Question About Receiving an Interview

[tunaktunak]

My apologies if this is a dumb question, but if you receive an interview invitation to a school, does that mean your application on paper has no red flags (outside of stats and IA's), and that the only potential area for a red flag are your interviewing skills? I've heard of some applicants being rejected post-interview because of low stats, but if you have some other weakness (e.g. low clinical, low research, low volunteering), would they reject you because of that even if the interview went phenomenally? I'm just confused as to why AdComs would even send the interview invitation in the first place if they knew about the weaknesses in the applicant on paper that would lead them to a rejection anyway.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mvsrocks]

I'm not an adcom, but here are some things adcoms have said in previous threads.

1. Resource management occurs before interviewing. If you are extended an interview, you have a real chance of acceptance.
2. Staircase analogy (the top being acceptance): every applicant starts off on a different step. Some need to advance 10 steps and have a phenomenal interview for acceptance. Others only need 1 step and a decent interview.
3. The people reviewing apps to send IIs can be different than those making acceptance decisions. An app reviewer may have liked you for some reason and offered an II, but the admissions committee may not like you and reject/WL you.

Hope this helps answer some of your questions!

 

[KnightDoc]

I'm not an adcom, but here are some things adcoms have said in previous threads.

1. Resource management occurs before interviewing. If you are extended an interview, you have a real chance of acceptance.
2. Staircase analogy (the top being acceptance): every applicant starts off on a different step. Some need to advance 10 steps and have a phenomenal interview for acceptance. Others only need 1 step and a decent interview.
3. The people reviewing apps to send IIs can be different than those making acceptance decisions. An app reviewer may have liked you for some reason and offered an II, but the admissions committee may not like you and reject/WL you.

Hope this helps answer some of your questions!

This^^^^^^. Receiving an II means you are admissible. It does NOT mean you are guaranteed admission if you don't blow the interview. Your mistake is assuming that the only reason people aren't admitted is due to red flags. A ton of perfectly acceptable people are not admitted each year because there are far more qualified applicants than spots. Schools offer far more IIs than ultimate As so that they can have choices, not so they can admit everyone who doesn't screw up the interview.

 

[TabbyTuxy]

My apologies if this is a dumb question, but if you receive an interview invitation to a school, does that mean your application on paper has no red flags (outside of stats and IA's), and that the only potential area for a red flag are your interviewing skills? I've heard of some applicants being rejected post-interview because of low stats, but if you have some other weakness (e.g. low clinical, low research, low volunteering), would they reject you because of that even if the interview went phenomenally? I'm just confused as to why AdComs would even send the interview invitation in the first place if they knew about the weaknesses in the applicant on paper that would lead them to a rejection anyway.

Others have brought up great points. I will say that in a past cycle I received a single II and was rejected post-interview. In my meeting for feedback with the committee, I found out that my lack of clinical experience mainly sank my application, in addition to low volunteering and a borderline sGPA. However, they evaluated me highest in interview performance. I was a little bothered that I paid hundreds to interview at a school when I had such glaring deficits, but the screener must have seen something in me the majority didn't. Keep in mind that even if your screener is a voting committee member, they are almost never the sole person deciding your post-interview decision.

 

[KnightDoc]

Others have brought up great points. I will say that in a past cycle I received a single II and was rejected post-interview. In my meeting for feedback with the committee, I found out that my lack of clinical experience mainly sank my application, in addition to low volunteering and a borderline sGPA. However, they evaluated me highest in interview performance. I was a little bothered that I paid hundreds to interview at a school when I had such glaring deficits, but the screener must have seen something in me the majority didn't. Keep in mind that even if your screener is a voting committee member, they are almost never the sole person deciding your post-interview decision.

For the record, I would feel EXACTLY the way you did. That totally sucks. In hindsight, you never had a chance. The only potential benefit is, having received the highest evaluation in interview performance, you would be far ahead of everyone else on a reapp after addressing their concerns. Are you reapplying now?

 

[Goro]

Others have brought up great points. I will say that in a past cycle I received a single II and was rejected post-interview. In my meeting for feedback with the committee, I found out that my lack of clinical experience mainly sank my application, in addition to low volunteering and a borderline sGPA. However, they evaluated me highest in interview performance. I was a little bothered that I paid hundreds to interview at a school when I had such glaring deficits, but the screener must have seen something in me the majority didn't. Keep in mind that even if your screener is a voting committee member, they are almost never the sole person deciding your post-interview decision.

Not referring to your case, but schools can't tell you that "you were a babbling idiot" or "You were scary" or "You didn't understand the questions asked of you", and so they may give you a very diplomatic answer that has a grain of truth. So there is probably a backstory to your rejection. Schools do not waste valuable interview slots.

 

[TabbyTuxy]

Not referring to your case, but schools can't tell you that "you were a babbling idiot" or "You were scary" or "You didn't understand the questions asked of you", and so they may give you a very diplomatic answer that has a grain of truth. So there is probably a backstory to your rejection. Schools do not waste valuable interview slots.

I agree with you, and believe that may have been the case. I understand that interviewees are also bad at evaluating their own performance, but the representative I spoke to gave some concrete notes about my interview, including it being ranked/scored as the strongest part of my overall file. I have received very strong positive feedback from strangers at mock interviews and by past employers alike, so at worse I'd guess my interview was average. The school in question has a fairly high ratio of OOS interviews offered/applications received (around 30%), and my stats weren't bad.

I'd also like the emphasize that I had no business applying at all. My entire clinical experience amounted to 16hrs shadowing, and at the time I had around 75 total volunteer hours, none with a consistent group. My personal statement was absolutely nonsensical because I had not done any EC's to explore medicine. I am genuinely curious about what caught that screener's eye.

 

[Lampy]

I agree with you, and believe that may have been the case. I understand that interviewees are also bad at evaluating their own performance, but the representative I spoke to gave some concrete notes about my interview, including it being ranked/scored as the strongest part of my overall file. I have received very strong positive feedback from strangers at mock interviews and by past employers alike, so at worse I'd guess my interview was average. The school in question has a fairly high ratio of OOS interviews offered/applications received (around 30%), and my stats weren't bad.

I'd also like the emphasize that I had no business applying at all. My entire clinical experience amounted to 16hrs shadowing, and at the time I had around 75 total volunteer hours, none with a consistent group. My personal statement was absolutely nonsensical because I had not done any EC's to explore medicine. I am genuinely curious about what caught that screener's eye.

Hey, this is related to most of the thread... but how do you have 4.5 II and 1.5 IA? I'm just confused how you can get half of one.

 

[KnightDoc]

Not referring to your case, but schools can't tell you that "you were a babbling idiot" or "You were scary" or "You didn't understand the questions asked of you", and so they may give you a very diplomatic answer that has a grain of truth. So there is probably a backstory to your rejection. Schools do not waste valuable interview slots.

In general this is very astute advice, but there is a big difference between being diplomatic and not telling someone they sucked and actually telling them they had a great interview performance, so why not take @TabbyTuxy at his/her word that someone liked him/her enough to bring him/her in, but the file ultimately wasn't strong enough to close the deal? I agree that it makes no sense to have issued the II given how it turned out, but why lie by saying the interview was great versus giving no feedback at all, or being more lukewarm in the appraisal?

 

[TabbyTuxy]

In general this is very astute advice, but there is a big difference between being diplomatic and not telling someone they sucked and actually telling them they had a great interview performance, so why not take @TabbyTuxy at his/her word that someone liked him/her enough to bring him/her in, but the file ultimately wasn't strong enough to close the deal? I agree that it makes no sense to have issued the II given how it turned out, but why lie by saying the interview was great versus giving no feedback at all, or being more lukewarm in the appraisal?

Maybe they felt bad for how hard they roasted me on all the bad stuff by that point, haha. I am reinterviewing there, so we'll see how honest that "you're a good interviewee!" evaluation really was.

 

[TabbyTuxy]

Hey, this is related to most of the thread... but how do you have 4.5 II and 1.5 IA? I'm just confused how you can get half of one.

Western Michigan does a phone interview, then half of the phone interviewees get invited for a live interview! That's my 0.5 II, hoping to turn it into a 1 soon.

 

[Lampy]

Western Michigan does a phone interview, then half of the phone interviewees get invited for a live interview! That's my 0.5 II, hoping to turn it into a 1 soon.

Oh! Yeah that makes sense then haha, thanks for the info and lessening my constant confusion lol

 

[tunaktunak]

Others have brought up great points. I will say that in a past cycle I received a single II and was rejected post-interview. In my meeting for feedback with the committee, I found out that my lack of clinical experience mainly sank my application, in addition to low volunteering and a borderline sGPA. However, they evaluated me highest in interview performance. I was a little bothered that I paid hundreds to interview at a school when I had such glaring deficits, but the screener must have seen something in me the majority didn't. Keep in mind that even if your screener is a voting committee member, they are almost never the sole person deciding your post-interview decision.

Dang... Is this common for them to send out II's despite areas of severe weakness like that? That must've really sucked, I'm sorry :/

 

[Goro]

Dang... Is this common for them to send out II's despite areas of severe weakness like that? That must've really sucked, I'm sorry :/

It seems to be very uncommon in the MD world. At my DO school, we don't pre-screen, alas, much tot he Faculty's annoyance. So there are people who come to interview who are DOA.

 

[KnightDoc]

It seems to be very uncommon in the MD world. At my DO school, we don't pre-screen, alas, much tot he Faculty's annoyance. So there are people who come to interview who are DOA.

What's the point of wasting everyone's time like that???

 

[TabbyTuxy]

Dang... Is this common for them to send out II's despite areas of severe weakness like that? That must've really sucked, I'm sorry :/

I highly doubt it. I'm not sure why they would waste everyone's time doing it regularly. If you have an interview, you have a shot.

 

[Blueprint Med School]

Usually, if you get a really early II, that means you're at the top of the metaphorical staircase. Later interviews usually mean they're going down their list of potential applicants to give an II and you're near the bottom. That is, unless you were a great applicant that applied late.

Kevin W, MCAT Tutor
Med School Tutors

 

[LizzyM]

If there were deficits in your application that even the best interview performance could not outweigh, the school did you a disservice in interviewing you. It is possible that this was a courtesy interview based on your family connections, your PI's clout or some similar situation.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

What's the point of wasting everyone's time like that???

to say they are holistic?

 

[KnightDoc]

to say they are holistic?

Nahh. All schools are sufficiently holistic, based on the fact that higher stat applicants (relative to their pool) are rejected every year while lower stat applicants are admitted, that there is no need to waste the interviewers' time (as well as a precious interview slot) on someone who is not admissible for whatever reason. I am not for a minute suggesting that any school cares at all about the applicant's time, but they do value their own.

 

[joshuamarcus]

Nahh. All schools are sufficiently holistic, based on the fact that higher stat applicants (relative to their pool) are rejected every year while lower stat applicants are admitted, that there is no need to waste the interviewers' time (as well as a precious interview slot) on someone who is not admissible for whatever reason. I am not for a minute suggesting that any school cares at all about the applicant's time, but they do value their own.

Let’s say that there is a school that wants to maintain a 3.9+ gpa and 522 mcat medican, taking into account yield and other demographic information wouldnt they basically want to interview everyone with those stats (even if one part of the app is lacking)?

 

[deleted1005514]

Let’s say that there is a school that wants to maintain a 3.9+ gpa and 522 mcat medican, taking into account yield and other demographic information wouldnt they basically want to interview everyone with those stats (even if one part of the app is lacking)?

Some schools are heavily service-focused, and would not admit or interview a high stats applicant without what they consider to be an acceptable amount of service hours. Also, no school wants to run the risk of admitting a student who later drops out because they weren't a good fit for the school's mission.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Let’s say that there is a school that wants to maintain a 3.9+ gpa and 522 mcat medican, taking into account yield and other demographic information wouldnt they basically want to interview everyone with those stats (even if one part of the app is lacking)?

as you said that's median, look at their 10% and 25% also.

 

[joshuamarcus]

as you said that's median, look at their 10% and 25% also.

We’re strictly talking about holisticalness (?) in interview invites... Can you have a median that high without interviewing almost everyone that applies with those stats?

 

[Goro]

Let’s say that there is a school that wants to maintain a 3.9+ gpa and 522 mcat medican, taking into account yield and other demographic information wouldnt they basically want to interview everyone with those stats (even if one part of the app is lacking)?

There is some truth to this, based upon reports by SDNers. My rule of thumb for the really Top Schools is that successful applicants there have 100s if not even 1000s of hours of clinical exposure and/or service to others. Note the bolded qualifier.

 

[KnightDoc]

Let’s say that there is a school that wants to maintain a 3.9+ gpa and 522 mcat medican, taking into account yield and other demographic information wouldnt they basically want to interview everyone with those stats (even if one part of the app is lacking)?

Sure, if there's a school that only cares about stats. Please name it if you know one. Either way, your post doesn't address my post. I asked what was the point of wasting time interviewing someone, without a screen, who is DOA. You're responding with a hypothetical involving a pre-screen based on stats.

 

[KnightDoc]

We’re strictly talking about holisticalness (?) in interview invites... Can you have a median that high without interviewing almost everyone that applies with those stats?

Absolutely, yes!!!! Around 80,000 people take the test every year. Around 800 are 522+ and around 1,600 are 520+. Every year. Around 50,000 apply. If top schools were interviewing almost all of them, they wouldn't be interviewing anyone else.

Schools interview at most around 1,000 people each. Many top candidates interview at multiple top schools. The numbers you are citing are medians -- a full half of the class has numbers below those stats. Top schools literally reject for interviews dozens, if not hundreds, of people with stats above their medians every year, and absolutely interview many hundreds of people every year with stats below their medians.

Yes, they have a median that high and do not interview almost everyone with stats at or above their median. Look it up -- this is the very definition of holistic review.

 

[joshuamarcus]

Absolutely, yes!!!! Around 80,000 people take the test every year. Around 800 are 522+ and around 1,600 are 520+. Every year. Around 50,000 apply. If top schools were interviewing almost all of them, they wouldn't be interviewing anyone else.

Schools interview at most around 1,000 people each. Many top candidates interview at multiple top schools. The numbers you are citing are medians -- a full half of the class has numbers below those stats. Top schools literally reject for interviews dozens, if not hundreds, of people with stats above their medians every year, and absolutely interview many hundreds of people every year with stats below their medians.

Yes, they have a median that high and do not interview almost everyone with stats at or above their median. Look it up -- this is the very definition of holistic review.

Guy i know what median means lol. I’m just saying that if your pulling half ur class from an incredibly tiny fraction of students. 521 is the start of the 99th, so I’d wager your numbers are an overestimate. But even still, how many of those individuals also have a 3.9+? And then of those, how many are also applying to x school?


I’m just saying that some schools may extend interview invites based on stats alone. There was a sdn post about an reapplicant with a LizzyM > 80 with basically no clinical experience/volunteering. Yet they received an interview last cycle at a school most of us would be thrilled to receive one from... wouldn’t you consider that their lack of expericne makes them DOA though?

 

[KnightDoc]

Guy i know what median means lol. I’m just saying that if your pulling half ur class from an incredibly tiny fraction of students. 521 is the start of the 99th, so I’d wager your numbers are an overestimate. But even still, how many of those individuals also have a 3.9+? And then of those, how many are also applying to x school?


I’m just saying that some schools may extend interview invites based on stats alone. There was a sdn post about an reapplicant with a LizzyM > 80 with basically no clinical experience/volunteering. Yet they received an interview last cycle at a school most of us would be thrilled to receive one from... wouldn’t you consider that their lack of expericne makes them DOA though?

Yes, I would think they would be DOA. THAT was the point of my post!!! Why would any adcom waste time on a candidate they would never take. I still haven't received a good answer.

As to your first point, you would lose that wager, but I won't take your money. Using MCAT Data in 2021 lists 520-521 as 98%ile and 522-523 as 99%ile. How many people in the 98%ile also have 3.9+ GPAs? It sounds a lot more than you realize. How many of them apply to X T20 school? Most of them! And remember, not all current year test takers apply in the current cycle, but, at the same time, you also have people applying now who took the test in prior cycles (before gap years, before junior year, etc.).

Trust me, there are at least 1,500 people applying to all of the top schools each year with 520+ MCATs. Very few of them have GPAs lower than 3.7. Most of them are going to be 3.9+. If stats were everything, everyone else would be crowded out (other than the obligatory low-SES and URM candidates) at all of the top schools, and, as we all know, this is simply not the case.

 

[joshuamarcus]

Yes, I would think they would be DOA. THAT was the point of my post!!! Why would any adcom waste time on a candidate they would never take. I still haven't received a good answer.

As to your first point, you would lose that wager, but I won't take your money. Using MCAT Data in 2021 lists 520-521 as 98%ile and 522-523 as 99%ile. How many people in the 98%ile also have 3.9+ GPAs? It sounds a lot more than you realize. How many of them apply to X T20 school? Most of them! And remember, not all current year test takers apply in the current cycle, but, at the same time, you also have people applying now who took the test in prior cycles (before gap years, before junior year, etc.).

Trust me, there are at least 1,500 people applying to all of the top schools each year with 520+ MCATs. Very few of them have GPAs lower than 3.7. Most of them are going to be 3.9+. If stats were everything, everyone would be crowded out (other than the obligatory low-SES and URM candidates) at all of the top schools, and, as we all know, this is simply not the case.

Right, they're DOA, but they got interviews at top schools...

MSAR data is from a few cycles back, but let's use your number. Let's say there are 800 people with a 522 or higher. From AAMC data, washu matriculation data, Vanderbilt matriculation data, and tufts matriculation data, it seems like less than half those people would have a gpa of 3.9 or higher. That makes 400 people. Let's also assume that all 400 people apply to this school (NYU, if it wasn't clear at this point lol). They give out 1000 interviews. Is it unreasonable for them to give out about 40% of their interviews for 50% of their class?

Nobody said stats are everything, but it seems like they're enough to get you an interview.

 

[KnightDoc]

Right, they're DOA, but they got interviews at top schools...

MSAR data is from a few cycles back, but let's use your number. Let's say there are 800 people with a 522 or higher. From AAMC data, washu matriculation data, Vanderbilt matriculation data, and tufts matriculation data, it seems like less than half those people would have a gpa of 3.9 or higher. That makes 400 people. Let's also assume that all 400 people apply to this school (NYU, if it wasn't clear at this point lol). They give out 1000 interviews. Is it unreasonable for them to give out about 40% of their interviews for 50% of their class?

Nobody said stats are everything, but it seems like they're enough to get you an interview.

You lost me on how you are using matriculation data from the #6, 18 and 53 schools to conclude that only half of applicants with 522+ MCATs have 3.9+ GPAs (Just one example -- WashU -- matriculant median GPA = 3.93, MCAT = 521. Why do you think all matriculants with MCATs 521+ don't have GPAs 3.9+? It's entirely possible!!), but, whatever. I think your point might be valid at mid tier and lower schools, who might need some high stat candidates to boost their reported numbers (assuming you can convince them your interest is sincere to avoid being yield protected out), but it's just not true at top schools.

Don't believe me. I'm not an insider. I'm just a premed like you, showing off his CARS skills by interpreting what has been said multiple times by adcoms at these top schools. High stats are the price of entry for most of us at top schools, and "low" stat is a relative term there, where a 517 and 3.7 are "low" at a school with a 522 and 3.9 median. But, believe me, PLENTY of people with 524s and 3.9s do not receive IIs at these schools every year, while PLENTY of people with 518s and 3.7s do.

So, you are flat out wrong. Schools like NYU just do not interview all, or even most, people who apply with high stats, because the review is holistic, they are looking for many different things, and typically less than one in five applicants will receive an interview (around one in ten in many instances). @gyngyn and @LizzyM -- please confirm or deny. Thanks!!

 

[joshuamarcus]

You lost me on how you are using matriculation data from the #6, 18 and 53 schools to conclude that only half of applicants with 522+ MCATs have 3.9+ GPAs, (Just one example -- WashU -- matriculant median GPA = 3.93, MCAT = 521. Why do you think all matriculants with MCATs 521+ don't have GPAs 3.9+? It's entirely possible!!) but, whatever. I think your point might be valid at mid tier and lower schools, who might need some high stat candidates to boost their reported numbers (assuming you can convince them your interest is sincere to avoid being yield protected out), but it's just not true at top schools.

Those are ones that are publically available. If you have data that shows a different trend, feel free to share.

Don't believe me. I'm not an insider. I'm just a premed like you, showing off his CARS skills by interpreting what has been said multiple times by adcoms at these top schools. High stats are the price of entry for most of us at top schools, and "low" stat is a relative term there, where a 517 and 3.7 are "low" at a school with a 522 and 3.9 median. But, believe me, PLENTY of people with 524s and 3.9s do not receive IIs at these schools every year, while PLENTY of people with 518s and 3.7s do.

You keep saying that ppl w/ lower stats get interviews too. I'm not arguing against that... Idk how to word it any differently or more clearly but im trying to say that itseems like high stats but weak everything else seems to be enough to get you an interview at some of these schools

So, you are flat out wrong. Schools like NYU just do not interview all, or even most, people who apply with high stats, because the review is holistic, they are looking for many different things, and typically less than one in five applicants will receive an interview (around one in ten in many instances). @gyngyn and @LizzyM -- please confirm or deny. Thanks!!

See Goro's comment above. Or may ask Faha why these stats basically mean a guaranteed interview at Washu...


Anyway... before someone tells us to shut up , idc about arguing anymore so I'm done with this convo.

 

[KnightDoc]

Those are ones that are publically available. If you have data that shows a different trend, feel free to share.




You keep saying that ppl w/ lower stats get interviews too. I'm not arguing against that... Idk how to word it any differently or more clearly but im trying to say that itseems like high stats but weak everything else seems to be enough to get you an interview at some of these schools




See Goro's comment above. Or may ask Faha why these stats basically mean a guaranteed interview at Washu...


Anyway... before someone tells us to shut up , idc about arguing anymore so I'm done with this convo.

The data I'm using is from MSAR. At WashU, half of matriculants are above 521, and half are below 3.93. This does NOT mean that half of 521+ are below 3.93. I don't have data that shows a different trend. You are just misinterpreting the data!

For the record, @Faha's lists should NEVER be read to mean "basically mean a guaranteed interview." Don't believe me, just ask him.

It's very dangerous to believe that high stats and weak everything else are enough to get you an interview anywhere. You're not applying this cycle, are you? Whenever you apply, hopefully you will not find yourself in this situation. Otherwise, you are very likely to learn a very difficult lesson.

 

[joshuamarcus]

The data I'm using is from MSAR. At WashU, half of matriculants are above 521, and half are below 3.93. This does NOT mean that half of 521+ are below 3.93. I don't have data that shows a different trend. You are just misinterpreting the data!

I'm referencing the premed matriculation data. @Elfie

 

[KnightDoc]

I'm referencing the premed matriculation data. @Elfie

I see you are applying this cycle. PLEASE tell me you are not high stat with weak everything else. PLEASE!!!!

 

[PigsHaveWings]

If you look at the GPA-MCAT AAMC grid for this year there were 12,753 applicants with MCAT greater than 517. Out of these 7848 (62%) had a gpa more than 3.8.

So in this very high MCAT score group of 517 +, the number of people with GPA > 3.9 is likely close to your estimate @joshuarmarcus . I dont know if the same number will be true for 520 +, but i suspect it will be close.

You should have taken the wager @joshuamarcus.

 

[KnightDoc]

If you look at the GPA-MCAT AAMC grid for this year there were 12,753 applicants with MCAT greater than 517. Out of these 7848 (62%) had a gpa more than 3.8.

So in this very high MCAT score group of 517 +, the number of people with GPA > 3.9 is likely close to your estimate @joshuarmarcus . I dont know if the same number will be true for 520 +, but i suspect it will be close.

You should have taken the wager @joshuamarcus.

That's a helluva leap to speculate that people with MCATs 522+ are going to have the same GPAs as 517-521. If you take a just slightly closer look at your grid, you'll see GPAs consistently increase along with increasing MCAT. Helluva an assumption to think that stops at 522. You're lucky I don't take your money as well.

 

[joshuamarcus]

If you look at the GPA-MCAT AAMC grid for this year there were 12,753 applicants with MCAT greater than 517. Out of these 7848 (62%) had a gpa more than 3.8.

So in this very high MCAT score group of 517 +, the number of people with GPA > 3.9 is likely close to your estimate @joshuarmarcus . I dont know if the same number will be true for 520 +, but i suspect it will be close.

You should have taken the wager @joshuamarcus.

“From AAMC data, washu matriculation data, Vanderbilt matriculation data, and tufts matriculation data, it seems like less than half those people would have a gpa of 3.9 or higher.”



Thanks. I commented about that in my post above, but your explanation is much clearer.

 

[TabbyTuxy]

If there were deficits in your application that even the best interview performance could not outweigh, the school did you a disservice in interviewing you. It is possible that this was a courtesy interview based on your family connections, your PI's clout or some similar situation.

In my case, I had no ties to the area. Didn't know a soul who had even been to the city. I have heard this about courtesy interviews!

 

[KnightDoc]

I have above 522 and below 3.5 if it makes you feel better joshuamarcus

You've been to this rodeo before, correct? If so, perhaps you can enlighten @joshuamarcus and me -- are you typical, or the exception to my rule? And, just how impressed have schools been with your score? Are reviews holistic, or do really high MCAT scores = lots of IIs? What feedback, if any, did you receive regarding your score, GPA and ECs, and the relative importance of each????

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

WashU and Vanderbilt publish details about their premeds also.

Here is Vandy info. They have GPA and MCAT breakdowns.

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/hpao/documents/2019_Annual_Report-2020-04-01.pdf

 

[KnightDoc]

Lol I don't know the answers to any of that stuff rip
no II thus far this cycle if that is what you're asking tho

No, and I absolutely was not trying to bust your chops at all, especially after the Wendy's reference.

I just started going through your old posts, so I haven't gotten to the point yet where I find out whether or not your 522+ was a retake or a first time score, but since you posted that you are low GPA / very high MCAT, I was hoping for a little support regarding how atypical you are (@joshuamarcus is misreading whatever he is reading to say that more than half of 522+ MCATs have GPAs below 3.9, and you certainly didn't help my argument with your post ), and how schools don't just focus on MCAT (or stats) without regard to anything else, or automatically give IIs to high stat candidates, as he seems to believe.

 

[LizzyM]

Keep in mind that when you have a median, you don't know the range, or you have a 10th and 90th percentile or you have quartiles or whatever but you could have a very skewed distribution. if the median is 3,89 you could have one person with a 3.5, 40 with a 3.87 or 3.88, some with 3.89 and another 41 with 3.90 or higher. When you say, "but if the median (average) is 3.89, half of the people have a GPA less than that," do you realize that is is possible that 98% of the class has a GPA of 3.87 or higher??

You also have a bunch of stat-wh0re schools all interviewing the same high stats people but each applicant can only matriculate at one school. So many of the interview slots are taken by a pool of very talented and accomplished applicants who will (almost all) have a seat when the music ends. That leaves a few seats at each school for special interests, and the unusual applicants who bring something special to the table that adds to the diversity of the class.

 

[PigsHaveWings]

Keep in mind that when you have a median, you don't know the range, or you have a 10th and 90th percentile or you have quartiles or whatever but you could have a very skewed distribution. if the median is 3,89 you could have one person with a 3.5, 40 with a 3.87 or 3.88, some with 3.89 and another 41 with 3.90 or higher. When you say, "but if the median (average) is 3.89, half of the people have a GPA less than that," do you realize that is is possible that 98% of the class has a GPA of 3.87 or higher??

You also have a bunch of stat-wh0re schools all interviewing the same high stats people but each applicant can only matriculate at one school. So many of the interview slots are taken by a pool of very talented and accomplished applicants who will (almost all) have a seat when the music ends. That leaves a few seats at each school for special interests, and the unusual applicants who bring something special to the table that adds to the diversity of the class.

That statement is absolutely brilliant !!

 

[deleted555445]

I have above 522 and below 3.5 if it makes you feel better joshuamarcus

i'll join you there lol but i think we're more of the exception than the rule

 

[deleted1054719]

i'll join you there lol but i think we're more of the exception than the rule

You might be pleasantly surprised. Many of my friends in college tested very well on the SAT/ACT as well as the MCAT but just didn't do so well GPA-wise. They thrived in standardized environments but suffered a bit in classes so I def know a few cases. n=4 or so

 

[deleted555445]

also, if you look at the graph on page 43 of this document, you see that the 2017-2018 cohort had around 2,000 (crude estimate) people apply with >522 MCAT, so ~1,000 people per year apply with >522.

Edited to correct error.

 

[deleted555445]

You might be pleasantly surprised. Many of my friends in college tested very well on the SAT/ACT as well as the MCAT but just didn't do so well GPA-wise. They thrived in standardized environments but suffered a bit in classes so I def know a few cases. n=4 or so

i'm definitely one of those people but also i needed some time post-college just to mature... nothing does that better than signing your life over to the US Army!

 

[KnightDoc]

also, if you look at the graph on page 43 of this document, you see that the 2017-2018 cohort had around 2,000 (crude estimate) people apply with >522 MCAT.

Yes -- but note that is over 2 cycles (n=95,936)!!!

 

[deleted555445]

Yes -- but note that is over 2 cycles (n=95,936)!!!

my mistake, i read that as applicants for 2017-2018 cycle!