E
Emil Chuck, PhD
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The Student Doctor Network publishes articles weekly. Check out this article or other pre-medical articles at Student Doctor Network.
If you applied to medical, dental, or veterinary school, raise your hand if you loved it, or give it five stars if you were highly satisfied.
It is unfortunate that the applicant experience is not highly valued, especially as the health professions seek to attract empathetic applicants. Most complain about the maddening rush to submit applications only to face weeks to months of silence.
Even after an interview, many applicants receive only cursory check-in communications for weeks to months before getting a definitive decision. Most admissions offices provide some general feedback but rarely give actionable information that can be used within the few weeks before a new application cycle starts.
Unsuccessful applicants compare themselves to successful ones, and they are left wondering what admissions committees want.
Why is it so hard for applicants to understand why they are falling short of getting a seat in a professional program? And what could admissions committees do to provide applicants a more welcoming experience that builds to their matriculation?
Thanks to diligent communication by admissions officers and prehealth advisors, students know the importance of completing their application early in the cycle. Application management software packages track submissions like a package delivered by a courier service, with each stage noted (such as “received”, “verified”, “delivered”, and “ready for review”). Automated notifications are sent when an applications hit specific stages in processing. Programs spend the early months of the calendar year before an application cycle begins testing these triggers and revising status change communications (as detailed in While You Are Waiting). Institutional prehealth advisors can also monitor when applicants’ files have been verified and sent.
As the application process gathers momentum, admissions offices often are not responding to emails or portal messages. To address questions, many portal systems now include a programmable chatbot that can field simple applicant questions. While the current generation of applicants is more familiar with these computer chatbots, students still feel frustrated as they wait for a follow-up after a completed review.
Some application services and programs provide more insight into their processes by having publicly viewable dashboards or social media updates. Central application services post daily updates on their websites about the receipt of transcripts and the verification of applications for member programs.
Institutional prehealth advisors can also see whether an advisee receives an interview invitation, provided the applicant grants the advisor permission, and the program reports the portal status to the central application server. One challenge is asking admissions offices to ensure that such status changes are updated in real time in the advisor portals; many programs will instead produce a final end-of-cycle report to the central application portal.
Applicants and advisors benefit from comparing current trends to previous years’ patterns. If a cycle has a larger than typical volume of applications, how much longer will it take to complete the verification process or make decisions for early interview invitations?
While responses from admissions offices can be simplified into “application ready for review,” “invite to interview,” “decision to offer or reject” and “waitlists” (for interviews or offers), every admissions team uses different nomenclature and may have additional intermediate statuses for applicants. In fact, sometimes the same status may have different meanings, such as “application complete” vs. “application received.” Despite assurances from advisors or admissions professionals, most applicants consider “interview hold,” “under additional consideration,” or long periods spent on “application complete” as signaling a “soft rejection.”
With the rise of online engagement, admissions teams could signal that an applicant has been invited to a recorded video interview or a “virtual engagement” event. But would attendance at these auditions be required to be positively considered for an interview, as it would be for completing a secondary application? If one were invited to interview after receiving an invitation, would attendance be an additional “plus factor” for being offer-eligible?
Furthermore, applicants are confused about the value of update letters in application screening for interviews. SDN users frequently ask whether a program accepts update letters (including letters of interest) to move their file toward an interview invitation; some, but not all, schools explicitly state whether such communication is welcome. However, applicants are eager to disclose new grades from fall/winter courses, accepted publications, or significant recognition for activities, especially at the start of the new calendar year.
Applicants who have been waitlisted for an offer feel similarly compelled to write “letters of intent” arguing their fit with the program. Not all schools consider letters of intent when managing their priority waitlists.
Certain individual programs disclose the number of applications screened, the number of interview invitations issued, and the earliest available interview dates. Others even disclose how many undergraduate institutions or residency states are represented in each invitation wave (MD Admissions | University of Michigan Medical School). Student Doctor Network has built its AMCAS Tracker using publicly available data, while CycleTrack is another free crowdsourced application tracker supported by students.
Data from the recent ERAS (medical residency) cycle shows the importance of signaling to getting an interview. While such signals do not formally exist for medical school admissions, geographic proximity and mission-based interest can persuade admissions committees to review your application to see if you are sincere with your interest in their program.
Using their application management systems, each school creates automated communications to encourage applicants to pay supplemental fees, set up profiles on their own application portals, report receipt of messages or materials, and attend upcoming opportunities to learn about their program. These emails or communications often embed a hidden signal indicating whether the message has been opened and for how long it was read. Such data can be compiled for each applicant for later consideration (such as a late interview invitation or placement off a waitlist).
Applicants and advisors want to know how much engagement with the school/program matters in making an admissions decision. Few admissions offices or committees disclose whether such interactions make a significant difference, but for qualified applicants, expressing interest before the cycle can be helpful. Some admissions recruiters enter notes or webinar attendance records for impressive prospects into the application management software, which is synchronized after applications are received.
In-cycle updates are also tagged and included in an applicant’s file. If these updates occur after a completed file review, a committee may consider modifying its priority ranking, though such updates usually make little impact.
No matter how badly students may feel they have been treated, everything changes when they receive an interview invitation. Admissions committees prioritize attention on the experience of desirable applicants they wish to interview and persuade to enroll after receiving an offer, as they are rewarded for filling the next incoming class. In this case, webinar attendance records and portal login activity can be viewed to determine whether the accepted applicant is likely to attend or be part of the “melt.”
For years, applicants have been fixated on being well above average across all metrics for a competitive profile, and admissions profiles (including those supported by university boards and professional associations) have used average GPAs and test scores to compare programs.
Philosophically, this approach is flawed, as noted by the late education advocate Sir Ken Robinson in his many books and presentations. He notes that our educational models were based on industrial principles that reward conformity to standards and expectations. Everyone with a high school diploma should have a specific set of skills that are more developed in a college graduate for higher-paying jobs. This mindset reinforces a transactional vision of a degree, even to the point that the conferring organization matters as a sign of “better quality” or “prestige,” which should have value to any admissions reviewer.
Instead, Robinson acknowledges that human development is organic and does not conform to a schedule or a predictable outcome. A student’s success is dependent on the conditions in which they learn and begin to flourish, much like how a seed’s “success” depends on growth, nutrients, and the environment that nurtures it. Rarely are all organic plants or fruits identical; those that are have been raised under very strict conditions that constrain some variables.
To this end, metrics data in program directories generally highlight GPA or exam scores with ranges. The median is highlighted because, when plotting applicant GPAs, the curves are not bell curves (TMDSAS Data Reports for medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine). The AAMC Medical School Admissions Requirements directory presents first-year student application GPA and MCAT ranges at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. In contrast, the ADEA Dental School Explorer directory lists the average and the 5th-95th percentile range. These data should explicitly include announced minimum GPAs or exam scores to show how much higher the midrange metrics are for incoming students.
Generally, applicants are likely to get an early interview if their metrics are consistently above the 75th percentile. But even this rule of thumb is subject to context: for public programs, for example, in-state applicants have a stronger probability of getting an interview if their metrics are above the 50th percentile, while out-of-state applicants may need to be above the 80th percentile. It should be noted that metrics alone do not guarantee an interview.
Data on applicant profiles captured in the AAMC Medical School Admissions Requirements (MSAR) are generally not insightful. Over the previous four application cycles, premedical experience for established programs has not changed much. For example, over 90% of matriculants self-report a non-clinical community service or volunteer work activity. However, there is no MSAR data on the number of hours in this category that demonstrate sufficient commitment. Similar arguments can be made for the other premedical experience categories (physician shadowing/clinical observation, medical or clinical community service or volunteer work, medical/clinical paid employment, or research/lab experience).
Applicants would benefit from understanding how each program classifies experiences under the MSAR categories, as reflected in the most common activities observed in each incoming class. That way, applicants can be assured they need not seek a unique experience that differs significantly from what most enrolled students have done.
Pre-interview assessments such as Casper, Duet, PREview, and recorded video interviews (Kira Talent or other screening formats) have emerged as additional candidate assessment tools for admissions committees. Applicants are strongly encouraged to take the desired assessment to be considered for an interview, which will cost each applicant an additional $100 or more. Results are generally disclosed a month after their test days.
Unlike entrance exams, programs have not been forthcoming in disclosing how SJT results are used as part of mission-based, holistic application assessment. Scores may be used for high-volume pre-interview screening, post-interview file review, or offer/waitlist prioritization; however, programs have not been forthcoming with how they use this information. Some programs are “exploring” using AAMC PREview to determine its predictive value among applicants who take the exam, even though the program may not require all of their incoming students to do so.
The AAMC Admissions Analytics team recently published predictive validity data for matriculating students with PREview scores between 2022 and 2024 (Royal et al., 2025). Specifically, medical students who experienced academic difficulties that resulted in withdrawals or dismissals generally had lower MCAT scores and undergraduate GPA; however, the small number of medical students who were dismissed for non-academic reasons generally had a lower PREview result. Similar case reports suggest that Casper offers similar predictive validity (Acuity Insights, 2021).
For transparency, admissions committees should post information about the incoming class’s SJT statistics as it does for GPA and entrance exams. Furthermore, applicants should know during which phase(s) of review SJT statistics are considered in full or as an extra subjective “plus factor” consideration (e.g., as a tiebreaker among those on an interview hold list).
Applicants and incoming students also benefit from anticipating the level of grant-based support for their financial aid packages. While the majority of students come from households in the highest-income quartile, almost all students take advantage of financial aid packages. For those applicants from lower-income families, seeing the midrange amount of grant-based, need-based, or other scholarship awards for their cohort over the first year vs. by graduation will help with planning. These financial aid offices should also prepare sample overall cost-of-attendance estimates for out-of-state students who qualify as in-state students after their first year.
It is also helpful to disaggregate data when possible. Some admissions teams compile snapshots of the entering class when students arrive at orientation; these snapshots highlight the class’s demographic makeup, unique accomplishments, and the languages spoken fluently, showcasing the diversity and excellence of the new students.
What is not reported is the composition of the class based on their entering admissions process, as not every student completed a regular admissions application. While we generally know how many MD/PhD students are admitted, programs should specify the number of students admitted directly through early decision or articulation agreements with undergraduate or postgraduate programs. Some schools include the number of students who deferred their medical school start, but the public rarely knows how many students in the class are repeating or extending their first year.
Applicants and advisors must understand that admissions teams manage the different admissions streams that lead to a full class. Students who enter through direct admissions usually have a lower GPA/exam threshold to meet to be eligible for admission (pending an interview). Early decision applicants must have a compelling reason for admission, or else they end up applying to more programs in October and November. GPA/exam data helps prospective applicants and their advisors.
When programs may have small class sizes, aggregate metrics may be used. GPA-MCAT data are compiled over three application cycles (FACTS: Applicants and Matriculants Data, AAMC, Table A-23), so one can also perform similar analyses on the preferred number of hours and activities for incoming students.
Many successful premed and predental applicants were once alternates, and applicants ask about the likelihood of receiving an offer. Admissions offices should disclose how many waitlisted applicants were offered admission over three cycles. Metrics and characteristics of waitlisted applicants should be publicly available. Furthermore, the rules governing waitlist management should be disclosed.
While AMCAS publishes each program’s waitlist policies, more data-driven details will better inform everyone involved in the admissions process. By replacing “typical number of waitlist positions” and “number acceptance offers” with “three-year averages,” admissions officers can provide more insight into yield, melt, and the likelihood of movement. Similar public data are not currently available for AADSAS or VMCAS applicants.
TMDSAS admissions is match-based for its in-state applicants. TMDSAS disclosed pre-match data (entering year 2021) to advisors (The Republic of Texas XL: If you are riding a high horse, there ain’t no way to get down off it gracefully). The data include the ratio of interviewed candidates to receiving at least one pre-match offer and the number of applicants with more than one pre-match offer. In the future, applicants and advisors would benefit from an analysis of the metrics and holistic characteristics of pre-match vs. regular-matched applicants.
The applicant “checklist” should include pre-professional activities that help students discern their readiness for a long-term career in a specific profession. Every prehealth applicant understands they should have a significant number of hours of patient-facing clinical experience, professional observation, community service, teaching/research, leadership, and personal growth. The strongest applicants often have taken growth/gap years to gain frontline perspectives on their role as community healers and advocates.
Consequently, applicants want to better understand how to demonstrate their commitment and value to the health professional community in a way that persuades an admissions committee. Most applicants worry about scheduling enough time before applying to activities that are appropriate for their chosen profession. Programs and professional societies have suggested many activities, but applicants want to see a strong connection between activities and each incoming class.
In admissions presentations, I have used word clouds to highlight common themes in personal statements and submitted essays among all applicants in the pool (Figure, BSD wordcloud). The word clouds offer insight into common themes that guide prospective applicants and help them consider the messages they highlight among their peers, while using personal details and authenticity to stand out.
Admissions officers compile this information in the snapshot of the incoming class, often using word clouds that highlight the meaningful activities represented. While the MSAR profiles summarize the proportion of the incoming class that had such experiences (e.g., over 80% of the class had a research experience), admissions officers provide more detail with the midrange number of hours in each category for the incoming class profile. These data and the word clouds are often shared with prospective students during recruitment presentations to address concerns about activities that set applicants apart. By not attending these sessions and asking for specific information, prospective applicants and their advisors may overlook key information that can shape a strong application or reapplication.
In the end, it is impossible to meet the expectation of knowing precisely where an applicant stands in a process involving hundreds of schools (and, in the future, thousands of residency programs), overburdened admissions staff, admissions committee members with more important priorities, and tens of thousands of application materials. Noting that before 2010, many admissions offices had rows of filing cabinets and spent hours opening express-mail packages of verified applications (i.e., “batches”); our contemporary process leverages technological innovations so that materials arrive securely and promptly (such as electronic transcripts and letters). Interviews can be conducted virtually in a recorded format (Recorded Video Interviews) or via web conferencing technology.
Yet the slowest steps in the application process stem from managing thousands of applications, with an insistence on human review and deliberation. Artificial intelligence technologies can help discern authenticity or agreeability (Getting to Know You with the Big Five Personality Traits), but few admissions committees are willing to relinquish their decision-making role. The attention given to proper application review and discussion means sacrificing a personalized, “customer service”-oriented approach to responding to applicant inquiries (which chatbots could handle).
The University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine has developed a feedback tool, based on a flowchart, that guides rejected applicants in reflecting on and improving components of their profile for a reapplication (AAMC webinar posted December 30, 2025). Other offices rely on applicants’ prehealth advisors to guide them.
Being too honest about the reasons for rejection can expose the program to legal liability. Most applicants are strong enough to be eligible for an admissions offer, but getting off a waitlist generally depends on luck, as decisions are made by those who already have offers. Most admissions officers want to keep as many eligible applicants in contention, and they know from experience that creating a waitlist that is more than four times the intended class size will still guarantee that all spots are filled.
Lately, while admissions committees are given deference in their decisions, university administrators and politicians argue for oversight to monitor against race-based preferential treatment. However, most have little interest in making admissions processes more transparent to benefit applicants, as doing so could expose them to reputational or legal risks.
As applicants, you are expected to maintain a professional demeanor as the admissions professionals manage the chaos of filling the class outside of your view. While the silence can be frustrating, applicants should avoid aggressive communication with the admissions team. Following up at reasonable intervals with updates that express additional value to their student community is a good place to focus one’s energy. While it is easy to opine about schools that ignore your communications, reward those who do send interview invitations with your full attention, respect, and consideration.
Improving transparency in admissions involves a combination of better communication, data disclosure, and resources for applicants and advisors.
Acuity Insights (blog, March 26, 2021). Why solving professionalism issues in dentistry begins with re-thinking admissions processes.
Association of American Medical Colleges and National Association for Advisors of the Health Professions (webinar). January 20 Increasing Transparency in Medical School Admissions. (2026).
Royal, K. D., Carpentieri, A., Santos, R., Stenulson, D. (December 10, 2025). Predictors of Academic and Non-Academic Termination From Medical Schools. Cureus 17(12): e98889. doi:10.7759/cureus.98889
Google Gemini was used to generate the abstract and conclusion sections after the initial draft was written. Grammarly AI was involved in copyediting for spelling and grammar.
The post How to Make a (More) Transparent Holistic Admissions Process appeared first on Student Doctor Network.
Continue reading...
Introduction
If you applied to medical, dental, or veterinary school, raise your hand if you loved it, or give it five stars if you were highly satisfied.
It is unfortunate that the applicant experience is not highly valued, especially as the health professions seek to attract empathetic applicants. Most complain about the maddening rush to submit applications only to face weeks to months of silence.
Even after an interview, many applicants receive only cursory check-in communications for weeks to months before getting a definitive decision. Most admissions offices provide some general feedback but rarely give actionable information that can be used within the few weeks before a new application cycle starts.
Unsuccessful applicants compare themselves to successful ones, and they are left wondering what admissions committees want.
Why is it so hard for applicants to understand why they are falling short of getting a seat in a professional program? And what could admissions committees do to provide applicants a more welcoming experience that builds to their matriculation?
Watch the Dashboards and Portals
Thanks to diligent communication by admissions officers and prehealth advisors, students know the importance of completing their application early in the cycle. Application management software packages track submissions like a package delivered by a courier service, with each stage noted (such as “received”, “verified”, “delivered”, and “ready for review”). Automated notifications are sent when an applications hit specific stages in processing. Programs spend the early months of the calendar year before an application cycle begins testing these triggers and revising status change communications (as detailed in While You Are Waiting). Institutional prehealth advisors can also monitor when applicants’ files have been verified and sent.
As the application process gathers momentum, admissions offices often are not responding to emails or portal messages. To address questions, many portal systems now include a programmable chatbot that can field simple applicant questions. While the current generation of applicants is more familiar with these computer chatbots, students still feel frustrated as they wait for a follow-up after a completed review.
Some application services and programs provide more insight into their processes by having publicly viewable dashboards or social media updates. Central application services post daily updates on their websites about the receipt of transcripts and the verification of applications for member programs.
Institutional prehealth advisors can also see whether an advisee receives an interview invitation, provided the applicant grants the advisor permission, and the program reports the portal status to the central application server. One challenge is asking admissions offices to ensure that such status changes are updated in real time in the advisor portals; many programs will instead produce a final end-of-cycle report to the central application portal.
Applicants and advisors benefit from comparing current trends to previous years’ patterns. If a cycle has a larger than typical volume of applications, how much longer will it take to complete the verification process or make decisions for early interview invitations?
Decode “Status” and Communications: Is Engagement Required?
While responses from admissions offices can be simplified into “application ready for review,” “invite to interview,” “decision to offer or reject” and “waitlists” (for interviews or offers), every admissions team uses different nomenclature and may have additional intermediate statuses for applicants. In fact, sometimes the same status may have different meanings, such as “application complete” vs. “application received.” Despite assurances from advisors or admissions professionals, most applicants consider “interview hold,” “under additional consideration,” or long periods spent on “application complete” as signaling a “soft rejection.”
With the rise of online engagement, admissions teams could signal that an applicant has been invited to a recorded video interview or a “virtual engagement” event. But would attendance at these auditions be required to be positively considered for an interview, as it would be for completing a secondary application? If one were invited to interview after receiving an invitation, would attendance be an additional “plus factor” for being offer-eligible?
Update Letter Policies
Furthermore, applicants are confused about the value of update letters in application screening for interviews. SDN users frequently ask whether a program accepts update letters (including letters of interest) to move their file toward an interview invitation; some, but not all, schools explicitly state whether such communication is welcome. However, applicants are eager to disclose new grades from fall/winter courses, accepted publications, or significant recognition for activities, especially at the start of the new calendar year.
Applicants who have been waitlisted for an offer feel similarly compelled to write “letters of intent” arguing their fit with the program. Not all schools consider letters of intent when managing their priority waitlists.
Near Real-Time Interview Tracking Engages Applicants
Certain individual programs disclose the number of applications screened, the number of interview invitations issued, and the earliest available interview dates. Others even disclose how many undergraduate institutions or residency states are represented in each invitation wave (MD Admissions | University of Michigan Medical School). Student Doctor Network has built its AMCAS Tracker using publicly available data, while CycleTrack is another free crowdsourced application tracker supported by students.
Application Process Insights
- Practical Perspectives for Navigating the Admissions Process
- While You Are Waiting: Processing Health Professions Applications
- From Waitlist to Offer: Inside an Admissions Committee
- Admissions Committees: The Art of the Decision
Engage and Signal Your Interest Before Applying
Data from the recent ERAS (medical residency) cycle shows the importance of signaling to getting an interview. While such signals do not formally exist for medical school admissions, geographic proximity and mission-based interest can persuade admissions committees to review your application to see if you are sincere with your interest in their program.
Using their application management systems, each school creates automated communications to encourage applicants to pay supplemental fees, set up profiles on their own application portals, report receipt of messages or materials, and attend upcoming opportunities to learn about their program. These emails or communications often embed a hidden signal indicating whether the message has been opened and for how long it was read. Such data can be compiled for each applicant for later consideration (such as a late interview invitation or placement off a waitlist).
Applicants and advisors want to know how much engagement with the school/program matters in making an admissions decision. Few admissions offices or committees disclose whether such interactions make a significant difference, but for qualified applicants, expressing interest before the cycle can be helpful. Some admissions recruiters enter notes or webinar attendance records for impressive prospects into the application management software, which is synchronized after applications are received.
In-cycle updates are also tagged and included in an applicant’s file. If these updates occur after a completed file review, a committee may consider modifying its priority ranking, though such updates usually make little impact.
No matter how badly students may feel they have been treated, everything changes when they receive an interview invitation. Admissions committees prioritize attention on the experience of desirable applicants they wish to interview and persuade to enroll after receiving an offer, as they are rewarded for filling the next incoming class. In this case, webinar attendance records and portal login activity can be viewed to determine whether the accepted applicant is likely to attend or be part of the “melt.”
Publish Meaningful Statistics
For years, applicants have been fixated on being well above average across all metrics for a competitive profile, and admissions profiles (including those supported by university boards and professional associations) have used average GPAs and test scores to compare programs.
Philosophically, this approach is flawed, as noted by the late education advocate Sir Ken Robinson in his many books and presentations. He notes that our educational models were based on industrial principles that reward conformity to standards and expectations. Everyone with a high school diploma should have a specific set of skills that are more developed in a college graduate for higher-paying jobs. This mindset reinforces a transactional vision of a degree, even to the point that the conferring organization matters as a sign of “better quality” or “prestige,” which should have value to any admissions reviewer.
Instead, Robinson acknowledges that human development is organic and does not conform to a schedule or a predictable outcome. A student’s success is dependent on the conditions in which they learn and begin to flourish, much like how a seed’s “success” depends on growth, nutrients, and the environment that nurtures it. Rarely are all organic plants or fruits identical; those that are have been raised under very strict conditions that constrain some variables.
To this end, metrics data in program directories generally highlight GPA or exam scores with ranges. The median is highlighted because, when plotting applicant GPAs, the curves are not bell curves (TMDSAS Data Reports for medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine). The AAMC Medical School Admissions Requirements directory presents first-year student application GPA and MCAT ranges at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. In contrast, the ADEA Dental School Explorer directory lists the average and the 5th-95th percentile range. These data should explicitly include announced minimum GPAs or exam scores to show how much higher the midrange metrics are for incoming students.
Generally, applicants are likely to get an early interview if their metrics are consistently above the 75th percentile. But even this rule of thumb is subject to context: for public programs, for example, in-state applicants have a stronger probability of getting an interview if their metrics are above the 50th percentile, while out-of-state applicants may need to be above the 80th percentile. It should be noted that metrics alone do not guarantee an interview.
Experiences: Details are Important
Data on applicant profiles captured in the AAMC Medical School Admissions Requirements (MSAR) are generally not insightful. Over the previous four application cycles, premedical experience for established programs has not changed much. For example, over 90% of matriculants self-report a non-clinical community service or volunteer work activity. However, there is no MSAR data on the number of hours in this category that demonstrate sufficient commitment. Similar arguments can be made for the other premedical experience categories (physician shadowing/clinical observation, medical or clinical community service or volunteer work, medical/clinical paid employment, or research/lab experience).
Applicants would benefit from understanding how each program classifies experiences under the MSAR categories, as reflected in the most common activities observed in each incoming class. That way, applicants can be assured they need not seek a unique experience that differs significantly from what most enrolled students have done.
Situational Judgment Tests
Pre-interview assessments such as Casper, Duet, PREview, and recorded video interviews (Kira Talent or other screening formats) have emerged as additional candidate assessment tools for admissions committees. Applicants are strongly encouraged to take the desired assessment to be considered for an interview, which will cost each applicant an additional $100 or more. Results are generally disclosed a month after their test days.
Unlike entrance exams, programs have not been forthcoming in disclosing how SJT results are used as part of mission-based, holistic application assessment. Scores may be used for high-volume pre-interview screening, post-interview file review, or offer/waitlist prioritization; however, programs have not been forthcoming with how they use this information. Some programs are “exploring” using AAMC PREview to determine its predictive value among applicants who take the exam, even though the program may not require all of their incoming students to do so.
The AAMC Admissions Analytics team recently published predictive validity data for matriculating students with PREview scores between 2022 and 2024 (Royal et al., 2025). Specifically, medical students who experienced academic difficulties that resulted in withdrawals or dismissals generally had lower MCAT scores and undergraduate GPA; however, the small number of medical students who were dismissed for non-academic reasons generally had a lower PREview result. Similar case reports suggest that Casper offers similar predictive validity (Acuity Insights, 2021).
For transparency, admissions committees should post information about the incoming class’s SJT statistics as it does for GPA and entrance exams. Furthermore, applicants should know during which phase(s) of review SJT statistics are considered in full or as an extra subjective “plus factor” consideration (e.g., as a tiebreaker among those on an interview hold list).
Financial Aid Data
Applicants and incoming students also benefit from anticipating the level of grant-based support for their financial aid packages. While the majority of students come from households in the highest-income quartile, almost all students take advantage of financial aid packages. For those applicants from lower-income families, seeing the midrange amount of grant-based, need-based, or other scholarship awards for their cohort over the first year vs. by graduation will help with planning. These financial aid offices should also prepare sample overall cost-of-attendance estimates for out-of-state students who qualify as in-state students after their first year.
Disaggregating Data
It is also helpful to disaggregate data when possible. Some admissions teams compile snapshots of the entering class when students arrive at orientation; these snapshots highlight the class’s demographic makeup, unique accomplishments, and the languages spoken fluently, showcasing the diversity and excellence of the new students.
What is not reported is the composition of the class based on their entering admissions process, as not every student completed a regular admissions application. While we generally know how many MD/PhD students are admitted, programs should specify the number of students admitted directly through early decision or articulation agreements with undergraduate or postgraduate programs. Some schools include the number of students who deferred their medical school start, but the public rarely knows how many students in the class are repeating or extending their first year.
Applicants and advisors must understand that admissions teams manage the different admissions streams that lead to a full class. Students who enter through direct admissions usually have a lower GPA/exam threshold to meet to be eligible for admission (pending an interview). Early decision applicants must have a compelling reason for admission, or else they end up applying to more programs in October and November. GPA/exam data helps prospective applicants and their advisors.
Also Publish Aggregate Metrics Over the Last Three Years
When programs may have small class sizes, aggregate metrics may be used. GPA-MCAT data are compiled over three application cycles (FACTS: Applicants and Matriculants Data, AAMC, Table A-23), so one can also perform similar analyses on the preferred number of hours and activities for incoming students.
Waitlist Statistics
Many successful premed and predental applicants were once alternates, and applicants ask about the likelihood of receiving an offer. Admissions offices should disclose how many waitlisted applicants were offered admission over three cycles. Metrics and characteristics of waitlisted applicants should be publicly available. Furthermore, the rules governing waitlist management should be disclosed.
While AMCAS publishes each program’s waitlist policies, more data-driven details will better inform everyone involved in the admissions process. By replacing “typical number of waitlist positions” and “number acceptance offers” with “three-year averages,” admissions officers can provide more insight into yield, melt, and the likelihood of movement. Similar public data are not currently available for AADSAS or VMCAS applicants.
TMDSAS admissions is match-based for its in-state applicants. TMDSAS disclosed pre-match data (entering year 2021) to advisors (The Republic of Texas XL: If you are riding a high horse, there ain’t no way to get down off it gracefully). The data include the ratio of interviewed candidates to receiving at least one pre-match offer and the number of applicants with more than one pre-match offer. In the future, applicants and advisors would benefit from an analysis of the metrics and holistic characteristics of pre-match vs. regular-matched applicants.
Activities and Experiences: Using Hours and Wordclouds
The applicant “checklist” should include pre-professional activities that help students discern their readiness for a long-term career in a specific profession. Every prehealth applicant understands they should have a significant number of hours of patient-facing clinical experience, professional observation, community service, teaching/research, leadership, and personal growth. The strongest applicants often have taken growth/gap years to gain frontline perspectives on their role as community healers and advocates.
Consequently, applicants want to better understand how to demonstrate their commitment and value to the health professional community in a way that persuades an admissions committee. Most applicants worry about scheduling enough time before applying to activities that are appropriate for their chosen profession. Programs and professional societies have suggested many activities, but applicants want to see a strong connection between activities and each incoming class.
In admissions presentations, I have used word clouds to highlight common themes in personal statements and submitted essays among all applicants in the pool (Figure, BSD wordcloud). The word clouds offer insight into common themes that guide prospective applicants and help them consider the messages they highlight among their peers, while using personal details and authenticity to stand out.
Admissions officers compile this information in the snapshot of the incoming class, often using word clouds that highlight the meaningful activities represented. While the MSAR profiles summarize the proportion of the incoming class that had such experiences (e.g., over 80% of the class had a research experience), admissions officers provide more detail with the midrange number of hours in each category for the incoming class profile. These data and the word clouds are often shared with prospective students during recruitment presentations to address concerns about activities that set applicants apart. By not attending these sessions and asking for specific information, prospective applicants and their advisors may overlook key information that can shape a strong application or reapplication.
Why Do Admissions Committees Ghost You?
In the end, it is impossible to meet the expectation of knowing precisely where an applicant stands in a process involving hundreds of schools (and, in the future, thousands of residency programs), overburdened admissions staff, admissions committee members with more important priorities, and tens of thousands of application materials. Noting that before 2010, many admissions offices had rows of filing cabinets and spent hours opening express-mail packages of verified applications (i.e., “batches”); our contemporary process leverages technological innovations so that materials arrive securely and promptly (such as electronic transcripts and letters). Interviews can be conducted virtually in a recorded format (Recorded Video Interviews) or via web conferencing technology.
Yet the slowest steps in the application process stem from managing thousands of applications, with an insistence on human review and deliberation. Artificial intelligence technologies can help discern authenticity or agreeability (Getting to Know You with the Big Five Personality Traits), but few admissions committees are willing to relinquish their decision-making role. The attention given to proper application review and discussion means sacrificing a personalized, “customer service”-oriented approach to responding to applicant inquiries (which chatbots could handle).
The University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine has developed a feedback tool, based on a flowchart, that guides rejected applicants in reflecting on and improving components of their profile for a reapplication (AAMC webinar posted December 30, 2025). Other offices rely on applicants’ prehealth advisors to guide them.
Being too honest about the reasons for rejection can expose the program to legal liability. Most applicants are strong enough to be eligible for an admissions offer, but getting off a waitlist generally depends on luck, as decisions are made by those who already have offers. Most admissions officers want to keep as many eligible applicants in contention, and they know from experience that creating a waitlist that is more than four times the intended class size will still guarantee that all spots are filled.
Maintaining Professionalism and the High Ground
Lately, while admissions committees are given deference in their decisions, university administrators and politicians argue for oversight to monitor against race-based preferential treatment. However, most have little interest in making admissions processes more transparent to benefit applicants, as doing so could expose them to reputational or legal risks.
As applicants, you are expected to maintain a professional demeanor as the admissions professionals manage the chaos of filling the class outside of your view. While the silence can be frustrating, applicants should avoid aggressive communication with the admissions team. Following up at reasonable intervals with updates that express additional value to their student community is a good place to focus one’s energy. While it is easy to opine about schools that ignore your communications, reward those who do send interview invitations with your full attention, respect, and consideration.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Improving transparency in admissions involves a combination of better communication, data disclosure, and resources for applicants and advisors.
- Real-Time Progress Tracking: Schools should provide regularly scheduled updates on the cycle’s progress, including the number of interview invitations sent and the number of remaining seats, through dashboards, portals, or public social media.
- Detailed Status Updates: Admissions offices should update applicant statuses in portals and clearly define what each status (e.g., “application complete” vs. “ready for review”) specifically means.
- Publishing Comprehensive Statistics: Instead of just averages, programs should disclose midrange statistics (10th–90th percentiles) for GPA and exam scores, as well as data on waitlist movement and financial aid support levels over three-year cycles.
- Clarifying Communication Policies: Institutions should explicitly state their policies on in-cycle communications, including preferred channels (e.g., email vs. portal) and the information required for updates or letters of intent.
- Disaggregating Admissions Data: Schools should show how different recruitment tracks (such as early decision or pipeline programs) and assessments (such as Situational Judgment Tests) contribute to filling the class.
- Visualizing Successful Profiles: Using tools like word clouds to illustrate common themes in successful personal statements and activities can help applicants align their profiles with a program’s mission.
- Providing Feedback for Reapplicants: Developing structured feedback tools, such as flowcharts or reflection guides, helps unsuccessful applicants improve their profiles for future cycles.
- Disclosing Waitlist Procedures: Transparency can be improved by publishing three-year averages for the number of waitlisted applicants offered admission and disclosing the rules governing waitlist management.
References
Acuity Insights (blog, March 26, 2021). Why solving professionalism issues in dentistry begins with re-thinking admissions processes.
Association of American Medical Colleges and National Association for Advisors of the Health Professions (webinar). January 20 Increasing Transparency in Medical School Admissions. (2026).
Royal, K. D., Carpentieri, A., Santos, R., Stenulson, D. (December 10, 2025). Predictors of Academic and Non-Academic Termination From Medical Schools. Cureus 17(12): e98889. doi:10.7759/cureus.98889
Disclosure of AI Assistance
Google Gemini was used to generate the abstract and conclusion sections after the initial draft was written. Grammarly AI was involved in copyediting for spelling and grammar.
The post How to Make a (More) Transparent Holistic Admissions Process appeared first on Student Doctor Network.
Continue reading...
