Schools that reject people with high stats

[skiing]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know that UC Davis does this. Let's make a list. What other schools have you heard of that do this?

 

[1289]

There's no way that anyone can give a definite answer to this. You can't know they are rejecting you solely bc of stats, PERHAPS those rejected ppl are not a good fit for the school or their mission.

 

[IntoTheWest]

High stats are not everything. If you really think about it every school rejects some people with high numbers.

 

[skiing]

Well yes, but there is a very well-known rumor that davis screens out ppl who are too good for them.

This is a rumors-thread.

 

[BigBlueBear]

Well yes, but there is a very well-known rumor that davis screens out ppl who are too good for them.

This is a rumors-thread.

Who is too good for a UC school? Like 5 people in the country maybe 😵

 

[snorlax]

Well yes, but there is a very well-known rumor that davis screens out ppl who are too good for them.

This is a rumors-thread.

I was also under this impression about Davis. Is it really true??

 

[Nymphicus]

Let me emphasize

This is a rumors-thread.

 

[Neurophage]

I was also under this impression about Davis. Is it really true??

I don't know what qualifies as "high stats," but I got an interview invite from UCD. You can see my stats in my MDApps.

 

[moneytree]

I don't know what qualifies as "high stats," but I got an interview invite from UCD. You can see my stats in my MDApps.

3.9/4.0 and a 39? Pack your sunblock because you're going to the Caribbean.

 

[Neurophage]

3.9/4.0 and a 39? Pack your sunblock because you're going to the Caribbean.

I thought so, but thanks for the confirmation. 🙁

 

[LabRat91]

.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

3.9/4.0 and a 39? Pack your sunblock because you're going to the Caribbean.

Definitely, on multiple vacations per year when he finishes his residency.

 

[grapepopsicle]

University of Maryland and Pitt supposedly do this too, but I personally haven't heard anything yet from either.

Pitt? Their accepted classes generally have pretty high stats.

 

[Nymphicus]

Pitt? Their accepted classes generally have pretty high stats.

They do. He is probably trying to refer to their strategy, which is basically accept outright the top 15% of interviewees, reject the bottom 15%, and put the rest on the waitlist.

Doesn't really have anything to do with "rejecting people because of high stats."

 

[smile8888]

Since there is a thread about schools that already sent out interviews. Shall we start a thread with listing school that already handed out "rejection letters" ? Just throwing it out there, but I realize people may not want to reveal being rejected.

 

[drizzt3117]

I had high stats and interviewed at UCD. The schools that do this are more BU, GT, etc.

 

[alerk323]

All schools reject high stats people. This rumor mill is largely caused by butthurt high stats people who can't believe that they weren't good enough (or right fit or whatever). Schools like BU and GT reject a high number of high stats people cause they have a high number of applicants, so you'll get a lot more high stats rejects than at schools with smaller applicant pools. The only piece of evidence that would even suggest a school does this is if they reject a higher proportion of applicants 2-3 standard deviations above their average (to correct for the fact that "high stats" at harvard is different than most others).

I guess the only other way of knowing this is if a adcom specifically says they do this. Until then, I'm going with the butthurt/ego theory

 

[mirimonster]

all schools reject high stats people. This rumor mill is largely caused by butthurt high stats people who can't believe that they weren't good enough (or right fit or whatever). Schools like bu and gt reject a high number of high stats people cause they have a high number of applicants, so you'll get a lot more high stats rejects than at schools with smaller applicant pools. The only piece of evidence that would even suggest a school does this is if they reject a higher proportion of applicants 2-3 standard deviations above their average (to correct for the fact that "high stats" at harvard is different than most others).

I guess the only other way of knowing this is if a adcom specifically says they do this. Until then, i'm going with the butthurt/ego theory

+1

 

[benzonase]

You should know by now its not all about the numbers.

All your letter writes wrote bad recs about you.

 

[TheShaker]

Hurray to my good but not stellar numbers!

 

[Geebeejay]

I don't think schools do this....if you don't fit the bill, you don't get in no matter your stats. Any college student can spend all undergrad on a 4.0 and studying for a 40 MCAT, but if you take BS classes, have no good EC and Clinical Experience, a crap PS, and are awkward and nerdy, you won't get in.

Stats aren't everything...and could only be 3-6 wrong answers that separate a 32 from a 37. Do those 3-6 wrong answers mean the first person is gonna be a worse doctor? Absolutely not.

 

[yellowfish]

I don't think schools do this....if you don't fit the bill, you don't get in no matter your stats. Any college student can spend all undergrad on a 4.0 and studying for a 40 MCAT, but if you take BS classes, have no good EC and Clinical Experience, a crap PS, and are awkward and nerdy, you won't get in.

Stats aren't everything...and could only be 3-6 wrong answers that separate a 32 from a 37. Do those 3-6 wrong answers mean the first person is gonna be a worse doctor? Absolutely not.

1st bold is kind of true... ish?

2nd bold is just wrong.

Nonetheless, I generally agree with the idea here; most people probably aren't being rejected because of their high stats, they're being rejected for other reasons while holding the belief that their high numbers somehow entitle them to an acceptance.

 

[SoulinNeed]

All the top schools routinely reject students with high stats. UChicago rejected more than 200 applicants last year with 3.9/40, and considering how few there are with those stats to begin with, that's amazing.

 

[blizzah]

When high stats people are rejected, it is not BECAUSE of their high stats.

 

[elevenses]

There is nothing wrong with being a nerd. The only relevant piece of being "awkward and nerdy" is "awkward," and I think that the two characteristics are distributed independently.

Where did those statistics about the University of Chicago come from? There are only a few hundred people total who score 40+ in a given year, and I would be surprised if they all had 3.9+ GPAs. Thus, you make it sound as if the University of Chicago rejected essentially everybody who scored 40+, which I think is unlikely.

It's amazing how divisive a topic this is. It almost seems as if the general consensus, hidden in all of our psyches, is that anyone who scores 40+ has some grotesque flaw, waiting to be revealed. Like they must have sacrificed something monumental to achieve it.

Anyway, I doubt any school rejects candidates they believe are "too good" for them. I think the idea is, and you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that schools reject candidates they they think are "not good enough." The fact is that MCAT and GPA are only pieces of that picture, and they become less helpful for distinguishing between candidates above some (admittedly unknown and possibly variable) threshold.

Ultimately, all the MCAT tells anybody is how good that person is at taking the MCAT, within some margin of error, and all GPA tells anybody is how well that person did in the classes that they took.

(Stepping off soapbox now.)

 

[Geebeejay]

1st bold is kind of true... ish?

2nd bold is just wrong.

Nonetheless, I generally agree with the idea here; most people probably aren't being rejected because of their high stats, they're being rejected for other reasons while holding the belief that their high numbers somehow entitle them to an acceptance.

When I was looking at the scales of my practice tests, after you get past 10 or 11, you can have a raw score of 48 and get a 12 and 50 will get you a 14. Some are scaled different, but still very possible

and a "nerd" by definition lacks social skills...definitely not ideal doctor material.

 

[yellowfish]

When I was looking at the scales of my practice tests, after you get past 10 or 11, you can have a raw score of 48 and get a 12 and 50 will get you a 14. Some are scaled different, but still very possible

and a "nerd" by definition lacks social skills...definitely not ideal doctor material.

The difference between a 32 and a 37 will never be 3-6 questions. Which was your original statement. Which was wrong.

 

[elevenses]

When I was looking at the scales of my practice tests, after you get past 10 or 11, you can have a raw score of 48 and get a 12 and 50 will get you a 14. Some are scaled different, but still very possible

and a "nerd" by definition lacks social skills...definitely not ideal doctor material.

From Google:

A nerd is, (1) a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious: "one of those nerds who never asked a girl to dance," or (2) an intelligent, single-minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession.

So you're right in the first sense. I suppose I tend to use it in the second. It's interesting; the first is pejorative and the second is complimentary. Not very helpful for the purpose of communication.

 

[yellowfish]

From Google:

A nerd is, (1) a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious: "one of those nerds who never asked a girl to dance," or (2) an intelligent, single-minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession.

So you're right in the first sense. I suppose I tend to use it in the second. It's interesting; the first is pejorative and the second is complimentary. Not very helpful for the purpose of communication.

Haha, I actually looked that up too out of curiosity.

On the topic of your comment concerning 40+ applicants, I actually had my pre-med advisor tell me that it "wouldn't be a bad idea" if I got some A-'s so that I wouldn't have a 4.0, since as a 4.0 student I might be stigmatized as a nerd or something. Was pretty weird hearing that. I mean, I ignored that advice, but still

 

[Geebeejay]

The difference between a 32 and a 37 will never be 3-6 questions. Which was your original statement. Which was wrong.

and I just explained why it's right. The tests are scaled that way.

 

[SBuck53]

I actually have seen the same thing, especially in the VR section, from around 34 to 45 scaled score is usually only 1 correct answer per scaled score point.

 

[BigBlueBear]

Jesus some people on here are anal. Somebody says 3-6 questions when it's actually 7 and everyone is on his ass. A person gets the definition of nerd slightly wrong and meant absolutely no malcontent against nerds and everyone is on his ass.

I find it amusing 😛

 

[elevenses]

Jesus some people on here are anal. Somebody says 3-6 questions when it's actually 7 and everyone is on his ass. A person gets the definition of nerd slightly wrong and meant absolutely no malcontent against nerds and everyone is on his ass.

I find it amusing 😛

I go to great lengths to distract myself from writing secondaries.

 

[BigBlueBear]

I go to great lengths to distract myself from writing secondaries.

I can respect that

 

[Geebeejay]

Jesus some people on here are anal. Somebody says 3-6 questions when it's actually 7 and everyone is on his ass. A person gets the definition of nerd slightly wrong and meant absolutely no malcontent against nerds and everyone is on his ass.

I find it amusing 😛

For reals...I think I speak for many people when I say I'm truly looking forward to working and learning with a group of easy-going, relaxed, down-to-earth medical students.

 

[Fortress]

I was accepted into a very decent US school with GPA 3.7 and MCAT 28. Didn't get into >20 schools. So yeah, it stinks to apply with exceptionally high stats and being rejected for them left and right.

 

[neuroasp]

3.9/4.0 and a 39? Pack your sunblock because you're going to the Caribbean.

LMAO!!

 

[Courtjester8]

I think the basis of this thread is excluding a very important thing: the admissions x factor. That is, what else besides the stats is the adcom looking for. And, from what I can gather, this can vary drastically from school to school. Some want researchers, others want future primary care physicians. Some want you to have traveled and handed out mosquito nets in africa, others like to see a little real life work experience (maybe not this one but you get my point). And this x factor is big. Its why if you go to the mayo thread you see guys with 3.9s and 38s getting rejected in lieu of guys with 31s with 3.6's. If your stats are stellar, you just don't have the x factor that school is looking for.

cj8

Edit: Or you're just terrible at piecing together strong application essays.

 

[skiing]

I think the basis of this thread is excluding a very important thing: the admissions x factor. That is, what else besides the stats is the adcom looking for. And, from what I can gather, this can vary drastically from school to school. Some want researchers, others want future primary care physicians. Some want you to have traveled and handed out mosquito nets in africa, others like to see a little real life work experience (maybe not this one but you get my point). And this x factor is big. Its why if you go to the mayo thread you see guys with 3.9s and 38s getting rejected in lieu of guys with 31s with 3.6's. If your stats are stellar, you just don't have the x factor that school is looking for.

cj8

Edit: Or you're just terrible at piecing together strong application essays.

I'm talking about the kind of people that get interviewed at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, the top UCs, and get rejected at Davis right off the bat. I know several of these people. This trend IS real. The "X-factor" is too, but so is the phenomenon of rejecting people you know will never go to your school.

 

[alerk323]

and I just explained why it's right. The tests are scaled that way.

PS: 13, VR:12 BS:7 Total: 32

PS: 15, VR: 15, BS: 7 Total: 37

maybe just 6 question difference between the two. Also probably two easy rejections with the 7 in bio (or whatever combo)

 

[alerk323]

I'm talking about the kind of people that get interviewed at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, the top UCs, and get rejected at Davis right off the bat. I know several of these people. This trend IS real. The "X-factor" is too, but so is the phenomenon of rejecting people you know will never go to your school.

Or they just weren't right for the school for some reason... until an adcom says otherwise citing 2-3 38+'s who got rejected just isn't going to convince anyone.

 

[Fortress]

I think the basis of this thread is excluding a very important thing: the admissions x factor. That is, what else besides the stats is the adcom looking for. And, from what I can gather, this can vary drastically from school to school. Some want researchers, others want future primary care physicians. Some want you to have traveled and handed out mosquito nets in africa, others like to see a little real life work experience (maybe not this one but you get my point). And this x factor is big. Its why if you go to the mayo thread you see guys with 3.9s and 38s getting rejected in lieu of guys with 31s with 3.6's. If your stats are stellar, you just don't have the x factor that school is looking for.

cj8

Edit: Or you're just terrible at piecing together strong application essays.

While it is true to some degree, very often schools don't know themselves what exactly they are looking for. I would say: 30+ MCAT, >3.6 GPA, some meaningful research, clinical experience, couple interesting hobbies and you are golden for many schools. I personally would not do anything (especially like going on a mission trip to Africa) only to make myself a better fit for 1 particular school.

 

[Courtjester8]

While it is true to some degree, very often schools don't know themselves what exactly they are looking for. I would say: 30+ MCAT, >3.6 GPA, some meaningful research, clinical experience, couple interesting hobbies and you are golden for many schools. I personally would not do anything (especially like going on a mission trip to Africa) only to make myself a better fit for 1 particular school.

You don't do this stuff to get into medical school, you do it because its the right thing to do and to give yourself some perspective. I'm in awe that I just had to say that...

 

[Fortress]

I'm talking about the kind of people that get interviewed at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, the top UCs, and get rejected at Davis right off the bat. I know several of these people. This trend IS real. The "X-factor" is too, but so is the phenomenon of rejecting people you know will never go to your school.

BTW, speaking of Davis. With my sub-mediocre stats, I did interview there. Got rejected in 2 weeks after my interview. Well......... I got accepted elsewhere while Davis' ranking by the end of that year fell 🙄

 

[yellowfish]

You don't do this stuff to get into medical school, you do it because its the right thing to do and to give yourself some perspective. I'm in awe that I just had to say that...

I don't think he meant that he or other people do that just to get into medical school but was giving some examples of things medical schools look for.

Nonetheless, it's a little bit naive to say that "it's the right thing to do." True, many of these extracurriculars are good things to do, contributing to people's well-being in some ways. And true, they can sometimes provide you with added perspective on life and the medical profession. But it's also a fact that many, many applicants do service and research to bolster their applications; I mean, everyone, to some extent, does this.

 

[Fortress]

You don't do this stuff to get into medical school, you do it because its the right thing to do and to give yourself some perspective. I'm in awe that I just had to say that...

It is awesome if these are your true motivations.

 

[Fortress]

I don't think he meant that he or other people do that just to get into medical school but was giving some examples of things medical schools look for.

Nonetheless, it's a little bit naive to say that "it's the right thing to do." True, many of these extracurriculars are good things to do, contributing to people's well-being in some ways. And true, they can sometimes provide you with added perspective on life and the medical profession. But it's also a fact that many, many applicants do service and research to bolster their applications; I mean, everyone, to some extent, does this.

You are right. That is exactly what I was trying to convey.

 

[Courtjester8]

You are right. That is exactly what I was trying to convey.

Obviously I wasn't speaking to any one experience being MORE right than another. Its important that these things feel right to you, or offer some sort of motivation to you beyond being able to stamp it on your AMCAS. That is why these sorts of things are such telling aspects of an application because, in theory, you're doing it for reasons beyond prostituting the experience as top tier application filler. To be honest, most of my experiences have become so meaningful to me that I often feel guilty using them on my applications. But obviously this thread was meant more as a gripe fest than a useful exchange of information among like-minded future physicians so I'm going to let it be. All the best to you.

cj8