risky to apply ONLY to mid-tiers/safeties?

[patel2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have no safeties, actually, but of the 25 schools I am applying to, they are all really within my MCAT score +/-1 to maximize my chances. But since many on here say the process is so arbitrary, is it a mistake to not try any reaches? I know some people say they get interviews at reaches while getting rejected at schools that better fit stats.

 

[allie1361]

It's your money...if you can afford to apply to more, then go for it. Never hurts to try.

And remember, those MCAT scores in the MSAR are AVERAGES. People get in with MCAT scores at least a few points lower and higher than that.

 

[ThatQuestionGuy]

Just make sure the schools you apply to actually fit you (don't only take IS, primary care, rural health, research) and don't assume that the MCAT/GPA averages tell the whole story

 

[LRAccord624]

At schools that were within my MCAT/GPA range, I got interviews at 4/7 in state schools (TX). At schools where I didn't have a chance stats wise or applied as an OOS resident, I got interviews at 3/3. Withdrew from one, accepted to another, and waitlisted at the last.

So technically, my track record was actually better for schools I thought I didn't have a chance at. I think you should pick at least a couple reaches and try it out. Might as well. If you absolutely can't spare the $, there is nothing wrong with applying to all schools within your stats range.

GL!

Oh, and the advice posted above is exactly right.

 

[Law2Doc]

I have no safeties, actually, but of the 25 schools I am applying to, they are all really within my MCAT score +/-1 to maximize my chances. But since many on here say the process is so arbitrary, is it a mistake to not try any reaches? I know some people say they get interviews at reaches while getting rejected at schools that better fit stats.

It's not arbitrary, it's just not based 100% on the numbers. Every school has a very definite and nonrandom way of selecting applicants. But because they give weight to non-objective things like ECs, interview, etc, you cannot have a good sense of how to evaluate yourself. When there is subjectivity in the process you cannot evaluate where you are a lock vs what is a reach. You don't know what the school is looking for to put together their well balanced class. Nor do you really know who else is in the applicant pool and what characteristics they have that may make them more interesting to a particular school. So because the process is not transparent (ie not simply about the highest MCAT), you are going to be wrong many many times in guessing what is a safety for you. You can be well above the school's average numbers but be a horrible fit and not get in. You will whine that it's so random, but in fact the program probably has a very specific, and articulable reason they picked someone other than you, based on who was a better "fit" for the school. So yeah, you probably should apply to a wide variety of places and not assume you know where your application is going to shine brightest. And never ever overestimate yourself to the point that you are talking about places as a "safety". Because arrogance is hard to hide and you will all too often telegraph that you think you are too good for a particular place, and not get in as a result.