SDN Culture

[863168]

---

Members don't see this ad.

@Robin-jay I never insinuated that you regretted your decision. I have you on ignore to avoid veering this thread off path, feel free to PM me.

 

[Robin-jay]

@Robin-jay I never insinuated that you regretted your decision. I have you on ignore to avoid veering this thread off path, feel free to PM me.

onestly, this is still another derivative comment about the fact that his master's concentration is in Chemistry and if he had chosen a Biology major he wouldn't have half the problems he had to go through because he would have a higher GPA.

This is an "insinuation".

 

[CCresearcher]

I agree with 90% of what you say, but medical schools are advertising "holistic" to mean something its not.

Medical school: We are holistic, we look at the whole applicant!
Applicant: Awesome, I'll apply here with a 2.99 GPA because my EC's are top 1% (1000+ hours volunteering, science publications, 1000+ research hours, etc.).
Medical school: *proceeds to screen out application due to sub 3.0 GPA*
Applicant: I thought this was a holistic process
Medical school: It is, just increase your GPA before we consider you, and thank for your primary and secondary fees!

Its not that I'm saying that their "holistic" definition doesn't fit mine, its that they "advertise" it to maximize primary and secondary fees from applicants, withholding truth from the process.

So overall, its because they advertise the word "holistic" as a different definition than what they use in practice.

I understand your point, but again I think it’s more a case of premeds misinterpreting the definition than schools falsely advertising it. When they say “we look at the whole applicant” they do mean that. They care about your ECs. They just also care about your stats. (And as an aside, I also think many premeds think their ECs are in the top 1% when they aren’t). Ultimately, though, a school can holistically review applications while still caring a lot about stats, and absolutely by still rejecting those who don’t meet a high bar. Again, this isn’t schools misrepresenting their process (most openly post their average stats), it’s premeds choosing to believe that their stats aren’t important. Holistic reviews are used just as frequently to reject high stat applicants with poor ECs as they are to accept lower stat ones with stellar ECs.

Again, I do think that the process is too focused on numbers, as is the residency application process. I think there’s little evidence that someone with a better step 1 score makes a better orthopedic surgeon than someone with a lower score. At the end of the day, though, there is fierce competition and that’s how schools/programs have chosen to pick.

 

[Robin-jay]

I understand your point, but again I think it’s more a case of premeds misinterpreting the definition than schools falsely advertising it. When they say “we look at the whole applicant” they do mean that. They care about your ECs. They just also care about your stats. (And as an aside, I also think many premeds think their ECs are in the top 1% when they aren’t). Ultimately, though, a school can holistically review applications while still caring a lot about stats, and absolutely by still rejecting those who don’t meet a high bar. Again, this isn’t schools misrepresenting their process (most openly post their average stats), it’s premeds choosing to believe that their stats aren’t important. Holistic reviews are used just as frequently to reject high stat applicants with poor ECs as they are to accept lower stat ones with stellar ECs.

Again, I do think that the process is too focused on numbers, as is the residency application process. I think there’s little evidence that someone with a better step 1 score makes a better orthopedic surgeon than someone with a lower score. At the end of the day, though, there is fierce competition and that’s how schools/programs have chosen to pick.

I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that GPA and MCAT >>>> EC's, but EC's are a deciding factor after GPA and MCAT barriers have been breached.

But when people are saying EC's are equal to the GPA and MCAT, this insinuates that there can be cases where EC's >>>> GPA and MCAT, and that is never true.

 

[Lee]

This is the kind of community I want to be a part of...I've been lurking but now I'm joining.

Thanks for your donation!

Operational transparency is a key step in ensuring SDN is a place for open, respectful and unbiased information and discussion. To the average student, SDN is just a forum.

As a nonprofit organization, we reinvest our revenues into new services and projects that benefit the pre-health and health education community. Privacy is a core value at SDN - we never sell or share student information (and we've spent a lot of money on lawyers to protect member privacy). Unbiased information is central to our mission; we aggressively keep marketing out of the forum content, which irritates even organizations that sponsor our forums.

To enhance our transparency, I'm asking the staff to prepare a membership report that details revenues and expenditures. We also need to highlight our history, our board and our volunteer staff.

 

[Goro]

I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that GPA and MCAT >>>> EC's, but EC's are a deciding factor after GPA and MCAT barriers have been breached.

But when people are saying EC's are equal to the GPA and MCAT, this insinuates that there can be cases where EC's >>>> GPA and MCAT, and that is never true.

It definitely is true, despite your fervent desire to disbelieve it.

As an example. @gonnif has talked about someone who got a 14 on the MCAT but was accepted to medical school because this person was on military duty overseas and took the MCAT under adverse conditions.

 

[Robin-jay]

It definitely is true, despite your fervent desire to disbelieve it.

1. Exceptions are not the norm. So it does happen, its just unlikely, and not general procedure.

2. I remember before being accepted, I asked schools if I should apply because of so-so reason and they wrote back "what is your GPA and MCAT and we'll be better able to assist you", not "What are your EC's and we'll be better able to assist you".

3. Schools screen out low stats without human eyes ever seeing the application. Computers don't screen out lack of EC's without eyes scrolling over them. Sure, poor EC's sink applications, but at least human eyes are looking at it. A low GPA/MCAT doesn't even have that luxury.

My point is that EC's are not equal to GPA/MCAT. There are infinitely more benefits to having top 5% GPA/MCAT over top 5% EC's.

 

[7331poas]

Harvard and WashU have significantly different selection criteria needed for admission, but you would never know that just from their website. There are plenty of anecdotes on this forum about schools like hofstra and einstein being favorable to people with high stats particularly (as opposed to other schools with similar mcat/gpa splits). Maybe those anecdotes are true, maybe they are not. But you will never learn that from an admissions manual.

 

[deleted804295]

@Lucca

I appreciate you steering the conversation into the right direction it was much needed.

As an aside: I regularly like posts and I noticed that some of the posts here that seemed general were actually a personal stab at an individual. I do not mean any harm if I liked any malicious posts that were personal insults and I do not approve of such behaviours.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

However, you will never see someone at a Harvard interview with phenomenal top 1% of EC's and a poor GPA and MCAT.

False. I know multiple people with what SDN would consider poor stats who were accepted to great med schools based on ECs. Some military, one top level athlete (like international level), etc.

 

[Robin-jay]

False. I know multiple people with what SDN would consider poor stats who were accepted to great med schools based on ECs. Some military, one top level athlete (like international level), etc.

You know people at top 20 schools with poor GPA and MCAT scores? I didn't say average, I said poor.

 

[Lawpy]

You know people at top 20 schools with poor GPA and MCAT scores? I didn't say average, I said poor.

People who get into top schools with poor scores have something compelling in their applications that the adcoms decided to interview and accept them.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You know people at top 20 schools with poor GPA and MCAT scores? I didn't say average, I said poor.

Yes. Not many. I’m talking a few people. I’m just saying it happens, so clearly in at least some circumstances they are looking beyond stats.

 

[Robin-jay]

Yes. Not many. I’m talking a few people. I’m just saying it happens, so clearly in at least some circumstances they are looking beyond stats.

1. Exceptions are not the norm. So it does happen, its just unlikely, and not general procedure.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Missed that part. I’m on my phone and don’t always catch everything.

But I’d argue that exceptions do matter here. I’m arguing that just because most of the acceptances go to high stats students, that doesn’t mean they aren’t looking at every part of the app. That some people, even if just a few, are getting in with poor stats and great ECs supports that.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Ultimately it is no one's job to convince you that holistic review means that ECs are taken into consideration as well as MCAT and GPA. A well rounded candidate means success in every part of their application and while one phenomenal piece can outweigh the others, it has to be very phenomenal. Thus why there are only exceptions-these people are exceptional. I'd love to hear how your school approaches admissions and what you're doing to change it.

 

[Lawpy]

https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/

 

[Robin-jay]

Missed that part. I’m on my phone and don’t always catch everything.

But I’d argue that exceptions do matter here. I’m arguing that just because most of the acceptances go to high stats students, that doesn’t mean they aren’t looking at every part of the app. That some people, even if just a few, are getting in with poor stats and great ECs supports that.

If I asked you which one is better, which would you pick:

1. Top 5% GPA and MCAT and average EC's
2. Top 5% EC's and average GPA and MCAT

Which would you rather have when applying to medical school?

 

[Goro]

If I asked you which one is better, which would you pick:

1. Top 5% GPA and MCAT and average EC's
2. Top 5% EC's and average GPA and MCAT

Which would you rather have when applying to medical school?

It's not a zero sum game. Both would get seats somewhere. There are some Top Schools that have a wide 25-75% median range out there, like Pitt.

 

[Robin-jay]

It's not a zero sum game. Both would get seats somewhere. There are some Top Schools that have a wide 25-75% median range out there, like Pitt.

I understand the zero sum game argument. If anyone rational would have to choose though, they would choose top 5% GPA/MCAT over top 5% EC.

It's just more important. Even if both applicants got accepted to medical school, I bet the former had much more choices.

 

[7331poas]

Perhaps we should be demanding more transparency from schools on what constitutes "great ECs" in addition to the information available on the msar about MCAT GPA splits. Clearly the days of checking off boxes has passed.

 

[863168]

I always considered a "great" EC to be an action commitment that provides a description of the person as a human being. An EC that adds a description of "who this person is" rather than simply be any generic action (e.g. hospital volunteering) that someone does to simply check off the boxes. Someone who is homeless and has found stability now volunteers at a homeless shelter themselves. Someone who is ex-military now doing a drive for families that have lost loved ones. Or even someone with a unique career or passion that shows that their commitment to that action is an extension of who they are as a person e.g. a passion project that reflects a combination of their past experiences, current situation, and future expectations. What drives you to take up at 4 am? What makes you commit x amount of hours of your life or a lack of sleep or career success? The mystery of figuring out what makes you tick is partially answered by a "great" EC.

 

[libertyyne]

I agree with 90% of what you say, but medical schools are advertising "holistic" to mean something its not.

Medical school: We are holistic, we look at the whole applicant!
Applicant: Awesome, I'll apply here with a 2.99 GPA because my EC's are top 1% (1000+ hours volunteering, science publications, 1000+ research hours, etc.).
Medical school: *proceeds to screen out application due to sub 3.0 GPA*
Applicant: I thought this was a holistic process
Medical school: It is, just increase your GPA before we consider you, and thank for your primary and secondary fees!

Its not that I'm saying that their "holistic" definition doesn't fit mine, its that they "advertise" it to maximize primary and secondary fees from applicants, withholding truth from the process.

So overall, its because they advertise the word "holistic" as a different definition than what they use in practice.

Medical schools publish their matriculant median, applicant median , and IQR ranges as well as what proportion of applicants have certain ECs. It is not difficult to deduce how competitive an applicant is at the school. IF an applicant thinks they have a shot at the school when their stats are in the bottom 10 percentile of mcat and gpa, it is hardly the schools fault. The schools also do not want to publish hard cut-offs because an applicant might be excluded that they would have wanted, with an unusual life story, exceptional awards or ECs. It is the applicants duty to educate themselves on each individual school and their admissions process and then make a decision if they are competitive enough to apply. A large number of rejected applicants just use the shotgun approach and drop applications to schools they have no business applying to.

 

[LizzyM]

You can't be admitted without an interview and you can't get an interview with lackluster MCAT and GPA. With many schools interviewing <25% of the applicant pool, rising to the top of the pool is job one. After that, showing that you are curious (research), compassionate (community service), personable (interview interactions) and informed about what a career in medicine means (shadowing/clinical experience) will get you admitted.

 

[Phile98]

Ain't nobody better diss my boi @gonnif like that. In fact, he's more deserving of this pot of honey than I am. *proceeds to gobble up honey*

 

[getdown]

If I asked you which one is better, which would you pick:

1. Top 5% GPA and MCAT and average EC's
2. Top 5% EC's and average GPA and MCAT

Which would you rather have when applying to medical school?

Sure, getting into med school is hard and the process may not be necessarily fair but you passed that point already. You should be celebrating not complaining at this point. I don't understand why you're so bitter already. You haven't even started yet. I can't wait to see what you have to say in 2 years when you're getting the beat down during clinicals.

And I'm sure someone, somewhere mentioned this already. ECs are great but they're often used after consideration of the GPA/MCAT. The thing to consider is that schools aren't just picking students who can do well in medical school, they also want those people to pass the USMLEs and pass their residency boards otherwise all that schooling, effort and resources are for naught. It's not cheap to train physicians so the more that fail out the more resources wasted. What's the best predictor of academic and ultimately board success? It's not diverse ECs but actual grades and exam scores. Anyone can do well when they're in class or have a month or so of dedicated study time. But can they still have the time management skills and intellectual capacity to do well and pass their boards when they're pulling 80+ hours a week working during residency? My residency doesn't even offer interviews to people below a certain STEP cut off. They've found those below the cut off have a higher chance of not passing their boards and having residents not passing their boards looks extremely bad to the accrediting organizations.

So really, as much as some schools preach about "holistic" it's really an academic consideration first and foremost. Desire without capability is useless. And I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions. That's why residencies offer away rotations as an "interview" for those students who they otherwise would not even consider. If they like you enough, we'll push for you to get ranked despite average STEP scores.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

If I asked you which one is better, which would you pick:

1. Top 5% GPA and MCAT and average EC's
2. Top 5% EC's and average GPA and MCAT

Which would you rather have when applying to medical school?

Sorry, missed this.

Personally, I have number 2 (don't have MCAT back yet, so we'll see how that pans out). I would not switch to number 1 if given the chance. I think a person with average scores will be able to academically succeed in med school, but that those top 5% ECs will help them be more prepared for the real world, more adaptable, and to be more relatable to a wider range of patients.

And, as @Goro noted, it is not a zero sum game. They'll both get in. But to answer your question, I would rather have 2 and would take someone with 2 over someone with 1 if I only had one spot to give.

 

[Goro]

Sorry, missed this.

Personally, I have number 2 (don't have MCAT back yet, so we'll see how that pans out). I would not switch to number 1 if given the chance. I think a person with average scores will be able to academically succeed in med school, but that those top 5% ECs will help them be more prepared for the real world, more adaptable, and to be more relatable to a wider range of patients.

And, as @Goro noted, it is not a zero sum game. They'll both get in. But to answer your question, I would rather have 2 and would take someone with 2 over someone with 1 if I only had one spot to give.

And as we have noted multiple times, 4.0 automatons are a dime-a-dozen.

 

[Phile98]

I always considered a "great" EC to be an action commitment that provides a description of the person as a human being. An EC that adds a description of "who this person is" rather than simply be any generic action (e.g. hospital volunteering) that someone does to simply check off the boxes. Someone who is homeless and has found stability now volunteers at a homeless shelter themselves. Someone who is ex-military now doing a drive for families that have lost loved ones. Or even someone with a unique career or passion that shows that their commitment to that action is an extension of who they are as a person e.g. a passion project that reflects a combination of their past experiences, current situation, and future expectations. What drives you to take up at 4 am? What makes you commit x amount of hours of your life or a lack of sleep or career success? The mystery of figuring out what makes you tick is partially answered by a "great" EC.

This is gold right here.

 

[libertyyne]

Sorry, missed this.

Personally, I have number 2 (don't have MCAT back yet, so we'll see how that pans out). I would not switch to number 1 if given the chance. I think a person with average scores will be able to academically succeed in med school, but that those top 5% ECs will help them be more prepared for the real world, more adaptable, and to be more relatable to a wider range of patients.

And, as @Goro noted, it is not a zero sum game. They'll both get in. But to answer your question, I would rather have 2 and would take someone with 2 over someone with 1 if I only had one spot to give.

I also think people are delusional when it comes to how "exceptional" their ECs are.

1000 hours of research ? Who cares if you didnt really generate amazing publications.
1500 hours of volunteering at hospital? Thats great, but what did you accomplish ?

The following things are what I would consider exceptional
Military service,
Rhodes scholars
Distance traveled.
Peace corps.
Publications in a leading journal
Founder of a business that is profitable
Founder of a non-profit that actually is sustainable and has an impact on its area of interest.


There are by definition very few people who have exceptional resumes in the pool of applicants. There are a boatload of people with mediocre ECs and Mediocre stats.

And you know what is even more mind boggling, there is large overlap between the people with exceptional ECs and exceptional stats.

 

[Phile98]

I also think people are delusional when it comes to how "exceptional" their ECs are.

1000 hours of research ? Who cares if you didnt really generate amazing publications.
1500 hours of volunteering at hospital? Thats great, but what did you accomplish ?

The following things are what I would consider exceptional
Military service,
Rhodes scholars
Distance traveled.
Peace corps.
Publications in a leading journal
Founder of a business that is profitable
Founder of a non-profit that actually is sustainable and has an impact on its area of interest.


There are by definition very few people who have exceptional resumes in the pool of applicants. There are a boatload of people with mediocre ECs and Mediocre stats.

Good stuff but would highly emphasize the "distance traveled" part. Generalization isn't a good idea with EC's. Everyone is different, and therefore their circumstances should be taken into context when evaluating EC's. As @Pina Colada said, your EC's should define your character and interests. These are the activities that transform you from a number into a person. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar or have pubs to be exceptional. Show people that you wake up in the morning in order to pursue genuine goals. Demonstrate your vulnerabilities and passions. This will make you an exceptional human being and doctor.

 

[libertyyne]

Good stuff but would highly emphasize the "distance traveled" part. Generalization isn't a good idea with EC's. Everyone is different, and therefore their circumstances should be taken into context when evaluating EC's. As @Pina Colada said, your EC's should define your character and interests. These are the activities that transform you from a number into a person. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar or have pubs to be exceptional. Show people that you wake up in the morning in order to pursue genuine goals. Demonstrate your vulnerabilities and passions. This will make you an exceptional human being and doctor.

i think that is the difference between great and exceptional. I do think you need to have results to qualify to the exceptional category. one of the revelations of medical training is how average one is compared to their peers.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I also think people are delusional when it comes to how "exceptional" their ECs are.

1000 hours of research ? Who cares if you didnt really generate amazing publications.
1500 hours of volunteering at hospital? Thats great, but what did you accomplish ?

The following things are what I would consider exceptional
Military service,
Rhodes scholars
Distance traveled.
Peace corps.
Publications in a leading journal
Founder of a business that is profitable
Founder of a non-profit that actually is sustainable and has an impact on its area of interest.


There are by definition very few people who have exceptional resumes in the pool of applicants. There are a boatload of people with mediocre ECs and Mediocre stats.

And you know what is even more mind boggling, there is large overlap between the people with exceptional ECs and exceptional stats.

Not sure if you are implying I’m delusional about my own ECs, but I do agree with your list and your assessment that most people overestimate the quality of their ECs.

 

[libertyyne]

Not sure if you are implying I’m delusional about my own ECs, but I do agree with your list and your assessment that most people overestimate the quality of their ECs.

no no, I should have made that clear, but I included one of your exceptional ECs in the list of exceptional to hopefully sidestep that confusion.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

no no, I should have made that clear, but I included your EC in the list of exceptional to hopefully sidestep that confusion.

Yeah that’s what I thought. I just didn’t want to respond to an implication I didn’t think you were making lol.

But I think when you’re a traditional college student who has spent 4 years in a lab and volunteering for 4 straight years, it’s probably easy to think those ECs are exceptional just based on longevity.

 

[JustAUser]

It seems as if the conversation has steered from SDN's culture to holistic review.

I believe that SDN is gold mine in terms of the knowledge dispersed by adcoms about how to improve your application and the application process. SDN is worth it's weight in gold.

I think that there would be less toxicity/sarcasm if users
1. Used the search function
2. Read other interesting/relevant threads. There's a lot to learn in those threads.
3. Aren't trolling
4. Are actually asking for advice (and have not already decided on a terrible plan and don't want to budge regardless of the unanimous advice)
5. Don't believe they are entitled to anything. And if they've made a mistake (i.e. IA, etc), they should accept it and stop making excuses for it.

 

[LizzyM]

It seems as if the conversation has steered from SDN's culture to holistic review.

I believe that SDN is gold mine in terms of the knowledge dispersed by adcoms about how to improve your application and the application process. SDN is worth it's weight in gold.

I think that there would be less toxicity/sarcasm if users
1. Used the search function
2. Read other interesting/relevant threads. There's a lot to learn in those threads.
3. Aren't trolling
4. Are actually asking for advice (and have not already decided on a terrible plan and don't want to budge regardless of the unanimous advice)
5. Don't believe they are entitled to anything. And if they've made a mistake (i.e. IA, etc), they should accept it and stop making excuses for it.

I concur. I also think that there would be less toxicity/sarcasm if people stopped trying to be funny such as telling someone who is concerned about a GPA dropping to 3.95 that their only hope is DO or Carrib.

 

[Robin-jay]

I concur. I also think that there would be less toxicity/sarcasm if people stopped trying to be funny such as telling someone who is concerned about a GPA dropping to 3.95 that their only hope is DO or Carrib.

Yea, they wish they had a chance at DO or Carib.

 

[stubblesmcgee]

Sure, getting into med school is hard and the process may not be necessarily fair but you passed that point already. You should be celebrating not complaining at this point. I don't understand why you're so bitter already.

I don't have any gears to grind with medical school admissions or holistic review, but really? You can disagree about whether an experience is actually toxic and unfair, but arguing that someone shouldn't criticize said toxic and unfair experience just because they got through is something else man. Turning a blind eye like that just allows those things to perpetuate themselves.

 

[863168]

Interestingly enough, one of the reasons why toxicity is now a term often seen in mainstream lexicon is partially due to the influence of a single man working for a billion dollar indie game company who attempted to apply a strict social code to fight toxicity while simultaneously having an affair with three women and then suing his wife when she refused to return his engagement ring after the affair got exposed.

 

[libertyyne]

Interestingly enough, one of the reasons why toxicity is now a term often seen in mainstream lexicon is partially due to the influence of a single man working for a billion dollar indie game company who attempted to apply a strict social code to fight toxicity while simultaneously having an affair with three women and then suing his wife when she refused to return his engagement ring after the affair got exposed.

We clearly run in different circles.

 

[libertyyne]

Interestingly enough, one of the reasons why toxicity is now a term often seen in mainstream lexicon is partially due to the influence of a single man working for a billion dollar indie game company who attempted to apply a strict social code to fight toxicity while simultaneously having an affair with three women and then suing his wife when she refused to return his engagement ring after the affair got exposed.

Just to be sure.

 

[Robin-jay]

Interestingly enough, one of the reasons why toxicity is now a term often seen in mainstream lexicon is partially due to the influence of a single man working for a billion dollar indie game company who attempted to apply a strict social code to fight toxicity while simultaneously having an affair with three women and then suing his wife when she refused to return his engagement ring after the affair got exposed.

I think toxicity is when someone posts strong political opinions in a pre-med thread.

 

[getdown]

I don't have any gears to grind with medical school admissions or holistic review, but really? You can disagree about whether an experience is actually toxic and unfair, but arguing that someone shouldn't criticize said toxic and unfair experience just because they got through is something else man. Turning a blind eye like that just allows those things to perpetuate themselves.

So a few things to address:

1. Complaining and criticizing are two different things. It's all and fine to criticize something you disagree with but after a certain point it becomes complaining and it's tiresome to hear. I don't care if you criticize the admissions process or how schools employ or sell their "holistic" approach to admissions. All within your rights and you're probably right. But once you start parsing into which ECs are better than another and how they should be weighted relative to X vs Y vs Z GPA/MCAT combinations then it just sounds like complaining.

2. There are two different discussions in this thread: how SDN culture is toxic which then somehow morphed into how med school admission is unfair discussion. Nowhere in my post did I endorse "toxicity" or even talk about it. The latter is what I was referring to. Unless somehow you think medical school admission is toxic then I don't know what to tell you.

3. Finally, what exactly are we turning a blind eye too? That medical school admission is unfair? That MCAT/GPA should not be used in determining a candidates qualifications? Or are you referring to turning a blind eye to toxic behavior in this site. I don't know what you're referring to so please enlighten me on how exactly believing that using GPA/MCAT as a primary factor in admissions perpetuates toxic nature of the admission process.

 

[OdysseanUnderdog]

Speaking of toxicity, there's a principle in toxicology called hormesis that small and acute doses of a toxin or stressor upregulate protective and repair mechanisms. Hormetic stress actually increases resilience to what would normally be lethal doses of the toxin. Remember that scene from Princess Bride? Spoiler alert: Wesley survives even though both glasses are poisoned because he used hormesis to increase his resilience to the poison.

Hormesis is similar to the idea of the Yerkes-Dodson law in psychology and the idea of rheostats in signal transduction biology. In all three, what's good is not necessarily more or less, but rather balance, the Goldilocks level of toxicity/stress/arousal/p-mTORC1 signaling, etc.

In medicine and the real world, there are some actually toxic people who want to tear you down. Based on the admittedly limited number of posts I've read of his, @gonnif hardly seems to be one of them. To the contrary, he seems to be someone who donates a great deal of his time and energy to help people like us succeed. However, if him mixing in a few funny comments with his tough, no nonsense feedback feels "toxic" to you, maybe try considering it a hormetic stress that can increase your resilience to both benevolent negative feedback and actually toxic people when you encounter them in the future...?

 

[OdysseanUnderdog]

Regarding holistic review, yes, many pre-meds seem to think it's less rigorous. It's not. Holistic review is like seeing if your heart is lighter than a feather in the Egyptian afterlife myth. That being said, it can also be a liberating extension of your own self-development efforts if you lean into the challenges. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

EDIT: To clarify, I meant this seems to occur in addition to a rigorous review of GPAs and MCAT scores. As others said, holsistic review just means everything is looked at to get a complete picture of the applicant as a human being.

 

[stubblesmcgee]

So a few things to address:

1. Complaining and criticizing are two different things. It's all and fine to criticize something you disagree with but after a certain point it becomes complaining and it's tiresome to hear. I don't care if you criticize the admissions process or how schools employ or sell their "holistic" approach to admissions. All within your rights and you're probably right. But once you start parsing into which ECs are better than another and how they should be weighted relative to X vs Y vs Z GPA/MCAT combinations then it just sounds like complaining.

2. There are two different discussions in this thread: how SDN culture is toxic which then somehow morphed into how med school admission is unfair discussion. Nowhere in my post did I endorse "toxicity" or even talk about it. The latter is what I was referring to. Unless somehow you think medical school admission is toxic then I don't know what to tell you.

Yeah, again, I don't have any major issues with the process right now. I just think it's kind of lame to tell @Robin-jay to be grateful and quit complaining about the admissions process.

I can see why my use of the word toxic may have confused the issue given the context, but not going to lie, the two discussions did start to blend together in my head. A lot of the "tough love" coming from people who have got through the admissions hurdle often comes off as a tame form of hazing; being harsher with premeds because that's what the advice givers went through. Mistakenly, I lumped the complaints together, which is probably why I reached for the word "toxic".

 

[Lawpy]

A tip to reduce forum toxicity: reduce sarcasm and “use the search function” posts when responding to threads posted by newly joined members. They don’t know how the forums work and are asking for help, so being mean to them with unproductive posts will only discourage them and scare them away.

I get it. Threads get repetitive and boring to read. But you don’t have to respond to threads that bother you.

 

[Robin-jay]

A tip to reduce forum toxicity: reduce sarcasm and “use the search function” posts when responding to threads posted by newly joined members. They don’t know how the forums work and are asking for help, so being mean to them with unproductive posts will only discourage them and scare them away.

I get it. Threads get repetitive and boring to read. But you don’t have to respond to threads that bother you.

I agree with people annoyingly complaining about people not using the search bar. People who say "use search bar" for everything gets old.

One example where people should use the search bar is something like MD vs DO.

1. New members don't want to learn to navigate the forums perfectly.
2. People like being directly spoken to about their questions.
3. people often have cases that are similar to previous posters, but just different enough to justify a new thread.

I honestly don't see a problem with people re-posting similar questions.

 

[getdown]

Yeah, again, I don't have any major issues with the process right now. I just think it's kind of lame to tell @Robin-jay to be grateful and quit complaining about the admissions process.

I can see why my use of the word toxic may have confused the issue given the context, but not going to lie, the two discussions did start to blend together in my head. A lot of the "tough love" coming from people who have got through the admissions hurdle often comes off as a tame form of hazing; being harsher with premeds because that's what the advice givers went through. Mistakenly, I lumped the complaints together, which is probably why I reached for the word "toxic".

Yeah, I assumed the two things started to blend together for you hence why I asked.

The reason I asked Robin specifically was that I noticed in this thread and a prior thread on legacy admissions that s/he had very strong opinions and expressed great dissatisfaction and frustration with the process. WHich is surprising because most are celebrating their success. And my point to Robin-jay is that the admissions process is hard and relatively few make it in. You should feel proud that you went through the process and did well enough to gain admittance. It's not easy jumping through all the hoops. I remember it and I thought it was super lame too. Could they make the process better? More fair? More transparent? Yes but it's not happening now so criticizing it in an internet forum isn't likely to change anything. What one can do is to go through the process and then when in a position of authority make the changes you want. Treat an application more holistically, fight for the applicants you feel should get a chance despite XYZ concerns.