PTE/CTE, Scholarships + Ethical Admissions; Have you been Violated? Request Assistance Please

[REL]

As a long-time Admissions Director I am offering this information in support of clarity of the new rules created by the AAMC that, if used properly, should allow applicants and medical programs to collaborate to provide an applicant a better chance to arrive at the medical program of their choice based on their acceptance opportunities they receive throughout the acceptance cycle.

Those of you that know me know that I truly believe that the more an applicant knows about a medical program and their admissions process, the better prepared the applicant will be to make the most informed choice for themselves. The by-product of this is that the medical program admits an applicant that is motivated for their program and thereby should be a happier and more productive student as they experience the rigors of becoming a physician.

I also firmly believe that a medical school Admissions Office should demonstrate the highest degree of professionalism and integrity in their actions and communications with an applicant. As a medical student you will be tasked to uphold rules of professionalism and personal integrity. Violation of these rules could get you dismissed from the program. So IF the admissions process does not demonstrate professionalism and integrity then why would you attend such a program? (Answer: If you get into trouble in the program, you should be able to point back to admissions and show them the example that they were to you.)

If you are a current applicant I surely hope that you are very aware that the CYMS tools, Plan to Enroll (PTE) and Commit to Enroll (CTE), are available to you. The guidance is not clear as to when MUST you use them?

• PTE: It becomes available in February but when MUST you use it? Possibly NEVER. You MUST use it when a program that you are accepted to requires it in their written rules (MSAR/School Website). Many programs do not require PTE until later in the cycle, if at all! IF you choose to use PTE early you are welcome to do so. If you choose to PTE to one program, other wait list programs that you are waiting to hear from can still make offers to you.
• CTE: It becomes available on April 30 but when MUST you use it? You MUST use it only when required by a program. You MAY use it when you have been accepted to your top program. Using CTE is a FINAL action. You must immediately take action to inform all other programs that you are withdrawing because your application cycle is OVER!

More on CTE:

• When should medical programs demand that you use CTE? Several AAMC admissions-related committees recommend that applicants should not be required to CTE more than 21 days prior to your matriculation date. The vast majority of programs have set their CTE date 3-4 weeks prior to matriculation and that is acceptable. However, there are some programs who have set their CTE date 6-8 weeks prior to matriculation. These programs appear to be interested in restricting your time to make a choice and possibly more interested in filling their class. Professionalism?
• What if a program REQUIRES you to CTE 6-8 weeks before they start class in order to receive a scholarship or financial aid information? There should be NO relationship between your admissions decision and your receipt of financial information. Integrity?

Assistance Requested Please:

I have been made aware of programs that ARE evidently forcing applicants to CTE early in order to receive a scholarship. If YOU are in this situation or simply need some advice I would be interested in hearing from YOU. I know that there are anecdotal stories floating around, but I am most specifically interested in those who are directly affected by programs who are making these offers to them. If you know of someone who is in this situation encourage them to respond to me. I do not want to know who you are and will not ever use your name if you tell me, but I do want to confirm which programs are taking advantage of applicants in this manner.

IF you, as an applicant, want to help change this for future applicants please PM me and provide the name of the program that is/has caused you to make an early CTE decision. Some programs are forcing an early CTE to receive a scholarship well in advance of their published CTE deadline. You can begin to reduce this by providing me with the the program name and any detail that you feel comfortable with regarding the exchange. I will not ask your name or provide any detail that would identify who you are. Please encourage other applicants to help stop this unethical practice.

IF you know of other applicants who have indicated the above practice, please reach out to them to post to this thread or PM me. This will continue until applicants decide that this should not be happening.

You are welcome to post to this thread or PM me regarding your situation.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KendallJennerSniperLady69]

i wonder if there are any adcoms sweating rn upon reading this post ehehehehehe

 

[gyngyn]

i wonder if there are any adcoms sweating rn upon reading this post ehehehehehe

I know a few who should be.

 

[Stride]

There should be NO relationship between your admissions decision and your receipt of financial information.

Quote of the day!

 

[KnightDoc]

@REL -- Thank you so much for doing this!!!!

Maybe a stupid question, but, rather than simply naming and shaming behind closed doors, why not pressure AAMC to take more concrete action to put a stop to this?

I understand AAMC wants schools to be autonomous, and doesn't want to get involved, but stopping this really is in everyone's best interest, other than that of the offenders.

AAMC already operates the platform and dictates when PTE and CTE become operational. There is no legitimate need for any school to have CTE functionality prior to the beginning of June, other than, as you put it, to restrict choice and game the system, to the detriment of applicants as well as more ethical schools.

Why not just disable CTE prior to 6/1, in order to allow the vast majority of WL movement to occur prior to being able to extract commitments? This wouldn't change a thing for the vast majority of schools, but would stop this in its tracks.

 

[REL]

So I guess this is NOT happening, all Med Programs are minding their manners and all of the rumors and SDN posts are just gossip. This is all a hoax! Nothing here to solve and nothing to fix for future applicants.

 

[KnightDoc]

I guess people are all about us helping each other when they need assistance, but otherwise have no interest in getting involved and maybe helping to make things better for future applicants.

 

[REL]

IF you, as an applicant, want to help change this for future applicants please PM me and provide the name of the program that is/has caused you to make an early CTE decision. Some programs are forcing an early CTE to receive a scholarship well in advance of their published CTE deadline. You can begin to reduce this by providing me with the the program name and any detail that you feel comfortable with regarding the exchange. I will not ask your name or provide any detail that would identify who you are. Please encourage other applicants to help stop this unethical practice.

IF you know of other applicants who have indicated the above practice, please reach out to them to post to this thread or PM me. This will continue until applicants decide that this should not be happening.

 

[gyngyn]

IF you, as an applicant, want to help change this for future applicants please PM me and provide the name of the program that is/has caused you to make an early CTE decision. Some programs are forcing an early CTE to receive a scholarship well in advance of their published CTE deadline. You can begin to reduce this by providing me with the the program name and any detail that you feel comfortable with regarding the exchange. I will not ask your name or provide any detail that would identify who you are. Please encourage other applicants to help stop this unethical practice.

IF you know of other applicants who have indicated the above practice, please reach out to them to post to this thread or PM me. This will continue until applicants decide that this should not be happening.

I have been told by both accepted and waitlisted applicants that this is happening.

 

[KnightDoc]

I have been told by both accepted and waitlisted applicants that this is happening.

I suppose that without first hand verification from the applicants themselves, no action can be taken, now, against the schools, and this is the purpose of the request and the frustration in the unwillingness of those who were not shy about complaining when first confronted to now anonymously report.

Selfishly, as an applicant in the upcoming cycle, I am hoping a more systemic solution is implemented rather than just a little peer pressure after the fact when abuses are reported.

Again, other than the warm and fuzzies that invariably accompany a bunch of early CTEs, exactly what value do they offer an ethical school in May that isn't using them to foreclose WL movement? Everyone PTE is coming unless and until they change their mind. Just what benefit does a school get in May from knowing that a subset of accepted applicants won't be leaving. Doesn't this end up applying to vast majority of those selecting PTE after 4/30 in any event?

 

[gyngyn]

I suppose that without first hand verification from the applicants themselves, no action can be taken, now, against the schools, and this is the purpose of the request and the frustration in the unwillingness of those who were not shy about complaining when first confronted to now anonymously report.

Selfishly, as an applicant in the upcoming cycle, I am hoping a more systemic solution is implemented rather than just a little peer pressure after the fact when abuses are reported.

Again, other than the warm and fuzzies that invariably accompany a bunch of early CTEs, exactly what value do they offer an ethical school in May that isn't using them to foreclose WL movement? Everyone PTE is coming unless and until they change their mind. Just what benefit does a school get in May from knowing that a subset of accepted applicants won't be leaving. Doesn't this end up applying to vast majority of those selecting PTE after 4/30 in any event?

Historically, schools that are likely to suffer late losses from their enrollment rosters had very early start dates. Poaching after a student had matriculated was more than frowned upon. It was a traffic rule violation.
Now that there are no traffic rules, schools have managed the situation (apparently) by having very early CTE dates or holding students hostage by threatening scholarship withdrawal (which was also a traffic rule violation).

 

[KnightDoc]

Historically, schools that are likely to suffer late losses from their enrollment rosters had very early start dates. Poaching after a student had matriculated was more than frowned upon. It was a traffic rule violation.
Now that there are no traffic rules, schools have managed the situation (apparently) by having very early CTE dates or holding students hostage by threatening scholarship withdrawal (which was also a traffic rule violation).

...but, at least one of the schools doing this does NOT have a very early start date. Its regular CTE date is in the beginning of July. What school starts before the beginning of July, and would be prejudiced by not having CTE available to it before 6/1?

This really isn't managing a situation. It's gaming a system. It only works because all schools don't do it, and schools don't use their collective power to stop it.

It just makes sense to have a period of time between the requirement to drop to one A (4/30) and the ability to select CTE, in order to afford EVERYONE an opportunity to benefit from the significant amount of WL movement that occurs in the aftermath of the relinquishing of excess As on or before 4/30.

 

[gyngyn]

...but, at least one of the schools doing this does NOT have a very early start date. It's regular CTE date is in the beginning of July. What school starts before the beginning of July, and would be prejudiced by not having CTE available to it before 6/1?

This really isn't managing a situation. It's gaming a system. It only works because all schools don't do it, and schools don't use their collective power to stop it.

It just makes sense to have a period of time between the requirement to drop to one A (4/30) and the ability to select CTE, in order to afford EVERYONE an opportunity to benefit from the significant amount of WL movement that occurs in the aftermath of the relinquishing of excess As on or before 4/30.

As the AAMC no longer gives us a list, I cannot answer your first question. There were at least 2 schools in Puerto Rico and a couple of mainland schools that routinely started before July.
You seem to forget that we no longer have a collective voice...

 

[KnightDoc]

As the AAMC no longer gives us a list, I cannot answer your first question. There were at least 2 schools in Puerto Rico and a couple of mainland schools that routinely started before July.
You seem to forget that we no longer have a collective voice...

I do forget that, but I also assume whatever structure is in place is the result of consultation with the schools. Where do the various dates (10/15, 2/19, 3/15, 4/30, etc.) and associated actions come from? Maybe I'm naive, but I'm assuming it's not imperial edict from AAMC.

I don't know what the answer would be for schools that start before the third week of June (if any), but, ever since I joined SDN and learned about this, I thought it was obnoxious that some schools would prevent some candidates from participating in WL movement. It always seemed terribly unfair, and I always feared being placed in that position.

Now that I am on the eve of applying, and am witnessing firsthand the escalation of the gaming by some schools, the fear is more tangible than ever. Sure, there are worse things in the world than having money shoved down your throat in return for giving up some rights, but, still, this isn't supposed to happen. Not in a profession professing and demanding ethical behavior and professionalism.

Can it really be true that the Association of American Medical Colleges is impotent to enforce ethical behavior among its members, or to protect the rights of the future physicians its members are tasked with training? If so, I would hope all adcoms everywhere would forgive applicants doing whatever they feel is necessary in pursuit of their A, just as they tolerate their peers gaming their system because their association values plausible deniability over doing the right thing.

Renege on commitments. Send insincere LOIs all over the place. Lie to the extent they feel they can get away with it, assuming they are cognizant of the consequences of being caught. Anything goes, based on the behavior modeled by the sellers enjoying the benefits of the sellers' market, and apparently tolerated by the AAMC. I truly hope everyone in a position to influence outcomes at AAMC recognizes this for the cancer it can become and gets it under control.

 

[gyngyn]

I do forget that, but I also assume whatever structure is in place is the result of consultation with the schools. Where do the various dates (10/15, 2/19, 3/15, 4/30, etc.) and associated actions come from? Maybe I'm naive, but I'm assuming it's not imperial edict from AAMC.

I don't know what the answer would be for schools that start before the third week of June (if any), but, ever since I joined SDN and learned about this, I thought it was obnoxious that some schools would prevent some candidates from participating in WL movement. It always seemed terribly unfair, and I always feared being placed in that position.

Now that I am on the eve of applying, and am witnessing firsthand the escalation of the gaming by some schools, the fear is more tangible than ever. Sure, there are worse things in the world than having money shoved down your throat in return for giving up some rights, but, still, this isn't supposed to happen. Not in a profession professing and demanding ethical behavior and professionalism.

Can it really be true that the Association of American Medical Colleges is impotent to enforce ethical behavior among its members, or to protect the rights of the future physicians its members are tasked with training? If so, I would hope all adcoms everywhere would forgive applicants doing whatever they feel is necessary in search of their A, just as they tolerate their peers gaming a system because their association covets plausible deniability over doing the right thing.

Renege on commitments. Send insincere LOIs all over the place. Lie to the extent they feel they can get away with it, assuming they are cognizant of the consequences of being caught. Anything goes, based on the behavior modeled by the sellers enjoying the benefits of the sellers' market and apparently tolerated by the AAMC. I truly hope everyone in a position to influence outcomes at AAMC recognizes this for the cancer it can become and gets it under control.

Having tried to influence the decisions of the AAMC, I can only say that there is little hope for an improvement in near future.

 

[KnightDoc]

Having tried to influence the decisions of the AAMC, I can only say that there is little hope for an improvement in near future.

If only all the deciders were like you, @REL, @CWRU.Sman and the other adcoms contributing to SDN. It really is sad, because this behavior is only going to encourage a race to the bottom if there is no collective will to prevent it. Also, applicants seeing fellow applicants being treated like this really does make acting unethically much easier for them to justify.

Still, I guess I'm more than a little naive and stupid, because I'm really surprised and disappointed that the same people publicly complaining a few days ago aren't jumping at the opportunity @REL is providing to anonymously name names, provide details, and help future applicants. SDN is apparently a bit of a one way street. Good to know.

 

[wysdoc]

If only all the deciders were like you, @REL, @CWRU.Sman and the other adcoms contributing to SDN. It really is sad, because this behavior is only going to encourage a race to the bottom if there is no collective will to prevent it. Also, applicants seeing fellow applicants being treated like this really does make acting unethically much easier for them to justify.

Still, I guess I'm more than a little naive and stupid, because I'm really surprised and disappointed that the same people publicly complaining a few days ago aren't jumping at the opportunity @REL is providing to anonymously name names, provide details, and help future applicants. SDN is apparently a bit of a one way street. Good to know.

you know, KnightDoc, probably most SDN members just haven't seen the thread yet asking for stories/experiences.

 

[KnightDoc]

you know, KnightDoc, probably most SDN members just haven't seen the thread yet asking for stories/experiences.

Nah. It's been up since Wednesday morning.

There was plenty of immediate and frequent activity when this was happening just before 5/1. I was going back and forth with one victim on DM who was asking me for advice. She found me, and, rest assured, I didn't make a public post soliciting stories or representing that I could help.

I already sent two links to this thread via DM. No response. That wouldn't necessarily mean people weren't reaching out to @REL privately, but @REL 's 2 follow up posts do.

People were engaged when they had a problem. Their issue has now passed. They either CTEd or they didn't, and they have moved on. I understand, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for people to come out of the woodwork now.

People like you, @gyngyn, @REL, all the unnamed adcoms, many of the med students, some of the parents, etc. selflessly spend time and effort offering help and sharing knowledge. Most other participants are here to take, not give. I REALLY hope you are right, but I think 48 hours on SDN at this time of year for a topic like this is plenty of time.

Like @REL, I'm disappointed, and will have to deal with the fact that this practice will likely expand if there is no collective will to stop it. It's unlikely other schools will sit by and continue to allow their WLs to be poached like this.

If it isn't stopped, more and more scholarships will become contingent on early commitments, as more and more schools do it and it develops a momentum of its own. Stern admonitions in private will not be effective. Systemic controls will be. If AAMC won't stop it, it will proliferate. Great!

 

[REL]

I have received a handful of responses and they are confirming some programs that I knew were perpetrators. I greatly desire more confirmation. We CAN make this better for future applicants if you are willing to respond. Please encourage others to respond as well, unethical admissions officers need to know that their practices have no place in an ethical vocation like medicine. Please consider sharing to make it better for future applicants. Thank you very much for those who have already responded. I know that there are many more.

 

[proudofmykids]

I have received a handful of responses and they are confirming some programs that I knew were perpetrators. I greatly desire more confirmation. We CAN make this better for future applicants if you are willing to respond. Please encourage others to respond as well, unethical admissions officers need to know that their practices have no place in an ethical vocation like medicine. Please consider sharing to make it better for future applicants. Thank you very much for those who have already responded. I know that there are many more.

Do I hopefully sense a NY Times article coming to shame them into ethical behavior, naming names and all? ✔

 

[REL]

Do I hopefully sense a NY Times article coming to shame them into ethical behavior, naming names and all? ✔

Unfortunately this thread is not a joke. Your inane comment is not helpful.

 

[proudofmykids]

Unfortunately this thread is not a joke. Your inane comment is not helpful.

It was a genuine comment and far from a joke. Don't be so insecure, there are many people routing for your success.

 

[Fawna]

If only all the deciders were like you, @REL, @CWRU.Sman and the other adcoms contributing to SDN. It really is sad, because this behavior is only going to encourage a race to the bottom if there is no collective will to prevent it. Also, applicants seeing fellow applicants being treated like this really does make acting unethically much easier for them to justify.

Still, I guess I'm more than a little naive and stupid, because I'm really surprised and disappointed that the same people publicly complaining a few days ago aren't jumping at the opportunity @REL is providing to anonymously name names, provide details, and help future applicants. SDN is apparently a bit of a one way street. Good to know.

I’m not sure why you’re disappointed in the reportedly low response rate.
@REL has requested specific, and likely identifying, information from applicants that are still involved in the current admissions cycle and they may be involved in the upcoming cycle as well.

Unless I missed something, @REL has not said what will happen to this information. To tell Adcoms this behavior is not ok, likely means confronting the school/ Adcom about the situation and likely outing the applicant’s identity.

Without knowing more, I would not encourage applicants to contact @REL unless they were securely CTE’d at non-offending schools.

 

[wysdoc]

"Unless I missed something, @REL has not said what will happen to this information."
@Fawna, try reading the first post in this thread.

 

[KnightDoc]

"Unless I missed something, @REL has not said what will happen to this information."
@Fawna, try reading the first post in this thread.

@Fawna -- This^^^^^. @REL is one of the most highly respected, non-anonymous adcom advocates for applicants in the universe, period. If you don't think he knows how to utilize information in a way that protects sources, then there is really nothing I, or anyone else, will be able to say to you, other than what I said earlier about people being all about community when they need help but otherwise not really being interested in the community.

 

[REL]

I’m not sure why you’re disappointed in the reportedly low response rate.
@REL has requested specific, and likely identifying, information from applicants that are still involved in the current admissions cycle and they may be involved in the upcoming cycle as well.

Unless I missed something, @REL has not said what will happen to this information. To tell Adcoms this behavior is not ok, likely means confronting the school/ Adcom about the situation and likely outing the applicant’s identity.

Without knowing more, I would not encourage applicants to contact @REL unless they were securely CTE’d at non-offending schools.

Thank you, it was my impression that this was previously answered, but if not I am happy to let you know.

After a completing a 21 year military career I began a med school Admissions Director career in 1996. My military career dealt with intelligence and it involved gathering, assessing, and providing information to a decision-maker to determine whether an action was needed to effect a change in the situation. To me it was second nature that the more a decision-maker (applicant) knows about the situation they better decision "they" can make about "their" future. At that time it was obvious to me that applicants were not being treated well by the programs. In those years METRICs were verly likely the major deciding factor on which applicants received an interview. Big metrics translated to good physician - holistic review did not exist as a process. With an intell background I naturally began looking more at the story and skills because it naturally made sense to me. This eventially became known as the holistic approach, but I am not the originator of holistics, nor was I the first. I became a member of the AAMC Committee on Admissions (COA) at about the time holistics, pre-reqs, curriculum, and ensuing national decisions regarding some changes in the diversity/URM landscape. Naturally were also began discussions and changes in the applicant process. During that time the Traffic Rules (now Protocols) for applicants and med programs were modified to ensure that applicants were not stampeeded into a decision. That has always been my focus - The more an applicant knows the better off applicants and med programs are.

I was happy to discover SDN in those early years. Based on my previous experience it seemed like a natural place to communicate with applicants to the program so I used it in that way. Providing applicants with "good" intell was the natural thing to do. I have found that applicants appreciated that and it also seemed to discourage "trolls." I have always felt that this venue was a place to be open and honest and the reason that I openly identify myself. Most programs back then did not participate in their SDN thread and it was a place of chaos and misinformation. Most thought I was nuts to pay any attention. A few have changed their attitude, but not as many as I would like.

Now having fully confessed my thoughts and showed the merger of my beliefs with service to our country and to the AAMC and applicants, should I be trusted? I know the boundaries and do not give up my sources and remember that many applicants are receiving the same offers so no single applicant can be targeted as the "leaker." I will not ever give your identity up because I cherish what you have to say, especially on this topic. Only applicants can chage this behaviour and you specifically may not benefit from your input but the system and future applicants very well may. I still have trusted contacts that and help effect change. And I will synopsize any pertinent input that you provide without your identification so that those in pertinent AAMC positions can communicate with the programs that appear to be taking advantage of applicants and going against the corporate Traffic Rules (Protocols). Those programs may fall in line, or they may not. I cannot guarantee a change in the behaviours of programs, but I sure can advertise who they are for future applicants to beware. I simply ask your help on this issue. The more responses received may very well translate to behavioural changes. I encourage you to consider participating if you desire to effect this type of change.

 

[REL]

I appreciate the continued information that several of you have supplied regarding early CTE's and also early CTE for a scholarship. You are making a difference, hopefully for yourself, but also for those in the future. I know that there are many more of you, please consider helping. You will not be compromised, your information will be treated as highly classsified.

 

[med2b3]

Hi, This is happening to me this cycle. Have to CTE by 5/2.. confused what to do.. I am waitlisted by my top three choices

 

[KnightDoc]

Hi, This is happening to me this cycle. Have to CTE by 5/2.. confused what to do.. I am waitlisted by my top three choices

Same school (NYMC)? If so, then the howls from last year have had no effect!

TBH, now that I am involved as an applicant, my thinking on the subject has evolved somewhat. I understand why adcoms who plan to make extensive use of their WLs would object to other schools interfering with that by presenting applicants with exploding scholarship offers to induce them to commit early. OTOH, I also see why schools that do not want to be a second fiddle, or back up if you are not called off a WL, are offering financial incentives to get attractive candidates to commit early.

Basically, I am now looking at it as a version of the TV show "Let's Make a Deal." You are being offered money in return for giving up what's behind Door #1, which might be an acceptance to one of your top three choices, or might be a big pile of poop. You have to make a choice. How much money are you being offered, what are your chances of being called off one of those WLs, and how much is it worth to you to have that chance?

Ultimately, no one is forcing you to do anything. The school could do something truly unethical and just set the CTE date at 5/2 for everyone. Some schools do just that, for no other reason than to prevent you from benefiting from WL movement in May and beyond.

This school isn't doing that. It is offering you a bribe to voluntarily give up your WLs. You can absolutely say "no thanks," keep your A, and stay on the WLs. The scholarship being offered is not an entitlement. What do you want to do? Money or Door #1?

 

[med2b3]

Same school (NYMC)? If so, then the howls from last year have had no effect!

TBH, now that I am involved as an applicant, my thinking on the subject has evolved somewhat. I understand why adcoms who plan to make extensive use of their WLs would object to other schools interfering with that by presenting applicants with exploding scholarship offers to induce them to commit early. OTOH, I also see why schools that do not want to be a second fiddle, or back up if you are not called off a WL, are offering financial incentives to get attractive candidates to commit early.

Basically, I am now looking at it as a version of the TV show "Let's Make a Deal." You are being offered money in return for giving up what's behind Door #1, which might be an acceptance to one of your top three choices, or might be a big pile of poop. You have to make a choice. How much money are you being offered, what are your chances of being called off one of those WLs, and how much is it worth to you to have that chance?

Ultimately, no one is forcing you to do anything. The school could do something truly unethical and just set the CTE date at 5/2 for everyone. Some schools do just that, for no other reason than to prevent you from benefiting from WL movement in May and beyond.

This school isn't doing that. It is offering you a bribe to voluntarily give up your WLs. You can absolutely say "no thanks," keep your A, and stay on the WLs. The scholarship being offered is not an entitlement. What do you want to do? Money or Door #1?

Not NYMC, but I definitely understand the reasoning! It's a hard decision, but I am grateful to have options. I have a similar scholarship at another school, so right now considering all options

 

[KnightDoc]

Not NYMC, but I definitely understand the reasoning! It's a hard decision, but I am grateful to have options. I have a similar scholarship at another school, so right now considering all options

Are you SURE that 5/2 is a CTE date, not PTE? Most schools don't do this, so if it's not NYMC, I'd question what's going on. Unless it's a school with an early start date, and the CTE deadline is 5/2 for everyone, not just those being offered scholarships.

 

[med2b3]

Yeah, it is a CTE date. They confirmed with today, if I do not CTE and withdraw from all waitlists, I will lose my scholarship

 

[med2b3]

with me today*

 

[KnightDoc]

Yeah, it is a CTE date. They confirmed with today, if I do not CTE and withdraw from all waitlists, I will lose my scholarship

Are they only doing this with scholarship people, or with everyone? If it's the former, @REL had an interest in getting involved last cycle. If it's the date for everyone, there is not much you can do, since schools are certainly free to set their own dates, and some do exactly this to game the system and force you to make a choice and not use them as a backup.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Could this be resolved partially by creating a table of all CTE dates, orientation dates, and first days of class for all the schools? If there isn't one already for AMCAS. can we crowdsource this table together?

Btw, the issues you are observing about scholarship deadlines being scrupulously chosen to be contingent on commitment to enroll is not just an issue for allopathic medicine admissions. I think all of us with admissions experience know the other pressures we experience when managing those policies and processes. All traffic rules need to have something explicit about scholarship offer timelines.

 

[med2b3]

Are they only doing this with scholarship people, or with everyone? If it's the former, @REL had an interest in getting involved last cycle. If it's the date for everyone, there is not much you can do, since schools are certainly free to set their own dates, and some do exactly this to game the system and force you to make a choice and not use them as a backup.

They are only doing this for individuals with scholarships, regular PTE and CTE for this school is based on AAMC protocol. If I PTE and not CTE, I will lose my scholarship.

 

[KnightDoc]

Could this be resolved partially by creating a table of all CTE dates, orientation dates, and first days of class for all the schools? If there isn't one already for AMCAS. can we crowdsource this table together?

Btw, the issues you are observing about scholarship deadlines being scrupulously chosen to be contingent on commitment to enroll is not just an issue for allopathic medicine admissions. I think all of us with admissions experience know the other pressures we experience when managing those policies and processes. All traffic rules need to have something explicit about scholarship offer timelines.

With all due respect, you are missing the point here. This has nothing to do with scrupulously adhering to deadlines. This is creating special, unpublished deadlines only for certain candidates in return for scholarship money. There is no crowdsourcing this, because it's a series of one-offs to cherry pick certain people off of competitors' WLs.

Under the new AAMC regime, there are no "rules" at all. It's a series of suggestions that schools are individually free to follow, ignore, or modify as they see fit. And this is the result. Some schools require PTE, some don't, and still others require it at some point in time after 5/2. Same with CTE. They are all over the place, depending on when school starts, and on whether the school is honoring the suggestion to set it three weeks before orientation.

This business about scholarship money in return for an early CTE commitment is a new twist. No rules on this because, after all, scholarships are a privilege, not an entitlement, and anyone offered one in return for withdrawing from WLs has the ability to respectfully decline. Since being on a WL clearly has a higher value to some than others, I understand why schools want to try to exploit that. Just the next iteration of the sellers' market the adcoms on SDN keep reminding us we are in.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

With all due respect, you are missing the point here. This has nothing to do with scrupulously adhering to deadlines. This is creating special, unpublished deadlines only for certain candidates in return for scholarship money. There is no crowdsourcing this, because it's a series of one-offs to cherry pick certain people off of competitors' WLs.

Under the new AAMC regime, there are no "rules" at all. It's a series of suggestions that schools are individually free to follow, ignore, or modify as they see fit. And this is the result. Some schools require PTE, some don't, and still others require it at some point in time after 5/2. Same with CTE. They are all over the place, depending on when school starts, and on whether the school is honoring the suggestion to set it three weeks before orientation.

This business about scholarship money in return for an early CTE commitment is a new twist. No rules on this because, after all, scholarships are a privilege, not an entitlement, and anyone offered one in return for withdrawing from WLs has the ability tor respectfully decline. Since being on a WL clearly has a higher value to some than others, I understand why schools want to try to exploit that. Just the next iteration of the sellers' market the adcoms on SDN keep reminding us we are in.

Oh I agree with your point there. The COA needs to agree that financial aid scholarship deadlines need to adhere to those admissions deadlines. As I mentioned, so do the other organizations with their traffic rules. I have monitored those issues in other application communities where you get 15 days to respond to an offer (as per guidelines for graduate admissions if not in traffic rules) but only 7 days to accept a scholarship. Agreeing but saying this is more widespread that just AMCAS. Just that the CTE process puts another layer of urgency where there should not be. If anything, this practice isn't really that new except with the addition of the CYMS process.

A table at least helps us document what should be the proper timeliness so we can better document when the so-called rules are broken.

But yeah, I was not around when CYMS was created so I'm not a fan or know how that was approved by consensus.