Question to re-applicants whom have been accepted

[jscarpachio]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Have any of you been rejected the first time you applied, waited one year, then reapplied with the same application and were accepted?

I've seen this a couple of times and cannot figure out why a medical school would reject you once before and then accept you the year after with the same application. Maybe they didn't have space the first time? What else is it?

 

[nockamura]

Applied earlier?

 

[DoctorFunk]

I think increased maturity, experience in interviewing, and the demonstrated desire/persistence inherent in reapplying may also play a factor.

 

[MediMama23]

I don't think it has to do with space, because if they REALLY wanted you, they would take you and make room for you.

How far did these people get the first time? Did they get up to interview status? I could see this happening if they had gotten interviews the first time but weren't able to pull them off successfully. Interviews are a BIG part of this process; anyone can make themselves look decent on paper, but if you don't have what they're looking for when they meet you, it's enough to seal the deal and get you rejected. So maybe these people who got accepted their second time around were able to become more personable in their interviews and seal acceptances.

If they hadn't even been given a secondary the first time, though, I wouldn't know what to tell you.

 

[deuist]

Have any of you been rejected the first time you applied, waited one year, then reapplied with the same application and were accepted?

I've seen this a couple of times and cannot figure out why a medical school would reject you once before and then accept you the year after with the same application. Maybe they didn't have space the first time? What else is it?

Maybe that's because we don't have the same applications. I sat out two years and here are the improvements:

- raised undergraduate GPA by 0.1
- graduated high honors
- raised by MCAT by 1 point (and 1 letter on the written)
- earned a master's degree
- gained strong research experience
- started volunteering weekly
- took on leadership roles

I was a mediocre applicant the first time I applied. I may have had good numbers, but my extracurriculars only suited my interests. While I worked in a hospital, I had no volunteering, no research, and weak rec letters (get to know your professors!)


Wait until I finish writing "The Not So Short Introduction to Getting Into Medical School," then you'll see what all is possible in such a short amount of time.

 

[deuist]

I don't think it has to do with space, because if they REALLY wanted you, they would take you and make room for you.

Not true! Medical schools have enrollments caps. I am not aware of a single school that would break its cap just to accept a multitude of overqualified applicants. If you know something different, please share it.

Interviews are a BIG part of this process; anyone can make themselves look decent on paper, but if you don't have what they're looking for when they meet you, it's enough to seal the deal and get you rejected.

Again, not true. Interviews are pretty low on the ladder of things that will get you accepted or rejected. If anything, they only serve borderline applicants. For most people, however, the school already has an idea whether or not it wants you.

The interview also serves the purpose of letting you tour the campus to see if you want to go there. If the interview were merely a tool of the admissions office, you could interview over the phone.

In actuality, letters of recommendation are the BIGGEST part of the process.

 

[nycmed8]

I applied, was rejected, reapplied and now am matriculating 2 years after I originally applied. Its funny, because at 2 of my interviews, interviewers commented that they didn't know why i wasn't interviewed the first time around. i think a big difference is maturity and the experience i gained just working and being in a professional setting. Also took the time to take an extra class but the funny thing is my gpa and mcat is the same as before. just more clinical experience and some abstract publications.

 

[coredump]

In actuality, letters of recommendation are the BIGGEST part of the process.

Really? What makes you say that? It's a pretty bold statement ... it may be true for some, but not for others (general rule for the entire process, IMHO).

 

[coredump]

Have any of you been rejected the first time you applied, waited one year, then reapplied with the same application and were accepted?

I think there's a misconception that this process is purely objective; meaning, the same set of inputs (students with x,y,z credentials) will give you a predictable output (accepted, waitlist, rejected). I just don't think that's true.

Such subjective factors such as timing, number of times applied (and how that's interpreted), your interviewers, etc. - all could mean the difference between an acceptance,waitlist, or rejection. If you're a borderline student, these types of factors really can push you one way or the other.

 

[deuist]

Really? What makes you say that? It's a pretty bold statement ... it may be true for some, but not for others (general rule for the entire process, IMHO).

According to an interviewer at Vanderbilt about the interview process, "We just want to make sure you speak in complete sentences and don't drool" (From SDN)


Also see:

UP Alumni
Purdue
Reed College