Originally posted by A. Caveman:
•some people will never learn.
Sandflea, i'm gonna explain this again. but i need you to stop closing yourself to this new possibility. try to understand it. here it goes.
i refuse to make this point more clear. somebody back me up here, so that sandflea understands REALITY.
•••
wow. your patronizing tone is *really* unnecessary, buddy. i understand your point PERFECTLY, but the fact is, i don't agree with it. guess what: i'm allowed to do that, and the fact that i've read your arguments and have not changed my mind does NOT in any way make me closed-minded. keep the insults off the board.
that said, i have a few points to make:
1) yes, schools are aware of where they factor in on the prestige scale. i never disputed this. my point was that they in no way have to resolve themselves to a second-tier reputation for the rest of time. i really can't imagine that a school would be content being known as a lower-level school, and in fact, many take deliberate steps to improve their image. this is reality. one of these methods is to try to recruit students of increasingly higher caliber. and you know what? they have every right in the world to do this. if meharry, for example, decides that they want to legitimately recruit applicants of higher stats, the first step would be to interview them. have any of you gotten random pamphlets from schools asking you to apply, probably on the basis of your MCAT scores? that is an example of what i am trying to get at--schools actively recruit the strongest applicants they can get.
2) i NEVER SAID that 'lower' schools should admit ONLY students with high stats; i think some of you are taking my posts very personally. what i said was that 'lower' schools have the right to interview and admit applicants with higher stats *if they so choose*. they can also choose to focus on only students with crappy stats if they wanted to--hey, they can do whatever they want--but in the way of the world, a school wouldn't benefit from doing that, right? schools will generally interview students with a range of stats, probably starting with the strongest and moving down as time passes in the application cycle. and the more students of top caliber that they initially admit, the better yield of top students they'll wind up in the end. if the 4.0/40 students ultimately decide to go somewhere else, then they offer another round of acceptances to the next-strongest group of interviewees, or they move to the waitlist. that is how admissions works. there is a reason why high grades and MCAT scores are so emphasized when you prepare to apply for med school--it's because, all other things being equal, in general they are the strongest determinant of how you will fare in the application process, not just at the top schools or the bottom schools, but at *all* schools across the board. however, that said,....
3) ...as i have stated many times now, different schools look for different things. while high stats are most important, they are no guarantee of anything in this process. various schools may have different values and approaches to their medical education, and as a result they are interested in different personal qualities in the types of students they are looking at admit. so regardless of where you are on the stat scale, it would be unrealistic and arrogant for you to assume that every med school out there, regardless of what USNews thinks of them, is going to beat down your door. this is why there is no such thing as a safety school.
4) it is true that many applicants DO view 'lower' schools as back-ups. we all know that, and that is the reason why this thread was created, right? because someone did not understand why they weren't getting any love from the so-called 'lower' schools? my point was that i can't imagine an adcom sits around and wastes valuable time trying to guess why suzie Q with a 4.0/42 applied to their school and what their motivation for applying might be. i'd be willing to bet that instead, they would want to snatch suzie Q right up and would interview and wine and dine her to come to their school, and in case that school really IS suzie's so-called back-up, they would try to change her mind. there's a lot of selling of the school that goes on at interviews, and a *sincere* desire to attend a school is appreciated and can go a long way. what school DOESN'T want outstanding applicants among their student body? how can you really dispute this? the more 'high-stat' candidates that matriculate at a school, the more the school's accepted averages go up, the more attention the school attracts, and in turn, more and more high caliber students will apply to the school. yes, average GPAs/MCATs don't fluctuate too much from year to year, but you would be mistaken if you really believe that all schools are totally content with that. many, if not all, are very aware of where they factor in on the rankings scale, and many do in fact try to move up.
5) as a personal anecdote, i have not gotten any interviews at these so-called safety schools. on the other hand, the people i know who HAVE gotten interviews have much higher stats than i do, which according to your argument, makes them less likely to matriculate at these schools than i would and therefore less worthy of their time.
thanks, aesculapian, for seeing both sides of the issue. i don't think caveman and i will reach any kind of middle ground on this.
<img src="graemlins/laughy.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughy]" />
