Proof that yield protection exists with mid-tiers.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Officer Farva

Gimme a liter of cola.
7+ Year Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
594
Reaction score
479
Figured we could discuss this and use the Philly schools as an example. I got an II from Penn a few months back, but just realized I was placed on hold at Drexel, with complete silence from Temple and Jeff with people complete 6 months after me getting IIs.

I am not a shoo-in for Penn, but love Philly as a city. What is going on??

Members don't see this ad.
 
Figured we could discuss this and use the Philly schools as an example. I got an II from Penn a few months back, but just realized I was placed on hold at Drexel, with complete silence from Temple and Jeff with people complete 6 months after me getting IIs.

I am not a shoo-in for Penn, but love Philly as a city. What is going on??

The process is inherently idiosyncratic.
 
Figured we could discuss this and use the Philly schools as an example. I got an II from Penn a few months back, but just realized I was placed on hold at Drexel, with complete silence from Temple and Jeff with people complete 6 months after me getting IIs.

I am not a shoo-in for Penn, but love Philly as a city. What is going on??

Historical trends suggest that applicants who are strong enough to get an II from a top tier like Penn will almost surely attend there over the lower-tier schools. Resources are scarce, so yeah, you got yield protected by Drexel and others. It sucks but it happens
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Or maybe they have a ton of applicants and not everyone can get an interview. I saw a few mdapps where someone got into hopkins but got rejected from a whole slew of schools including cornell, mayo, penn etc. I guess those schools were engaging in yield protection as well?
 
Or maybe they have a ton of applicants and not everyone can get an interview. I saw a few mdapps where someone got into hopkins but got rejected from a whole slew of schools including cornell, mayo, penn etc. I guess those schools were engaging in yield protection as well?

No thats due to an extremely competitive applicant pool in general. Yield protection occurs when there is a marked difference between the schools attracting the Top 20 rockstars and the schools attracting generally qualified applicants. The latter schools shy away from the rockstars because of fears of being brushed off
 
Maybe the other schools didn't think you were a good applicant. Maybe they thought you weren't a fit outside of numbers. Maybe penn was a fluke.
 
No thats due to an extremely competitive applicant pool in general. Yield protection occurs when there is a marked difference between the schools attracting the Top 20 rockstars and the schools attracting generally qualified applicants. The latter schools shy away from the rockstars because of fears of being brushed off

I think @Psai was being facetious.
 
I think @Psai was being facetious.

Maybe so but its a rather frustrating issue. We see in WAMC threads that applicants with strong numbers and good ECs are discouraged from applying to low tiers because of yield protection (stats being above 90th percentile). This forces them to resort to "high stat safeties", which themselves are highly competitive.

The application process is already stressful for all applicants and yield protection worsens it.
 
Maybe so but its a rather frustrating issue. We see in WAMC threads that applicants with strong numbers and good ECs are discouraged from applying to low tiers because of yield protection (stats being above 90th percentile). This forces them to resort to "high stat safeties", which themselves are highly competitive.

The application process is already stressful for all applicants and yield protection worsens it.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, it is a headache for applicants but you can't really blame the schools for utilizing yield protection.
 
No thats due to an extremely competitive applicant pool in general. Yield protection occurs when there is a marked difference between the schools attracting the Top 20 rockstars and the schools attracting generally qualified applicants. The latter schools shy away from the rockstars because of fears of being brushed off

I don't know if I would use the word "fear", but most established schools have analyzed enough data over the years to make good guesses as to who is unlikely to matriculate.
 
Maybe so but its a rather frustrating issue. We see in WAMC threads that applicants with strong numbers and good ECs are discouraged from applying to low tiers because of yield protection (stats being above 90th percentile). This forces them to resort to "high stat safeties", which themselves are highly competitive.

The application process is already stressful for all applicants and yield protection worsens it.
It's really just resource management. It is only sensible to interview the best applicants that are likely to matriculate. It only wastes everybody's time and money to do otherwise.
 
I don't know if I would use the word "fear", but most established schools have analyzed enough data over the years to make good guesses as to who is unlikely to matriculate.
It's really just resource management. It is only sensible to interview the best applicants that are likely to matriculate. It only wastes everybody's time and money to do otherwise.

Right i understand the historical trends involved as i mentioned in my initial post. Its just a little upsetting in the applicant perspective of essentially being discouraged from applying to these schools due to such trends.

I guess the best solution in all this is to really spend the time developing a good school list taking into account of yield protection. This means avoiding schools where stats are above the 90th percentile as per the MSAR is an effective filter
 
Right i understand the historical trends involved as i mentioned in my initial post. Its just a little upsetting in the applicant perspective of essentially being discouraged from applying to these schools due to such trends.

I guess the best solution in all this is to really spend the time developing a good school list taking into account of yield protection. This means avoiding schools where stats are above the 90th percentile as per the MSAR is an effective filter
Applicants who matriculate above the 90th (and below the 10th) have a readily apparent reason for the school to believe that they will come. Heck, some of the <10th% are the most competitive candidates. If you fit this, then go ahead and apply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Members don't see this ad :)
Historical trends suggest that applicants who are strong enough to get an II from a top tier like Penn will almost surely attend there over the lower-tier schools. Resources are scarce, so yeah, you got yield protected by Drexel and others. It sucks but it happens

However, as well all know, II does not equal acceptance. I had a friend who interviewed only at two top tiers, harvard and yale. He attends an unranked private MD program now. Hypothetically, location would be important for me too. For example, I consider Case Western top tier although I am not a fan of Cleveland. I would take an acceptance at Temple/Jeff over Case due to location, and also because I think they are "good enough" in comparison. Note, I am accepted at a different top 10 than case.
 
If you're truly interested in a school where you're outside the 10-90 spread, it would behoove you to make sure the school knows why you're a strong candidate for their school. So In @Officer Farva 's case, that he really, really, really wants to be in Philly, so would not be a waste of Drexel's time despite the Penn-worthy (I'm assuming) numbers. Or conversely, why Harvard shouldn't toss your 'LizzyM 70' application straight into the circular file because you eradicated Zika-carrying mosquitoes from southern Florida through your innovative initiatives.
 
Note, I am accepted at a different top 10 than case.

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. If places like Drexel, Temple and Jefferson interviewed every candidate who applies and has stats that would garner them an acceptance at a top 10 school then they would interview hundreds of candidates and not be able to fill their class. Are you planning on dropping the top 10 acceptance to go to one of these non-Penn philly schools? Would you choose one of these schools over Penn or any number of your other interviews? The answer to these questions is obviously not. If you expressed a genuine interest in one of these schools, sent them a letter telling them that you absolutely have to be in philly cause your wife has a job there, your aging parents live in philly and your dog can't imagine being away from his favorite park in center city they'll likely gladly offer you an interview. But at this point it sounds like they've made the right choice passing on you since offering you an interview would be wasting everyone's time as it sounds like there is little to no chance you'll end up choosing one of those schools.
 
I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. If places like Drexel, Temple and Jefferson interviewed every candidate who applies and has stats that would garner them an acceptance at a top 10 school then they would interview hundreds of candidates and not be able to fill their class. Are you planning on dropping the top 10 acceptance to go to one of these non-Penn philly schools? Would you choose one of these schools over Penn or any number of your other interviews? The answer to these questions is obviously not. If you expressed a genuine interest in one of these schools, sent them a letter telling them that you absolutely have to be in philly cause your wife has a job there, your aging parents live in philly and your dog can't imagine being away from his favorite park in center city they'll likely gladly offer you an interview. But at this point it sounds like they've made the right choice passing on you since offering you an interview would be wasting everyone's time as it sounds like there is little to no chance you'll end up choosing one of those schools.

True, but my point has nothing to do with that. I just felt like it was a total waste of money applying if they won't consider me. I could have just as easily not obtained that one acceptance, and in theory get locked out from these other guys. Just annoying out of the randomness of admissions.

I spent ~$100 applying to colleges (maybe less) since I only applied ED to one school. This process has cost me tens of times more than college admissions.
 
True, but my point has nothing to do with that. I just felt like it was a total waste of money applying if they won't consider me. I could have just as easily not obtained that one acceptance, and in theory get locked out from these other guys. Just annoying out of the randomness of admissions.

I spent ~$100 applying to colleges (maybe less) since I only applied ED to one school. This process has cost me tens of times more than college admissions.
The process would seem a whole lot less random if the total number of applications were limited.
More than half the money spent on secondaries is wasted. With reasonable limitations on the total number of applications we could do away with secondary fees. At the moment they are a pretty weak disincentive to applying everywhere (especially for the well-off).
 
True, but my point has nothing to do with that. I just felt like it was a total waste of money applying if they won't consider me. I could have just as easily not obtained that one acceptance, and in theory get locked out from these other guys. Just annoying out of the randomness of admissions.

I spent ~$100 applying to colleges (maybe less) since I only applied ED to one school. This process has cost me tens of times more than college admissions.

Sounds like the process isn't "random" at all... each entity made a calculated decision which maximizes outcomes and efficiency. You chose to apply to schools that you were overqualified for because you were being conservative and risk averse and to you failing to be admitted to med school this year (potentially depriving you of 150-500k in income later on) is a lot worse than spending the extra thousand dollars on applications. The schools made a choice not to offer you an interview based on decades of data showing that someone with your stats (barring extenuating circumstances) tends not to matriculate at their school. Again, had you not gotten the interviews you got and the acceptance you're now holding you could've easily written a letter to these schools expressing your genuine interest and intention to seriously consider their school and they would've taken a second look at your application.
 
Sounds like the process isn't "random" at all... each entity made a calculated decision which maximizes outcomes and efficiency. You chose to apply to schools that you were overqualified for because you were being conservative and risk averse and to you failing to be admitted to med school this year (potentially depriving you of 150-500k in income later on) is a lot worse than spending the extra thousand dollars on applications. The schools made a choice not to offer you an interview based on decades of data showing that someone with your stats (barring extenuating circumstances) tends not to matriculate at their school. Again, had you not gotten the interviews you got and the acceptance you're now holding you could've easily written a letter to these schools expressing your genuine interest and intention to seriously consider their school and they would've taken a second look at your application.

I totally agree with you! However, this process has been so random (forget competitive, let's call it random) and expensive that I would always recommend young premeds find something else. However, I am too deep in to quit.
 
I totally agree with you! However, this process has been so random (forget competitive, let's call it random) and expensive that I would always recommend young premeds find something else. However, I am too deep in to quit.
You want to quit and you're not even in medical school yet? You think the application proccess is tough? What do you think medical school, rotations, residency, dealing with patients is going to be like? This is the easy part...
 
You want to quit and you're not even in medical school yet? You think the application proccess is tough? What do you think medical school, rotations, residency, dealing with patients is going to be like? This is the easy part...

Sounds likeSomebody was accepted on October 15th 🙂
 
@Officer Farva, I wonder how many are thrown off by your screen name and avatar. Not sure they reflect the exact vibe you might want to convey, or, maybe they do, and that's part of the issue. This is an aside, but I'm always fascinated by the power of the signifiers we put out, and how once one reads a few posts by someone with the avatar/name very alive in the mind how quickly pretty fixed ideas set in.

I think you are getting at some real issues that deserve discussion and should be addressed, but I think the bitter taste you exude from your overall experience over two cycles is impacting responses to you.

At any rate, the system as is seems a little out of control (and I've seen the same thing in undergrad admissions too). Very tough to get in, so everyone is told to apply broadly, major overlap, and an overwhelmed system. In theory at least, you are correct. Based on the trouble of applying, completing secondaries, and paying for your apps to be reviewed, one would think that the schools should presume you are interested (at least untold told you aren't interested anymore). But I can also see that these schools getting 12K-15K+ apps have to use some tools at their disposal to work their way through all those apps and of course in the end their job is to protect their interests (i.e. the interests of their particular med school). What disturbs me the most observing closely are schools like UVM that keep applicants in the dark and "incomplete" for 4-5 months or more, finally send a notice that you are complete and "under review," and then 2 hours later you get a rejection. Whether totally unfair or not, it is difficult to not reach a conclusion that the school is overwhelmed, already full without getting through all the apps, and then briskly paying lip-service to reviewing one's app to give the appearance of being truly reviewed. Aside from wanting one's money back, I would assume living through this is very disturbing for candidates who have no interviews and/or no acceptances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I totally agree with you! However, this process has been so random (forget competitive, let's call it random) and expensive that I would always recommend young premeds find something else. However, I am too deep in to quit.
You clearly don't agree with me as you keep asserting that the process is random and the whole point of my post is that it isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
The process would seem a whole lot less random if the total number of applications were limited.
More than half the money spent on secondaries is wasted. With reasonable limitations on the total number of applications we could do away with secondary fees. At the moment they are a pretty weak disincentive to applying everywhere (especially for the well-off).

What are the reasons for opposing/delaying the limit on the total number of applications?

You clearly don't agree with me as you keep asserting that the process is random and the whole point of my post is that it isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Well, do you agree that the application process is unpredictable? There's a serious information asymmetry that heavily benefits the adcoms/schools in making more detailed and informed decision who to admit. Applicants have no access to such information due to privacy/confidentiality purposes.
 
What are the reasons for opposing/delaying the limit on the total number of applications?
Thousands of applications are sent to poorly selected schools by applicants who have the means to do so.
Schools have to interview an excess number applicants to account for so many multiple acceptances.
The whole system is clogged in redundancy that only benefits the well to do.

Secondary fees are intended to limit frivolous application but they only deter the thin of wallet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thousands of applications are sent to poorly selected schools by applicants who have the means to do so.
Schools have to interview so many applicants to account for so many getting accepted to multiple schools.
The whole system is clogged in redundancy that only benefits the well to do.

Secondary fees are intended to limit frivolous application but they only deter the thin of wallet.

So there's really no opposition to the cap? I'm all for it for many reasons but I don't really understand why AMCAS didn't limit the number of applications.
 
So there's really no opposition to the cap? I'm all for it for many reasons but I don't really understand why AMCAS didn't limit the number of applications.
I've never even heard it seriously discussed. Admittedly, I can't bear to attend most AAMC meetings...
 
Well, do you agree that the application process is unpredictable? There's a serious information asymmetry that heavily benefits the adcoms/schools in making more detailed and informed decision who to admit. Applicants have no access to such information due to privacy/confidentiality purposes.
Unpredictable to a certain degree? Of course. Why is applicant X with a 3.9/39 accepted to Hopkins, Columbia, and Penn, yet rejected pre-interview by Yale, Wash U, and Cornell?! Who the hell knows. However, such a scenario still supports the premise that people should apply to schools that fit their stats and ECs.

Granted, the process is a bit more unpredictable for candidates with asymmetrical stats, but we are nevertheless aware of which schools prefer non-trads, reward reinvention, emphasize community service, etc. With the appropriate research, a realistic school list is within the reach of anyone who is a worthy med school candidate.
 
I've never even heard it seriously discussed. Admittedly, I can't bear to attend most AAMC meetings...

I'm surprised. Because it seems a limit of 20 applications per applicant will:

1. Save money
2. Ensure serious interest
3. Require good school lists
4. Eliminate/minimize yield protection
5. Make LOIs unnecessary
6. Remove secondary fees

Isn't a cap a major advantage to both the schools and the applicants? It improves efficiency!
 
I'm surprised. Because it seems a limit of 20 applications per applicant will:

1. Save money
2. Ensure serious interest
3. Require good school lists
4. Eliminate/minimize yield protection
5. Make LOIs unnecessary
6. Remove secondary fees

Isn't a cap a major advantage to both the schools and the applicants? It improves efficiency!
It would need to accommodate differences in IS chances, though.
For example, all IS publics could count as one, plus 15 others (or some variation).
This would tend to benefit those with one state school and high IS matriculation, though.
It's still better than what we have now.
 
I'm surprised. Because it seems a limit of 20 applications per applicant will:

1. Save money
2. Ensure serious interest
3. Require good school lists
4. Eliminate/minimize yield protection
5. Make LOIs unnecessary
6. Remove secondary fees

Isn't a cap a major advantage to both the schools and the applicants? It improves efficiency!
Some people need more than 20 ie those with asymmetrical stats, non-trads who are relying on their more recent academic history, etc

Also, I don't think the Georgetowns and Tufts of the world will ever agree to a cap-lol.
 
Some people need more than 20 ie those with asymmetrical stats, non-trads who are relying on their more recent academic history, etc
.
They wouldn't need them as badly if the field were thinned.
There would be time to actually think about the details of the ap.
 
What are the reasons for opposing/delaying the limit on the total number of applications?

This same issue exists in the residency match, only worse. The average domestic allopathic senior applies to over 30 residency programs. For osteopathic students and IMG's/FMG's the numbers are far higher. To make matters worse, the amount of information one can find when researching programs is fairly limited; there is no MSAR for residency. The programs, in turn, get inundated by applications and usually resort to Step 1 scores to cull the herd. They then have to figure out who is really interested and who just kept clicking more "apply to" boxes on ERAS out of paranoia.

Not surprisingly, various folks in various settings have been calling for a limitation on the number of applications that can be sent. ERAS's response is that they exist solely to provide a conduit between applicants and programs, and therefore have no role in being an arbiter or placing limitations on applicants choices. I am guessing AMCAS would say the same thing.
 
They wouldn't need them as badly if the field were thinned.
There would be time to actually think about the details of the ap.
How about 25 so I feel better about this parallel app universe!

I see your point though. More time for the adcoms to review apps would be in everyone's best interest.
 
This same issue exists in the residency match, only worse. The average domestic allopathic senior applies to over 30 residency programs. For osteopathic students and IMG's/FMG's the numbers are far higher. To make matters worse, the amount of information one can find when researching programs is fairly limited; there is no MSAR for residency. The programs, in turn, get inundated by applications and usually resort to Step 1 scores to cull the herd. They then have to figure out who is really interested and who just kept clicking more "apply to" boxes on ERAS out of paranoia.

Not surprisingly, various folks in various settings have been calling for a limitation on the number of applications that can be sent. ERAS's response is that they exist solely to provide a conduit between applicants and programs, and therefore have no role in being an arbiter or placing limitations on applicants choices. I am guessing AMCAS would say the same thing.

Aren't ERAS and AMCAS both managed by AAMC? It seems that AAMC just wants to serve as a standardized route for medical schools/residency programs to sort out the applications efficiently. If the AAMC doesnt want to impose the restrictions (which doesn't make sense since they manage the applications that applicants and adcoms refer to), who is the likely candidate to place such caps?

Because the pathway goes like this: applicants --> AMCAS/ERAS --> schools/programs and the limiting step really falls on the AAMC since they manage the application service

It would need to accommodate differences in IS chances, though.
For example, all IS publics could count as one, plus 15 others (or some variation).
This would tend to benefit those with one state school and high IS matriculation, though.
It's still better than what we have now.

Sorry didn't understand. Why can't the IS public schools be counted individually?
 
How about 25 so I feel better about this parallel app universe!

I see your point though. More time for the adcoms to review apps would be in everyone's best interest.

I think 25 is a good amount if you have the median stats for admissions. I have seen people apply and garner at least one acceptance with discordant stats when they applied incredibly broadly to like 30-40 schools. Sometimes people like throwing in a few hail mary applications because they'll never know unless they try! And sometimes it even works out. I don't see anything wrong with that. I would actually be really upset if there was ever a cap on the number of schools one could apply to.
 
Sorry didn't understand. Why can't the IS public schools be counted individually?
Some states have half a dozen state schools but only a 14% IS matriculation (CA).
Other states have one state school and 34% IS matriculation (MS).
Applicants from these states should have equivalent opportunity for a shot at their lowest tuition options within a fair framework of limitation.
 
They wouldn't need them as badly if the field were thinned.
There would be time to actually think about the details of the ap.

Meh, I still tend to think a lower tier school is going to look at some 3.9/36+ applicant as low yield to some extent, even if such a rule were implemented. It's just hard not to when somebody is applying with stats that are so much above your average, I'm kind of skeptical this rule would change that.

Also while it's impossible to really guess do you really think that this would reduce the number of apps at lower tier schools that much? If Temple's application total goes from say 11,000 to 8,500 from this rule, sure that's alot but I dont necessairly know if that would change the amount of time a school like this could focus on the level of details of an app to the point it makes a major difference. In other words Im not really sure that kind of reduction will really change the admission process for a school. Maybe if it went from 11,000 to 3,000 but I dont think such a rule is having that kind of impact.

Also as somebody mentioned above would lower tier schools even support such a system where they are losing money from the fewer apps?
 
Also as somebody mentioned above would lower tier schools even support such a system where they are losing money from the fewer apps?
The system should be designed to benefit the largest number of applicants, not a minority of schools.

I would support any system that reduced wasted effort, money and time. The one we have does nothing toward this end.
 
The system should be designed to benefit the largest number of applicants, not a minority of schools.

I would agree but

a) Wouldnt the vast majority of schools have to support such a rule for it be implemented? In other words is there any way of getting around the fact that lower tiers probably wont like the rule or is there opposition enough to single handedly block such a policy from ever being passed?

b) I would think all schools benefit, not just a minority. Even Harvard is gaining alot of money each year from people who have no business applying there.

I actually would like the idea of making a numerical cut off for applications a little better. Ie nobody with under a 496 is applied to any MD schools outside of their state or in some situations HBMCs/Puerto Rican schools. That type of rule I think benefits all.
 
I would agree but

a) Wouldnt the vast majority of schools have to support such a rule for it be implemented? In other words is there any way of getting around the fact that lower tiers probably wont like the rule or is there opposition enough to single handedly block such a policy from ever being passed?

b) I would think all schools benefit, not just a minority. Even Harvard is gaining alot of money each year from people who have no business applying there.

I actually would like the idea of making a numerical cut off for applications a little better. Ie nobody with under a 496 is applied to any MD schools outside of their state or in some situations HBMCs/Puerto Rican schools. That type of rule I think benefits all.
a) There is no movement afoot to support a proposal to limit applications, so this is moot. When I have brought this up, the immediate response has been something along the lines of "this is America, we don't set limits..."
b) The money from secondaries is insignificant compared to the money wasted on multiple acceptances. I'm talking dozens here, not two or three.
 
a) There is no movement afoot to support a proposal to limit applications, so this is moot. When I have brought this up, the immediate response has been something along the lines of "this is America, we don't set limits..."
b) The money from secondaries is insignificant compared to the money wasted on multiple acceptances. I'm talking dozens here, not two or three.

For this are you talking about the time resources and money wasted on interviewing somebody who doesnt come?
 
For this are you talking about the time resources and money wasted on interviewing somebody who doesnt come?
Yes.
We could have been interviewing someone who actually would have matriculated.
Schools have acceptance lists multiple times the number needed to fill the class to account for the applicants holding many, many acceptances. This is also the reason that waitlists are so long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
b) I would think all schools benefit, not just a minority. Even Harvard is gaining alot of money each year from people who have no business applying there.

Sadly, there are many admissions offices that use secondary applications as cash cows. And they shall not go quietly into that good night.
 
Top