Relationship between Early II and Acceptance chance
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Who knows. The person reading your secondary could be caught up while other adcom members could be behind. Schools will give a timeline so people dont cry if they fall behind.
School 1: tells you they will get back to you within 4 weeks. They fall behind 2 weeks and people flood their admissions office with calls and emails asking whats going on
School 2: tells you they will get back to you within 12 weeks. They get back to you at week 7 and you are now happy.
School 1: tells you they will get back to you within 4 weeks. They fall behind 2 weeks and people flood their admissions office with calls and emails asking whats going on
School 2: tells you they will get back to you within 12 weeks. They get back to you at week 7 and you are now happy.
I'm sure it depends on the school but at my school (and I'm sure many others) they tend to interview their strongest applicants first. So I would assume having an earlier interview carries a better chance of acceptance simply because those applicants are better to begin with.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You seem to enjoy making enormously inaccurate and misleading overstatements.
From the few schools that post acceptance rates over time, statistics show that earlier interviewees are accepted at significantly higher rates than average. II timing seems to have limited yet relevant predictive value. You seem to be a victim of the misconception that every med school operates as yours does, which is an increasingly apparent problem for a couple of the adcoms on this forum.
Any relationship between II timing and acceptance is probably confounded by the strength of the applicant since this factor improves the likelihood of both early II and acceptance on its own. Basically, if you're a strong applicant, it shouldn't matter and you should go into the interview acting confidently like you belong. Even if you're not a strong applicant, it would behoove you to act as if you were.
I think michigan is pretty great with their data but idk where the link is but im sure its pretty easy to find.
we've had this debate before on a thread I created in the summer.
Mich's website shows a very slight negative trend as the cycle goes on. I'm pretty sure we all concluded that it didn't make much of a difference and applicant strength was a strong confounding factor. I'll try to dig the thread up and link it here later.
I received an early II to my dream school but the only spot available was 3 months later. The school is still issuing IIs, but I think they just send out large batches which are quickly selected by applicants.
Found it
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/post-ii-acceptance-stats-are-skewed.1223475/
*edit* gonnif beat me to it.
https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/post-ii-acceptance-stats-are-skewed.1223475/
*edit* gonnif beat me to it.
Last edited:
Hello.
Thank you very much.
But, I like to reclassify my question.
ex)
A school II trend shows 95 % of II after 2~3 months of secondary submitt.
(All Students submitted secondary on 8/1/2016)
Student A received II after 3 month. (11/1/2016)
Student B received II after 2 month. (10/1/2016)
Student C received II after 1 month.(9/1/2016)
Is student C have more chance of acceptance?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
But, I like to reclassify my question.
ex)
A school II trend shows 95 % of II after 2~3 months of secondary submitt.
(All Students submitted secondary on 8/1/2016)
Student A received II after 3 month. (11/1/2016)
Student B received II after 2 month. (10/1/2016)
Student C received II after 1 month.(9/1/2016)
Is student C have more chance of acceptance?
Thank you.
Last edited:
There is a possibility it my be slightly higher, but the most important factor is how well the interview goes.
I believe that it is 'likely' C will have a better chance of acceptance but it is not definite as there are many factors at play.
Time and time again people here have confirmed that schools do not review applicants in the order that they are received. But also what is super important to remember is that there are multiple reviewers with their own individual methods for reviewing the apps sitting in their pile. Say reviewer Ann likes to review 4.0, veterans and URM first and it so happens that C is all of those and gets a quick invite. But on the other hand say Bob had this same pile of applicants but reviews apps in a different order and is also is a slow reader and takes forever to review. That will complete change the order that invites are extended.
The problem is that we don't have a window into the internal review process for each school. It is possible the interviews times differed because of delays or quick turnaround time by the reviewers assigned. The committee that extends ii met more frequently or less frequently in a specific month. Etc etc.
The inherent randomness in the process is greater then the predictive power of time of II. Provided the Ii offers occured by December.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Many of you are missing the point, OP simply asked if there's any relationship between an early II and acceptance chance. The answer is that there is probably some very small to moderate relationship; early is generally better. No one is claiming that II date is the only relevant factor or that early interviewees have 100% chance of being accepted.
7
787593
*premed fails to find sarcasm*
*premed registers for astrology course*
