools.

There really aren't "safety" medical schools. That complicates matters. Nobody can be guaranteed an acceptance anywhere, but at the same time I think that means nobody should count themselves out unless their entire app is just attrocious. Just do your best, get the stuff in, and let the adcoms judge.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Then another question is how many interviews it takes to be reasonably assured you'll get in. Generally schools accept between 25-75% of interviewees. My thought was that if it was pure random chance, then interviewing at 2 schools that accept 50% knocks your chance of not getting in down to 25%, 3 schools down to 13%, etc. But if you think about it, the schools will usually want the same interviewees. So many of the 50% that are getting the acceptances will get multiple acceptances, while many of the 50% who don't get an acceptance at one school, won't get them at several, because they interview poorly. What do you think?

You forgot the waitlist factor. A large percentage of each class is composed of people from the waitlist. Not sure how it affects your odds, but it definitely contributes to the randomness of the process.

 

[thegenius]

Without finding more visibility into how many students come off the waitlist vs accept off the bat, my general rule of thumb is that universities interview about 4x the number of applicants as positions.

So if you interview at 4 schools, you probably have a pretty good chance (>75%) of getting in.

If you interview at 6-8 schools, you probably have an outstandind chance of getting in (>90%).

I agree with the points above...get all your crap in early. Try to answer the top few questions (like "what have you done since graduation", "experience that you coped with," "why are you special", "clinical research") and you'll have 60% of the questions answered.

 

[Shredder]

3.9
40
publication of any sort
shadowing
possibly token volunteering for show
dont make egregious errors during apps/interviews

cookie cutter top 20 acceptance formula
oh yeah and some bogus leadership position of any kind

 

[dajimmers]

3.9
40
publication of any sort
shadowing
possibly token volunteering for show
dont make egregious errors during apps/interviews

cookie cutter top 20 acceptance formula
oh yeah and some bogus leadership position of any kind

Hopefully (for me) a good formula.

Anyways, most of us are novices to this whole process. Who knows how much MCAT, GPA, interview, personal statement, or suit color will matter for each school you apply at? Yes, generalizations can be made, but applications seem to be random enough that fitting or exceeding an average applicant won't guarantee admittance, while falling "below average" won't necessarily result in rejection. Especially in top schools that also seem to focus on matching students to their program vs. just taking the first 100 kids that show up with 40's and 3.9's.

My best advice is to forget a formula. Just know what you will be tested on, and think about that as you develop yourself as a candidate. GPA, MCAT, undergrad school, EC's, race, residency, appearance, interview, and the roulette wheel will all come into play. Don't over-analyze all of them, just acknowledge them and focus on making your undergraduate career fun and full of activities that you enjoy, while still thinking about how they will help you for med school and as a physician. From what I've gathered, doing research just to get into a "top-ranked research school" won't help you much, while starting a student organization in support of a community clinic may be much more impressive (and even require less time), assuming that is where your interest lies.

On another note, I really wish some standard deviation data was published on admitted students. Sure, school X has an average of 3.6 GPA and 11.2 MCAT, but what really matters to everyone else (since who is exactly average) is how far can you stray from that and still have a decent shot?

 

[MoosePilot]

On another note, I really wish some standard deviation data was published on admitted students. Sure, school X has an average of 3.6 GPA and 11.2 MCAT, but what really matters to everyone else (since who is exactly average) is how far can you stray from that and still have a decent shot?

Yep. The new MSAR did a good thing by including the individual section score ranges on the MCAT, but I am convinced they purposefully did not put the ranges of total scores or any ranges for GPA. They don't want students to know the lowest person they admitted, or the highest. If you found out a 36 was the highest MCAT at a given college for a given year, you'd almost expect an acceptance if you applied with a 36, even if the rest of your app was crap. Schools don't want students to have that sense of entitlement.

 

[Shredder]

Especially in top schools that also seem to focus on matching students to their program vs. just taking the first 100 kids that show up with 40's and 3.9's.

On another note, I really wish some standard deviation data was published on admitted students. Sure, school X has an average of 3.6 GPA and 11.2 MCAT, but what really matters to everyone else (since who is exactly average) is how far can you stray from that and still have a decent shot?

standard deviation info would be immensely useful. however it would also create stratification and inferiority complexes among the students, eh? knowing that one is at the bottom of the bell curve, kind of disheartening. schools do actually seem to do the "matching" bit. i know two friends with 3.9/39 who were rejected while another with 3.6/32 received a phone interview

 

[argonana]

Schools (or at least Wash U) are so stingy with standard deviations. I called and then emailed Wash U to find out the standard deviation for accepted students' GPAs. Later that day, an adcom emailed me the range of GPAs, apparently "better than the standard deviation." It was 3.15-4.0. Absolutely worthless information. If I had a 3.15, would I apply? Hell no.

I don't see why a school like Wash U would be so desperate to take my money and run. But then again, why not...especially if I were dense enough to be uplifted by that "range of GPAs."

 

[thegenius]

standard deviation info would be immensely useful. however it would also create stratification and inferiority complexes among the students, eh? knowing that one is at the bottom of the bell curve, kind of disheartening. schools do actually seem to do the "matching" bit. i know two friends with 3.9/39 who were rejected while another with 3.6/32 received a phone interview

Yea, all very good points. I believe it would be more useful for students to know the stdev rather than the average (or is it median?)

I also look at it another way. Some back of the hand calculations...

~40,000 unique applicants in 2006
I scored in the 85% MCAT percentile. So I presume there are about 6,000 students who did better than me. Now, in reality the 85% comes from the 60,000 MCAT pool, but I figure the top candidates are the ones who usually apply. Maybe bump down the 6,000 to 5,000.

Not great odds, but the statistics in MSAR suggest there are a sizable number of candidates (meaning hundreds and hundreds) who scored better than me on the MCAT and didn't get in. So let's reduce the 5,000 by some percent, maybe on average 10-20%. We are now at 4,000.

My gut tells me that is probably correct. It's kind of sad because I think my 85% in the MCAT is good, considering I'm 31 with wife/child (well not child at the time of the MCAT test but it was brewing if you know what I mean) and was working the entire time. If I had more time, I probably could have scored 2-4 points higher on the test.

In retrospect, this entire post of mine is worthless. But I'm going to submit it to waste precious internet bandwidth. 😉

 

[patzan]

as I was scrolling quickly past this, I read it as "Ostium secundum something something." I hate embryology...