Should I Update Schools Even Though I Have Nothing Ground-Breaking?

[JAH_]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I wanted to get input on whether I should invest time in sending out update letters to schools.

Things that I want to include in the update letter, but are not extremely significant:

1. Continuing to work at my job and taking on some interesting projects.
2. Submitted a manuscript to a journal, waiting to hear back.
3. Continued to volunteer and have grown in that position, although I have not changed roles.

A little background about how my cycle is going:

• Applied to 31 schools during July, August, ending on September 10th.
• Interviewed at 3
  • waitlisted at 2, waiting to hear back from 1
• Rejected from 2
• Have 1 upcoming interview in Feb
• In total, I have heard back from 6/31 schools (20%)

My reasoning is that by sending an update letter, I may get noticed and may secure some more interviews. Am I wrong in this line of thinking?

 

[JAH_]

X

 

[Mr.Smile12]

My reasoning is that by sending an update letter, I may get noticed and may secure some more interviews. Am I wrong in this line of thinking?

You have 3 interviews. Your goal is to get an offer, not more interviews.

 

[JAH_]

Right, I will focus on writing update letters to schools that have interviewed me. Then I'll write to the others.

 

[polymerization]

A manuscript submission would be something I'd add to an update letter—but only if it's truly new information.

If you already mentioned the lab and that a manuscript was in progress in your primary application, I think stating that you got it to submission isn't worth writing about. An accepted manuscript would make sense to update about (and you can include the DOI or full citation as part of your letter for their reference).

 

[PickaGodnPray]

A manuscript submission would be something I'd add to an update letter—but only if it's truly new information.

I would hold off until it is actually accepted. Most people that understand the importance of research that are involved in admissions also won't consider a submission as significant (source: 3 MD/PhDs involved in admissions). Anyone can submit manuscripts, what is important is the quality of the work that gets it accepted.

 

[polymerization]

I would hold off until it is actually accepted. Most people that understand the importance of research that are involved in admissions also won't consider a submission as significant (source: 3 MD/PhDs involved in admissions). Anyone can submit manuscripts, what is important is the quality of the work that gets it accepted.

I agree, that's why I hedged on whether or not it appears in the primary.

I think OP already knows they want to update before the holiday freeze (and probably ahead of all of the applicants bound to be panic-sending updates en masse come the new year)... so I can sense that maybe the real question is "can I send a half-baked update in a way that could theoretically benefit me?" ...and the answer is, almost certainly, not really.

But if OP does want to take the risk regardless, it might as well be something somewhat substantive. If they hadn't talked about the manuscript in progress already, I do think that is the closest thing to an update-appropriate event. Otherwise, "just working at all the same things you've known about since July" is probably not the way to go. (But that's just me. I don't have anything to update about, so I'll just hang tight and see how things shake out.)

 

[JAH_]

I found this article published by SDN.

They mention they got interviews by sending fairly insubstantial update letters.

However, I can give you my personal experience: when I found myself in your seat two years ago, I decided to send out nine update letters. I scored myself four “last-minute” interviews at medical schools that had not corresponded with me at all up to that point. What’s more, I turned three of those interviews into acceptances! So yes, while the time commitment is big, the payoff can be huge as well!

 

[polymerization]

I found this article published by SDN.

They mention they got interviews by sending fairly insubstantial update letters.

The author of the article is Dr. Elisabeth Fassas, who graduated from Hopkins and then completed her Master's at the London School of Economics. She would work as a junior consultant at McKinsey before returning for medical school. She's now a resident in IM at Duke.

My point being... I would argue that outcomes are more bimodal than normally distributed in this case. At the end of the day AAMC's MCAT/GPA grid makes it clear that outcomes are most strongly correlated with metrics. It's entirely possible that, yeah, for Dr. Fassas, it sure must have felt like the update letters did the heavy lifting... but my guess is that she would have had choices regardless, especially considering her conversion rate.

I think, like everything else in this process, virtually every lever you can pull as an applicant prefers a small subset of the group.

What's hard about it, in my opinion, is that you have got to imagine that any communication will be interpreted through the lens of how competitive the school thinks you are. I imagine if you are below median for them, an update might read as a love letter and supplication; whereas if you are much more competitive, I would imagine it would seem more earnest because the competitive applicant's credentials already open every door—they don't need the charity. So it's a trade-off that makes sense for some people, and maybe not so much for others (again, in my opinion).

 

[JAH_]

What I am getting from this thread and my other research is that I should hit some milestones before sending my update.

 

[TwoDogMed]

I believe Wake likes interest and/or update letters unless things have changed since I was accepted off the WL several years ago after sending a letter of interest.

 

[pierty]

I would hold off until it is actually accepted. Most people that understand the importance of research that are involved in admissions also won't consider a submission as significant (source: 3 MD/PhDs involved in admissions). Anyone can submit manuscripts, what is important is the quality of the work that gets it accepted.

This is fairly nuanced. If this is a basic science manuscript, crossing the line from submission --> acceptance can take a very long time (in some cases, up to 2 years in revision). In that case, if your PI is well-established and puts the paper on BioRxiv, I think it's more than reasonable to cite it and link the DOI to the submitted manuscript in an update letter. They can get a broad sense from an initial glance at the abstract and figures about the substantive quality of the work. If this is a clinical case report, it's an entirely separate issue.

That being said, it's almost always better to submit an update letter to schools post-interview, pre-decision. Update letters pre-II can sometimes move the needle, but it's much more variable.

 

[PickaGodnPray]

Yes I am aware of the timing of basic science papers, but that does not change the reasoning. No adcom is going to look through any applicants BioRx manuscript and see if it looks credible. You can’t tell that from a glance anyways, that requires actually reading and critically examine the data which again they don’t have the time to do. This is the entire point of the submission process and why acceptances, not submissions, is what adcoms with research backgrounds care about.
Anyone can submit to a top journal and add it to an update, but that doesn’t mean the paper has any shot of being published there. Otherwise, you’re opening the door for applicants to submit weak papers to top journals and send an update saying “My manuscript is currently in revision for Cell” then not update the schools when it gets rejected two weeks later. And if you think premeds won’t game that system I have to disagree.

 

[JAH_]

This is fairly nuanced. If this is a basic science manuscript, crossing the line from submission --> acceptance can take a very long time (in some cases, up to 2 years in revision). In that case, if your PI is well-established and puts the paper on BioRxiv, I think it's more than reasonable to cite it and link the DOI to the submitted manuscript in an update letter. They can get a broad sense from an initial glance at the abstract and figures about the substantive quality of the work. If this is a clinical case report, it's an entirely separate issue.

That being said, it's almost always better to submit an update letter to schools post-interview, pre-decision. Update letters pre-II can sometimes move the needle, but it's much more variable.

Right, I forgot about BioRxiv. That's a great idea!