Schools that emphasize numbers

[Pinkertinkle]

What schools put heavy emphasis on the numbers (MCAT/GPA)side of things? I know Wash U has a reputation but any others?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Thewonderer]

All the top 15-25 schools.....

their numbers have creeped up over the years. just compare them to the stats shown in the older issues of US News and World Reports.

You can name any of them: Columbia, UCSF, Duke, Stanford, NYU, etc .etc. their stats have gone up over the years.

 

[dread]

Actually, I would take stanford off that list of schools that emphasizes numbers. A few years ago, they had a very strong reputation for looking for non-tradional applicants. Supposedly, the dean of their adcom actually went out of his way to recruit people with prior careers because he thought that they made better doctors (one of my attendings worked with this dean). I haven't heard anything from them recently, but I doubt that much has changed in the last few years.

 

[ixitixl]

UWash. Their admissions process looks like this:

Step 1: Take cumulative GPA, science GPA and MCAT score. Plug it into a formula and generate a preliminary score. The formula is actually on the web if you're invited to interview.

Step 2: Interview. Your interview is given a score.

Step 3: Interview score + preliminary score gets crunched into another formula and out pops another score.

Step 4: You're accepted based on your final score. of course there are acceptions, like if you're on the unranked waitlist.

 

[TheFlash]

WashU all the way. They lead the pack, but Columbia, Duke, NU, Vandy and NYU all come to mind as well.

 

[CalBeE]

Originally posted by TheFlash
WashU all the way. They lead the pack, but Columbia, Duke, NU, Vandy and NYU all come to mind as well.

I actually is curious about this too: Are Vandy and Columbia really that number-driven, or simply the criteria they used to select applicants happen to end up having a class with higher stats...

 

[zinjanthropus]

Originally posted by ixitixl
UWash. Their admissions process looks like this:

Step 1: Take cumulative GPA, science GPA and MCAT score. Plug it into a formula and generate a preliminary score. The formula is actually on the web if you're invited to interview.

Step 2: Interview. Your interview is given a score.

Step 3: Interview score + preliminary score gets crunched into another formula and out pops another score.

Step 4: You're accepted based on your final score. of course there are acceptions, like if you're on the unranked waitlist.

so what are the preliminary score success ranges like? i.e what score usually translates into an interview?

 

[evines]

In my case, Vandy wasn't number driven enough. I'm above both their GPA and MCAT averages, and didn't even get an interview.

 

[PianoGirl04]

Originally posted by ixitixl
UWash. Their admissions process looks like this:

Step 1: Take cumulative GPA, science GPA and MCAT score. Plug it into a formula and generate a preliminary score. The formula is actually on the web if you're invited to interview.

Step 2: Interview. Your interview is given a score.

Step 3: Interview score + preliminary score gets crunched into another formula and out pops another score.

Step 4: You're accepted based on your final score. of course there are acceptions, like if you're on the unranked waitlist.

And even before all this starts, you have to be a Washington resident or a resident of just a few other states (unless you're applying MD/PhD). Some schools make things so difficult!

 

[Andrew_Doan]

I agree, Wash U emphasizes numbers.

JHU has less emphasis on standardized tests.

 

[edik]

I don't think any school looks at just the numbers.
I am pretty sure Cornell will not invite you unless you have a liberal arts background, even if you have high numbers. Other top-notch school will look at your undergraduate university (I guess they prefer Ivy Leugers).

 

[Neuronix]

*Pick your username here* *Insert plug for your medical school doing the PC thing and taking diverse applicants*

Everyone at the top tier level has interesting things on their application. The numbers are necessary just because there's way too many qualified applicants and you need to tell them apart somehow.

I agree with what edik said about ugrad reputation. I think that was the big strike on my application when I applied. Not that it held me back too much...

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by Neuronix
*Pick your username here* *Insert plug for your medical school doing the PC thing and taking diverse applicants*

LOL...

 

[mlw03]

i don't think your numbers arguments are complete. what i mean is that while the schools ya'll listed may care greatly about numbers, they also care about other stuff - namely research. how can i say this with some certainty? because except for WashU (and it's only my MCAT by 1 point) my GPA and MCAT are higher than the averages at every school in the country, and JHU, Penn, and WashU all have yet to offer me even an interview. Duke flat out rejected me, and I have a sibling that goes there.

And guess how much research I've done - zilcho, nyet, nada. I'd rather have a colonoscopy done by bobcat goldthwait (very twitchy dude) than be a lab gopher, so i didn't, and i'm conviced that's why these schools haven't offered me an interview.

so my point is that while they care about numbers, they also care about having an ample supply of lab slaves, and I think they care about that as much as numbers, if not more. researchers need people to do their gruntwork in the labs to keep those NIH and grant dollars rolling in, and med student labor is an even sweeter deal than grad students - med students pay the school for the privelige of being a lab biyatch!

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by mlw03
so my point is that while they care about numbers, they also care about having an ample supply of lab slaves, and I think they care about that as much as numbers, if not more. researchers need people to do their gruntwork in the labs to keep those NIH and grant dollars rolling in, and med student labor is an even sweeter deal than grad students - med students pay the school for the privelige of being a lab biyatch!

You have a great point here and I think this is particularly relevant to top med schools.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by mlw03
med students pay the school for the privelige of being a lab biyatch!

Med students are not good lab labor AT ALL, unless they take significant time off or decide to do a PhD. For a PI to take a med student into his lab is to spend alot of time and money on someone that will not pay off for him. The reason is that it takes a long time (6+ months) to train someone in basic lab techniques. It also takes alot of investment to get someone going in the lab by way of making them understand the context of the work and what the lab has done previously.

The med students who do basic science research in their spare time or over some summer don't produce any data. You will see what I mean when you get to medical school and you see the presentations by these students. Some students do clinical research and that works out better because typically it's just data collection and processing. That hardly takes alot of training and time.

The medical schools do want to produce academically bent students, basic science preferably. Why is that? The schools you recognize as the "top" schools are there because they are strong in research. That's why they're the "research" rankings. If you hate research, you shouldn't care about these programs. What the medical school gets are students with the potential to make big contributions in academia down the road, and the med school has a high probability of keeping the brightest students for itself or at least keeping claim that the next nobel prize winner trained there.

Now that being said, there are people in my med school class who have done absolutely zero lab research. What they do is something else outstanding. Many have done alot of work internationally and are interested in global health and health policy. Some want to get involved with health economics or politics. They have all done things in ugrad that makes it clear that's where their interests lie.

I just wanted to set the record straight on this. I think it's silly to say that medical schools are just looking for "lab monkeys".

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by mlw03

so my point is that while they care about numbers, they also care about having an ample supply of lab slaves, and I think they care about that as much as numbers, if not more. researchers need people to do their gruntwork in the labs to keep those NIH and grant dollars rolling in, and med student labor is an even sweeter deal than grad students - med students pay the school for the privelige of being a lab biyatch!

I disagree with this for medical school admissions.

This may be true for PhD candidates, but few medical students walk into a research lab during medical school. Producing steady levels of research assistants is not a priority for ADCOMS.

 

[nuclearrabbit77]

i also disagree with the fact that the implication that most all non-MSTP medical students are incapable of producing quality lab research or lack the bestowed lab-guru that the MSTP candidates have.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by nuclearrabbit77
i also disagree with the fact that the implication that most all non-MSTP medical students are incapable of producing quality lab research or lack the bestowed lab-guru that the MSTP candidates have.

No one is implying this. To do research, one needs time. You don't have sufficient time allotted for research during medical school to claim that schools are recruiting medical students to be lab rats.

Furthermore, most medical students who produce quality lab research take one year off. If you're the type who can produce a first authored paper for JCB or even PNAS, then more power to you. I know I can't.

 

[Kashue]

Originally posted by Andrew_Doan
No one is implying this. To do research, one needs time. You don't have sufficient time allotted for research during medical school to claim that schools are recruiting medical students to be lab rats.

Furthermore, most medical students who produce quality lab research take one year off. If you're the type who can produce a first authored paper for JCB or even PNAS, then more power to you. I know I can't.

In contrast to clinical sciences, you can't publish negative results in basic science. And imho, publishing anything in the basic sciences requires hard work, dealing with lots of failure, and a lot of luck. I took 2 years off to persue research and I was lucky to get a second author(MBC), poster, and maybe a 1st author which I'm doubting.

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by Andrew_Doan
I disagree with this for medical school admissions.

This may be true for PhD candidates, but few medical students walk into a research lab during medical school. Producing steady levels of research assistants is not a priority for ADCOMS.

I think you are correct in this regard however, I think it is fair to say that adcoms are definitely interested in admitting the next generation of medical researchers to get NIH money, publications, nobel prizes, etc...

 

[mlw03]

i stand by my original claim, but perhaps it was assumed i meant this as a negative thing - i don't, despite my sarcasm. my point is that top schools expect their students to do research, and the majority do i would think, and that's good. we need researchers to advance our knowledge and ability to treat patients.

cases in point: look at the JHU brochure. there's a page titled, "is hopkins all about research" - and at the end of the page they answer their own question, "yes." look at duke - they cram two years of knowledge into one so their students have time to do heavy research. yale requires their students to produce a thesis based on original research. the point is that this primarily occurs at the top-10 research schools. neuronix is right that if you don't want to do research or academic medicine you shouldn't be interested in these programs - if i knew 9 months ago what i know now i would have saved myself some money.

so i repeat my point: at the top tier schools, not only do they care about solid stats, but ALSO about producing researchers and acadmics.

Originally posted by Neuronix
Med students are not good lab labor AT ALL, unless they take significant time off or decide to do a PhD. For a PI to take a med student into his lab is to spend alot of time and money on someone that will not pay off for him. The reason is that it takes a long time (6+ months) to train someone in basic lab techniques. It also takes alot of investment to get someone going in the lab by way of making them understand the context of the work and what the lab has done previously.

The med students who do basic science research in their spare time or over some summer don't produce any data. You will see what I mean when you get to medical school and you see the presentations by these students. Some students do clinical research and that works out better because typically it's just data collection and processing. That hardly takes alot of training and time.

The medical schools do want to produce academically bent students, basic science preferably. Why is that? The schools you recognize as the "top" schools are there because they are strong in research. That's why they're the "research" rankings. If you hate research, you shouldn't care about these programs. What the medical school gets are students with the potential to make big contributions in academia down the road, and the med school has a high probability of keeping the brightest students for itself or at least keeping claim that the next nobel prize winner trained there.

Now that being said, there are people in my med school class who have done absolutely zero lab research. What they do is something else outstanding. Many have done alot of work internationally and are interested in global health and health policy. Some want to get involved with health economics or politics. They have all done things in ugrad that makes it clear that's where their interests lie.

I just wanted to set the record straight on this. I think it's silly to say that medical schools are just looking for "lab monkeys".

 

[nuclearrabbit77]

Originally posted by Andrew_Doan
No one is implying this. To do research, one needs time. You don't have sufficient time allotted for research during medical school to claim that schools are recruiting medical students to be lab rats.

Furthermore, most medical students who produce quality lab research take one year off. If you're the type who can produce a first authored paper for JCB or even PNAS, then more power to you. I know I can't.

i agree. i was refering to the statement of how med students don't make good labor because it takes half a year to train them on a project. there are alot of non-MSTPer's who have significant techinical experience.

 

[oldtimer]

Having that research background on your application can only help and not hurt your cause. I have done lots of volunteer work in the hospital, but I didn't do research as an undergrad or since I graduated. Research is definitely not for everyone. I think not having that research experience is a huge hole in my application and I think it makes schools less receptive to me. When many other qualified candidates can list good research experience, then you need to also or another part of your application has to significantly make up for it.

 

[Lux Aeterna]

Well, I guess I am the flipside of this thread. My averages for gpa (non-URM) are all lower than Columbia, Cornell, Stanford, UChicago-Pritzker, and Michigan and I've interviewed at these places. [My MCAT is good, but not superstar-like--> the average/a little less than average for the above schools]

Now, of course, I have the requisite rejections from Hopkins, Harvard, Penn, UCSF + UCLA out of state, NYU, (the jury is still out on Yale--no word yet, but I applied late), Dartmouth, and UNC out of state-- but none of those, except NYU, disappoints me that much cuz I do just chalk it up to not having the numbers-- which is all good and fine. You win some, you lose some.

As for research: when I applied, I only had a summer of research under my belt and no pubs. In taking this year off, I've had much more productivity -- but this has occurred after all my interviews.

What I think helped me was my personal statement--I am a firm believer that it can be the tipping point.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by nuclearrabbit77
i agree. i was refering to the statement of how med students don't make good labor because it takes half a year to train them on a project. there are alot of non-MSTPer's who have significant techinical experience.

I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I know a good many MD students who came into their program with more research experience and knowledge than myself. My usual joke is that I'm glad they didn't apply MD/PhD or I wouldn't be here!

Still, from your prior experience you gain a certain skillset that enables you to work on a project in that lab. Unless you're working on a very similar project or staying in that lab, it will take you weeks to months to retool in a new lab, learn new techniques, and produce. It's much like a grad school rotation, you can really only learn a technique or two in the time given. Publication is very rare in this circumstance and usually has to do with piggybacking onto someone else's work. That's pretty much the amount of time a med student has without time off--a grad school rotation. No matter how good you are, you just don't have the time as a med student to produce good data.

What I didn't mean to say was that MD/PhDs are somehow more qualified to do research. In many cases that's simply not true. We just spend 4 - 5 years working on our PhDs... A MD student at most will take one year out.

 

[CalBeE]

Well Stanford for example, explicitly says it's interested in people who'll be leaders in medicine. This can be in basic sci/clinical research, health policy, health education, etc. In fact, I met a med student there who told her interviewer that she hated the research she did as an undergrad, and wouldn't do it again. Nevertheless, she has strong leadership experience, and that's probably who the Adcom saw in her.

 

[ixitixl]

Originally posted by zinjanthropus
so what are the preliminary score success ranges like? i.e what score usually translates into an interview?

They weight your GPA according a formula that places the most emphasis on your junior GPA, less on your sophomore GPA and the least on your freshman GPA. Your MCAT factors in if you get less than a 9 on any of the subjects. The cutoff tends to be a some combination of 3.5 "weighted" GPA and 27 MCAT.

 

[BerkeleyPremed]

I'm probably going to do an MS in biology after I graduate from undergrad because I want more research experience and I want more time to produce high-quality research papers that could be submitted to journals (yes...I know...the probability of those journals publishing my papers is slim to none). Regardless, I also just love biology and wouldn't mind studying it for another 2 years. However, I wouldn't think that lack of research experience would be a reason for med schools to reject an applicant unless that applicant is only interested in the top 15-20 schools. I think only the top 15-20 schools care about producing future Nobel Prize winners in medicine...the rest of the med schools are mostly looking for very bright people with interesting exra-curricular pursuits to accompany their solid stats (MCAT, GPA, etc).

Does anyone here know how med schools perceive graduate students who are applying (people pursuing an MS or a PhD)?

 

[nuclearrabbit77]

Originally posted by Neuronix
I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I know a good many MD students who came into their program with more research experience and knowledge than myself. My usual joke is that I'm glad they didn't apply MD/PhD or I wouldn't be here!

Still, from your prior experience you gain a certain skillset that enables you to work on a project in that lab. Unless you're working on a very similar project or staying in that lab, it will take you weeks to months to retool in a new lab, learn new techniques, and produce. It's much like a grad school rotation, you can really only learn a technique or two in the time given. Publication is very rare in this circumstance and usually has to do with piggybacking onto someone else's work. That's pretty much the amount of time a med student has without time off--a grad school rotation. No matter how good you are, you just don't have the time as a med student to produce good data.

What I didn't mean to say was that MD/PhDs are somehow more qualified to do research. In many cases that's simply not true. We just spend 4 - 5 years working on our PhDs... A MD student at most will take one year out.

ok then we agree with each other. however, don't most MSTP'er do more than one rotation in a lab during m1-m2 summer? this would mean that an individual MSTP rotation would be shorter than a traditional summer fellowship. everything else i agree with. one must have realistic goals (i.e. tertiary author-ish on a major pub..or 1st author on an abstract....) for a summer project.
however, there are instances where you could continue your research past the summer and get something more substantial if you could handle it with your coursework...
anywaYs..

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by mlw03

so my point is that while they care about numbers, they also care about having an ample supply of lab slaves, and I think they care about that as much as numbers, if not more.

Here's something from the Hopkins admissions page that argues against your suggestion that medical schools require or expect their students to do research.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/admissions/research.html

Medical students at Hopkins aren?t required to do research during their years here, but more than 80 percent of them eventually opt to. Asked what drives that decision, many cite the commitment by faculty mentors to the relentless pursuit of new knowledge and better techniques.

As a student, your research experiences can range from two-month electives to a year or more of leave for extended study. Every summer, nearly 100 students pursue investigations with support from Hopkins-sponsored grants. And every spring, the Hopkins community gathers to honor the work of its budding researchers during the Young Investigator Awards ceremony.

The ability to conduct, evaluate and understand research will be critical as medicine advances. That?ll be as true for the general practitioner as for the neurosurgeon. So, back to your question: Is Hopkins all about research? You bet.
____________________________

Is the school driving the desire to do research or the students have a strong desire for scholarly work? I think schools like Hopkins attract students who already have an innate desire to pursue academics and research.

 

[jlee9531]

however, it not only the top schools that emphasize this...recently a growing number of schools that have not been known for their research such as uc davis are implementing a scholar project requirement (like that of ucsd) into the curriculum. i think med schools just want to have the all around student that just doesnt study all day, but do other things whether it is bench work, clinical research or a community project.

 

[JohnHolmes]

Originally posted by ixitixl
UWash. Their admissions process looks like this:

Step 1: Take cumulative GPA, science GPA and MCAT score. Plug it into a formula and generate a preliminary score. The formula is actually on the web if you're invited to interview.

Step 2: Interview. Your interview is given a score.

Step 3: Interview score + preliminary score gets crunched into another formula and out pops another score.

Step 4: You're accepted based on your final score. of course there are acceptions, like if you're on the unranked waitlist.

I'll take you up on your offer. Where on the web is this formula?

 

[klonoff]

Cooper, I'll have to disagree with ix.

There is a formula for U of Wash, yes. (3*junior GPA + 2*sophomore GPA + freshmen GPA)/6 . However, my understanding of how they use this formula is that Washington residents with this weighed GPA of 3.5 or higher with a 27 or higher MCAT (9 per section) automatically get an interview, applications with those numbers aren't even screened to determine if they get an interview.

However, every single application that doesn't make this automatic criteria is individually screen to determine whether or not the person gets an interview (example- ME. junior year was my lowest GPA, I actually did not qualify for this automatic interview, but still received an interview). At the actual interview, we are told basically "Congratulations, if you are at the interview we believe you are academically qualified to handle the rigors of our med school."

What this means is that the interview is worth a BUNCH. GPA = 25% of score, MCAT = 25% of score, interview = 50% of score. Maybe 1/3 of those interviewed are accepted. Numbers slightly important, but the interview, where they evaluate you as a future physician, is worth much more.

In fact, a friend of the family applied to UW med school last year with a 3.9 GPA and 38 MCAT and was rejected (yes, he had ec's). He ended up going to Yale with a full scholarship and is an M1 there right now.

Edit to add website:
http://staff.washington.edu/~akv/interview/process.htm
and
http://students.washington.edu/aed/archiveminutes/052703.html

 

[lyragrl]

This research/no research thing is interesting to me. I have no science research experience b/c I didn't do basic sciences until I was a post-bac. (I do have extensive work experience in a non-medical field.) My numbers are around the top-10 averages. I got interviews at Hopkins, Yale, Columbia, Northwestern, Michigan (among others) and the pre-interview boot from Duke, Cornell, Stanford, UChicago and Harvard.

What does this mean? I have no idea. But I feel like that lack of research really hurt me at certain schools, esp Duke, UChicago, and Cornell. Maybe I'm completely misreading things, though. Thoughts?

 

[BaseballFan]

Originally posted by Andrew_Doan

The ability to conduct, evaluate and understand research will be critical as medicine advances. That?ll be as true for the general practitioner as for the neurosurgeon.
____________________________

I believe this is the main reason why schools are interested in students who have research experience. They don't expect you to have re-invented the wheel as an undergraduate...but working in research teaches you, among other things, to critically read and evaluate published research.

So you neednt have done incredible things in your own work, because the majority of research efforts fail. The research "process" is important, in my opinion, to being an informed, critical, modern physician.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by BaseballFan


I believe this is the main reason why schools are interested in students who have research experience. They don't expect you to have re-invented the wheel as an undergraduate...but working in research teaches you, among other things, to critically read and evaluate published research.

So you neednt have done incredible things in your own work, because the majority of research efforts fail. The research "process" is important, in my opinion, to being an informed, critical, modern physician.

Well said

 

[elias514]

All medical schools have an Admissions Randomizer 1000--a top secret device that selects applications at random for interview offers. Research experience is not recognized by the machine's ultra-sophisticated blue light scanner.

 

[jlee9531]

Originally posted by elias514
All medical schools have an Admissions Randomizer 1000--a top secret device that selects applications at random for interview offers. Research experience is not recognized by the machine's ultra-sophisticated blue light scanner.

ahh i see...thats why i got that ucla interview.
i love technology...