E
EC
Hi Everyone,
This is something I read on Interview Feedback written by an admissions committee member last year.
EC
•••quote:••• As the admissions season winds down (though lots of maeuvering remains), I feel driven to share stories with some of you who seem quite edgy about now. I'm on the Admissions Committee of a top school. Here's one person's perspective on how students are picked at places like Harvard, Duke, Cornell, Penn, Baylor, Hopkins, Columbia, (and the list could stretch through dozens of names--I don't know about the UC schools). All of the following students are applicants from two colleges with very similar demographics (Ivy or Ivy like, for what it's worth; I've merged them to ensure anonymity). The students: A. 4.0 gpa with MCATS of 40 (13-13-14; I'll skip the letter grade). B. 4.0 with a 32. C. 3.5 with a 31. D. 3.6 with a 36. E. 3.2 with a 30. F. 3.6 with a 33. G. 3.8 with a 39. That's 7 people. On average, we'd accept about one or two from this group (and these are getting an interview; few do get one, including people with comparable numbers. Any negative comment in your letters, for example, probably gets you rejected). A. has great scores, has done significant research and typical extra-curriculars. I interviewer thought he was self involved. His letters said he was a good team player. Lots of discussion. Rejected. The PhD's on the committee shake their heads. Some clinicians smile. Rough start. B. Great grades. Below-our-average MCATS. Interviews were fair, not great. Has done the sort of research that is already a big deal. Even jaded committee members were impressed. Accepted. It's the right thing to do, probably, but it would be nice if he were more personally reassuring. C. Solid grades and MCATS. African American from an impoverished household. Lots of activities. Very nice interviews. Accepted. A fairly clear pick, by the way, and we'll be recruiting her. Harvard tends to beat us out of such applicants. Most URM's who apply are not, by the way, rich, as some of you seem to think. In case you missed it, there are several reasons that these groups are chosen as URM's--and over-affluence is not one of them. D. Solid academics and extracurriculars. Child of a faculty member. Had done summer research in one of our labs. Aroused moderate enthusiasm in interviewers and research mentor. Rejected. Forty years ago, he would've been an automatic acceptance, the core of a class. Those days are long gone. E. An African American. Adequate extracurriculars but mostly in solitude. Shy and quiet in person. Rejected. The grades and MCATS aren't the problem. His numbers indicate he'd do the work (these elite private schools are overrepresented in my medical school for a reason--they are crammed with overachieving premeds; this person has proven he/she can hack it in a tough atmomosphere. This applicant's problem is his/her lack of personal vigor--we want it in all of our students. The rejection is grudging, especially if we wind up with a small number of URM's. F. Average grades and MCATS. A service star. Great interviews. Would be fun to have as a student or classmate. Accepted. It doesn't matter that his grades and MCAt's are slightly below our average. G. Excellent grades and MCATS. Above our average on both. Varsity athlete. Verbal. Good interviews. Mustered enthusiasm in the interviewers, but not as much as did the previous person. We've accepted three and are supposed to only accept one or two. Grudgingly rejected. And we are still going to have to reject one or two of those who I said we'd accepted. We're fully aware that ALL of these students have the capacity to be good doctors, that all of them will get in somewhere, and that different interviewers would likely have led to different results. We're buoyed by the fact that medical schools are MUCH more alike than they are different. To all of you, we do our best. Good luck.
••••
This is something I read on Interview Feedback written by an admissions committee member last year.
EC
•••quote:••• As the admissions season winds down (though lots of maeuvering remains), I feel driven to share stories with some of you who seem quite edgy about now. I'm on the Admissions Committee of a top school. Here's one person's perspective on how students are picked at places like Harvard, Duke, Cornell, Penn, Baylor, Hopkins, Columbia, (and the list could stretch through dozens of names--I don't know about the UC schools). All of the following students are applicants from two colleges with very similar demographics (Ivy or Ivy like, for what it's worth; I've merged them to ensure anonymity). The students: A. 4.0 gpa with MCATS of 40 (13-13-14; I'll skip the letter grade). B. 4.0 with a 32. C. 3.5 with a 31. D. 3.6 with a 36. E. 3.2 with a 30. F. 3.6 with a 33. G. 3.8 with a 39. That's 7 people. On average, we'd accept about one or two from this group (and these are getting an interview; few do get one, including people with comparable numbers. Any negative comment in your letters, for example, probably gets you rejected). A. has great scores, has done significant research and typical extra-curriculars. I interviewer thought he was self involved. His letters said he was a good team player. Lots of discussion. Rejected. The PhD's on the committee shake their heads. Some clinicians smile. Rough start. B. Great grades. Below-our-average MCATS. Interviews were fair, not great. Has done the sort of research that is already a big deal. Even jaded committee members were impressed. Accepted. It's the right thing to do, probably, but it would be nice if he were more personally reassuring. C. Solid grades and MCATS. African American from an impoverished household. Lots of activities. Very nice interviews. Accepted. A fairly clear pick, by the way, and we'll be recruiting her. Harvard tends to beat us out of such applicants. Most URM's who apply are not, by the way, rich, as some of you seem to think. In case you missed it, there are several reasons that these groups are chosen as URM's--and over-affluence is not one of them. D. Solid academics and extracurriculars. Child of a faculty member. Had done summer research in one of our labs. Aroused moderate enthusiasm in interviewers and research mentor. Rejected. Forty years ago, he would've been an automatic acceptance, the core of a class. Those days are long gone. E. An African American. Adequate extracurriculars but mostly in solitude. Shy and quiet in person. Rejected. The grades and MCATS aren't the problem. His numbers indicate he'd do the work (these elite private schools are overrepresented in my medical school for a reason--they are crammed with overachieving premeds; this person has proven he/she can hack it in a tough atmomosphere. This applicant's problem is his/her lack of personal vigor--we want it in all of our students. The rejection is grudging, especially if we wind up with a small number of URM's. F. Average grades and MCATS. A service star. Great interviews. Would be fun to have as a student or classmate. Accepted. It doesn't matter that his grades and MCAt's are slightly below our average. G. Excellent grades and MCATS. Above our average on both. Varsity athlete. Verbal. Good interviews. Mustered enthusiasm in the interviewers, but not as much as did the previous person. We've accepted three and are supposed to only accept one or two. Grudgingly rejected. And we are still going to have to reject one or two of those who I said we'd accepted. We're fully aware that ALL of these students have the capacity to be good doctors, that all of them will get in somewhere, and that different interviewers would likely have led to different results. We're buoyed by the fact that medical schools are MUCH more alike than they are different. To all of you, we do our best. Good luck.
••••
--all in one mail batch!!! I got over my excitement quickly though, b/c UCSF was still my first 'official' "in-the-mailbox" acceptance letter. I wrote a withdrawal letter to GW a week ago.
