School Selection Strategy - A Discussion

[Handy388]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have a Lizzy M score of 74 but my GPA is pretty low and I am over-represented. I ended up getting into a top 20 with Lizzy M around 70-71, but I made a mistake in school selection that I would like to discuss with ya'all, because I am not sure if I would have fared better if I done my school selection differently.

When I selected my schools, I REALLY want to get in, so I applied to about 10-15 schools that have average matriculant numbers much lower than my Lizzy M score.

As secondaries begin to pour in, I got cocky, and applied for 5 more reaches (like Stanford, Wash U type of reaches) in addition to the 5 reach I already have.

Basically, I ended up with a bimodal distribution of schools where half of them were less than research power houses (I like to do academic medicine) and the other half I cannot realistically get in.

I ended up having acceptance at one top 20 (I applied to like 3 schools that are in my range of LIzzy M), and two acceptances at top 80- top 100.

So, I would like to start a discussion. Would it be better to apply with a bimodal school list, where if you don't make it to top 10 you end up going to a top 100, or apply with a list that is mostly schools around your LizzyM score and maybe some lower tiered?

So in my experience, the best list = one where there are 70% school at your LIZZYM score, 20% school that are 1 standard dev below your lizzyM, and 10% that are 1 standard dev above.

 

[phospho]

I have a Lizzy M score of 74 but my GPA is pretty low and I am over-represented. I ended up getting into a top 20 with Lizzy M around 70-71, but I made a mistake in school selection that I would like to discuss with ya'all, because I am not sure if I would have fared better if I done my school selection differently.

When I selected my schools, I REALLY want to get in, so I applied to about 10-15 schools that have average matriculant numbers much lower than my Lizzy M score.

As secondaries begin to pour in, I got cocky, and applied for 5 more reaches (like Stanford, Wash U type of reaches) in addition to the 5 reach I already have.

Basically, I ended up with a bimodal distribution of schools where half of them were less than research power houses (I like to do academic medicine) and the other half I cannot realistically get in.

I ended up having acceptance at one top 20 (I applied to like 3 schools that are in my range of LIzzy M), and two acceptances at top 80- top 100.

So, I would like to start a discussion. Would it be better to apply with a bimodal school list, where if you don't make it to top 10 you end up going to a top 100, or apply with a list that is mostly schools around your LizzyM score and maybe some lower tiered?

So in my experience, the best list = one where there are 70% school at your LIZZYM score, 20% school that are 1 standard dev below your lizzyM, and 10% that are 1 standard dev above.

what the heck's a "LIZZYM" score? why would you trust anything other than the MSAR for school selection?

You decide how many schools you want to apply to, and then apply to the schools that have averages that are close to yours. Personally, if I'm applying to 20 schools, I would apply to 15 schools that are at my average or lower, and I would apply to 5 schools that are "reach schools"...

congrats on the acceptance!

 

[drizzt3117]

I think it just depends on what you want. I only applied to pretty much top 25 schools + CA schools and it worked out fine for me. For reference, my lizzy M score was 76.3. I wasn't really willing to attend schools that weren't in the following category, and if I didn't get in with my resume I would have found something else to do.

 

[hal9000]

So in my experience, the best list = one where there are 70% school at your LizzyM score, 20% school that are 1 standard dev below your lizzyM, and 10% that are 1 standard dev above.

Dude, you're over-thinking it. Besides, you need to take into account things like applying early/late, or the balance of mcat scores.

 

[fizzle]

I ended up having acceptance at one top 20 (I applied to like 3 schools that are in my range of LIzzy M), and two acceptances at top 80- top 100.

I think you're placing way too much emphasis on rankings over fit.

Didn't you get into Mount Sinai, which is a great school, also? I think that would qualify as one of your target schools; this along with your "top 20" school gives you some good choices across a relatively broad range.

 

[Handy388]

I think you're placing way too much emphasis on rankings over fit.

Didn't you get into Mount Sinai, which is a great school, also? I think that would qualify as one of your target schools; this along with your "top 20" school gives you some good choices across a relatively broad range.

I consider Mount Sinai a top 20 school (going by NIH grant). I don't follow USNews.

Personally, I consider my fit as a combined factor of location, reputation and cost, in no particular order, because I would like to go into academic medicine and pedigree matters.

As for placing too much emphasis over fit, how are you possibly going to evaluate "fit" if you aren't even going to be interviewed? I am discussing applicatiion strategy here, not choosing schools.

 

[Aladdin]

what the heck's a "LizzyM" score? why would you trust anything other than the MSAR for school selection?

You decide how many schools you want to apply to, and then apply to the schools that have averages that are close to yours. Personally, if I'm applying to 20 schools, I would apply to 15 schools that are at my average or lower, and I would apply to 5 schools that are "reach schools"...

congrats on the acceptance!

How can you be a 2+ year member and not know what a LizzyM score is? Although, I agree with your philosophy of looking at the MSAR stats. That sometimes doesn't work though. OP, I agree with someone above. You are overthinking this.

 

[chiz2kul]

what the heck's a "LizzyM" score? why would you trust anything other than the MSAR for school selection?

You decide how many schools you want to apply to, and then apply to the schools that have averages that are close to yours. Personally, if I'm applying to 20 schools, I would apply to 15 schools that are at my average or lower, and I would apply to 5 schools that are "reach schools"...

congrats on the acceptance!

Seconded.

 

[235009]

1. where the are these NIH grant numbers you are basing your rankings on
2. why are rankings so important to you?
3. you are putting way too much weight on the LizzyM score....as we know there are soooo many factors that come into play which cannot be accounted for by a formula that only includes GPA and mcat score
4. application strategy should be about how close a school's numbers are to yours and whether what they look for in applicants is similar to what you have....i know the former has something to do with ranking but the two aren't analogous

 

[kingofthehill]

LizzyM score only takes into account your numbers so it's not meant to be anything more than a rough measure of how you stats "stack up" at specific schools.

 

[MassTransport]

The LizzyM score is a very general way to gauge how appropriate your school choices are. Your score is (GPA x 10) + MCAT. The target school's score is (average GPA X 10) + average MCAT - 1. If your score's lower than the school's score, then the school is considered a reach. The theory is most of your schools should have a score below or equal to yours, so you don't end up wasting money applying to a bunch of schools outside your reach, stat-wise.

LizzyM is on the admissions committee of some medical school, and her advice is usually sound.

 

[PremedIowa]

To me it sounds totally weird to say "I have a LizzyM score of ____" rather than "I have an MCAT of ____ and my GPA is _____."

They each matter individually far more than the combo does. 40 MCAT + 3.0 is equal to a good lizzyM but will put you at a huge disadvantage compared to applicants with more balanced #'s.

 

[MassTransport]

Certainly, but those are more special cases. I think the score's nice and valid as a first approximation.

 

[235009]

To me it sounds totally weird to say "I have a LizzyM score of ____" rather than "I have an MCAT of ____ and my GPA is _____."

They each matter individually far more than the combo does. 40 MCAT + 3.0 is equal to a good lizzyM but will put you at a huge disadvantage compared to applicants with more balanced #'s.

well obviously OP is trying to hide his poor GPA by quoting this score rather than quoting his stats....otherwise it would be pretty obvious that he's whining about nothing and is just being ungrateful

 

[Handy388]

well obviously OP is trying to hide his poor GPA by quoting this score rather than quoting his stats....otherwise it would be pretty obvious that he's whining about nothing and is just being ungrateful

you are being rude and the personal attack is not helping. I am glad I won't be going to the same school as you. I have nothing to hide. my GPA is 3.6-3.7, lower than the average matriculant of my top choice. I am incrediblly grateful for the opportunity I've been given.

But in hindsight, I wish I applied to more middle tier school instead of top and bottom heavy, and I am telling the future applicants to apply more to the school of their caliber instead of going off too high.

 

[Handy388]

To me it sounds totally weird to say "I have a LizzyM score of ____" rather than "I have an MCAT of ____ and my GPA is _____."

They each matter individually far more than the combo does. 40 MCAT + 3.0 is equal to a good lizzyM but will put you at a huge disadvantage compared to applicants with more balanced #'s.

I also said that my GPA is "pretty low". Some people are not comfortable with revealing their specific numbers. I don't want to be outted.

 

[235009]

you are being rude and the personal attack is not helping. I am glad I won't be going to the same school as you. I have nothing to hide. my GPA is 3.6-3.7, lower than the average matriculant of my top choice. I am incrediblly grateful for the opportunity I've been given.

since when is a 3.6-3.7 a "pretty low" gpa....last time i checked that would be an "average" gpa?

...and the feeling is mutual...especially given your take on how people who take 1-2 years off only do so because they can't get into med school right out of undergrad, your view that rankings are extremely important and your propensity to whine a lot.

 

[kypreos]

^^it says his gpa is lower then the gpa of the average matriculants at the school he is/wishes to attend. not average matriculated gpa for all schools.

 

[235009]

^^it says his gpa is lower then the gpa of the average matriculants at the school he is/wishes to attend. not average matriculated gpa for all schools.

sure he says that NOW but he initially said:

I have a Lizzy M score of 74 but my GPA is pretty low and I am over-represented.

...nothing about that assessment being relative to one school

 

[Handy388]

sure he says that NOW but he initially said:



...nothing about that assessment being relative to one school

I meant to say my GPA is relatively low comparing to my MCAT and it's low for the average matrculant of that school. I have a tendency to omit little details like this. Unfortunately it can sound like I am ungrateful.

Let's get back on topic before this become degenerated into a cesspool of personal attacks.

 

[fizzle]

I consider Mount Sinai a top 20 school (going by NIH grant). I don't follow USNews.

Personally, I consider my fit as a combined factor of location, reputation and cost, in no particular order, because I would like to go into academic medicine and pedigree matters.

As for placing too much emphasis over fit, how are you possibly going to evaluate "fit" if you aren't even going to be interviewed? I am discussing applicatiion strategy here, not choosing schools.

Well, as long as we're going by any arbitrary rankings, why not consider your schools under the primary care rankings, which are likely to spread your school choices across the board (with schools like Johns Hopkins and UPenn solidly in the middle by ranking around 30-40)? Then the schools you applied to are broadly across the spectrum from top-tier to mid-tier to bottom-tier, and there's no issue in the first place.

My point is, if we were to place focus on any standard (assuming that rankings mean much), then the US News is as good as any...if you're trying to base this entire discussion on your own opinion of the most relevant rankings, then that just opens the door for us to consider any ranking at all.

 

[Handy388]

Well, as long as we're going by any arbitrary rankings, why not consider your schools under the primary care rankings, which are likely to spread your school choices across the board (with schools like Johns Hopkins and UPenn solidly in the middle by ranking around 30-40)? Then the schools you applied to are broadly across the spectrum from top-tier to mid-tier to bottom-tier, and there's no issue in the first place.

My point is, if we were to place focus on any standard (assuming that rankings mean much), then the US News is as good as any...if you're trying to base this entire discussion on your own opinion of the most relevant rankings, then that just opens the door for us to consider any ranking at all.

wouldn't you argue the NIH grant ranking correlate closely to research opportunity, more than USNews and the primary care ranking?

 

[risingsun11801]

wouldn't you argue the NIH grant ranking correlate closely to research opportunity, more than USNews and the primary care ranking?

Actually, the other day my PI told me to be cautious of thinking NIH rankings = research money. This is because it ranks regardless of the size of the school. Example I am making up: a school with 200 faculty got $200 million, ranking them #40. That equals $1 million per investigator. A second school has 100 faculty and gets $150 million, ranking them #75. That equals $1.5 million per investigator, which seems to be a better judgement of how well-funded the labs are.

 

[Handy388]

Actually, the other day my PI told me to be cautious of thinking NIH rankings = research money. This is because it ranks regardless of the size of the school. Example I am making up: a school with 200 faculty got $200 million, ranking them #40. That equals $1 million per investigator. A second school has 100 faculty and gets $150 million, ranking them #75. That equals $1.5 million per investigator, which seems to be a better judgement of how well-funded the labs are.

thanks, will keep that in mind.

 

[AdemTD]

I also said that my GPA is "pretty low". Some people are not comfortable with revealing their specific numbers. I don't want to be outted.

of course, because you're likely the only one with a 3.6_ GPA 😉

 

[drizzt3117]

wouldn't you argue the NIH grant ranking correlate closely to research opportunity, more than USNews and the primary care ranking?

I actually think the US News research rankings are a pretty good indication of where schools stand regarding research, that said, different departments and labs within the same school usually differ greatly in reputation/prestige. You might attend a lower ranked school and work in a lab that is the top one in a particular field which would get you lots of attention in a given specialty.