Silence from the T20s, is something wrong with my app?

[lil_engine]

There are several differences in your stats compared to what you posted on a WAMC when you were submitting your app, so it’s hard to say what the problem might be. Both lists of stats look fine, but maybe neither are accurate? If the latter is the case, then maybe your school list is too top-heavy.

Non-Trad
ORM

sGPA 3.85
MCAT 520

Clinical Volunteering in 2018 (Worried it's all this year)180 hours
Hospice 70
Hospital 110

Shadowing - 200 hours assorted

NonClinical Volunteering = 1400 hours
-Teaching inmates at a prison (350 hours)
-Mentoring disadvantaged children (450 hrs)
-Mentoring disadvantaged youth (600 hours)

Research = 4000 hours + 2 publications
- full time during gap years
-Undergraduate research 300 hours
-Part of team developing Biomedical Device (400 hours)

Employment
-Tutoring for Money 1500 hrs+

Internship
Pharma 2 Summers

That's someone else's WAMC post....not mine.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[manohman]

That's someone else's WAMC post....not mine.

feelsbadman thats mine

 

[Goro]

While this is understandable from an adcom view, I can’t help but feel that it’s a bit ridiculous that we’ve gotten to this point in MD admissions. What do any of those accomplishments have to do with being a good doctor? Why is it no longer enough to have a great science background and demonstrable compassion and people skills? I know that the point is that when you have 5000 incredible applicants to a top school they all start to look the same, so it’s good to stand out in some way, but from the perspective of a student, it just feels a bit unfair that we have to jump through all these hoops just to become a practicing physician. It’s not like this in other countries with great healthcare systems, and it wasn’t like this 20 years ago, so I’m just feeling down on my luck. I’m not trying to direct any negativity towards you, DokterMom, but just towards the vagueness of the process in general.

Life's not fair
There is no right to be a doctor
It's a seller's market

 

[syn1]

I think people on these forums tend to exaggerate the kind of ECs you need to be competitive for top 20s. I have not met any Green Berets, astronauts, or Olympic athletes at my T20 interviews. Most of the other interviewees were normal, personable people maybe 1-2 years out of school, but I will say that everyone I met did some kind of research.

 

[Goro]

I think people on these forums tend to exaggerate the kind of ECs you need to be competitive for top 20s. I have not met any Green Berets, astronauts, or Olympic athletes at my T20 interviews. Most of the other interviewees were normal, personable people maybe 1-2 years out of school, but I will say that everyone I met did some kind of research.

If one can get > 300 hrs of service to others less fortunate than ones self, then that goes a long way for a lot of the Really Top Schools. No need to join the Peace Corps or the SEALs.

 

[el_duderino]

While this is understandable from an adcom view, I can’t help but feel that it’s a bit ridiculous that we’ve gotten to this point in MD admissions. What do any of those accomplishments have to do with being a good doctor? Why is it no longer enough to have a great science background and demonstrable compassion and people skills? I know that the point is that when you have 5000 incredible applicants to a top school they all start to look the same, so it’s good to stand out in some way, but from the perspective of a student, it just feels a bit unfair that we have to jump through all these hoops just to become a practicing physician. It’s not like this in other countries with great healthcare systems, and it wasn’t like this 20 years ago, so I’m just feeling down on my luck. I’m not trying to direct any negativity towards you, DokterMom, but just towards the vagueness of the process in general.

People who are ambitious and driven to succeed in other fields are more likely to be ambitious and driven to succeed in medicine.

Some people just have more general ability and determination than others. I know a lot of people who just seem to excel at whatever it is they decide to do.

 

[deleted938090]

The inner cynic can't help but wonder if they will get bored with medicine and move onto something they find even more interesting considering a track history of changing plans...

 

[LizzyM]

The majority of applicants I interview at my T20 do not have a publication. It is not essential for an interview or for admission.

 

[863168]

I have noticed that traditional students miss the fact that a competitive application process isn't fair or balanced. People who have been athletes or have been in the work force understand that putting in the hours doesn't always mean you will perform on competition day or be rewarded up the ladder for putting in overtime to finish a big project. It doesn't matter that you're not an athlete, however undergrad to adcom directors is like the minor leagues or a high school prospect with very limited data on them to gauge whether or not they can adapt to the major league. This especially is a major problem in football when major league teams select for QBs who look like star talent in D1, but end up being major busts.

Although I agree with @DokterMom that having an interesting angle gets your foot into doors, it's not the underlying theme that I feel adcoms look for in admissions. I think that adcoms are looking for performers. Regardless of having a career as an interpretive dance artist or a lead scientist for a big pharma firm, they are looking for people who have shown that they are able to perform academically and professionally in life. This could be interpreted as a big publication in a science journal or being able to successful implement plans for a sanitation system in a third world country after many years of effort. Essentially, these people have demonstrated a track record of having succeeded in something they were passionate about in the past and can hopefully translate that into medicine.

These metrics have been used in occupation settings in the past which is why non-traditional students are the likely reason why ages and gap years have been bumped up. It's not so much that the age gap is there by proxy of time, but by understanding the underlying criteria that would make an adcom select two identical applicants with the same GPA, the same trends, and the same MCAT. There is room to offer a strong bent on what you think the admissions focus is for medical programs and then to tailor your application accordingly. Being able to sell yourself as an asset or attribute is again something that non-trads likely have had the privilege to hone by experience and translate into the application. However, this is just my personal conjecture on what I think most applicants miss when it comes to their own application.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Remember that 99 percentile MCATs become median or bottom 50% mcats of matriculants at these schools too. Median Mcat 521 makes 99% around 50%, 520 could be below average. High Mcat stats by no means guarantees anyone admission because there are so many people with higher.

Mathematically, this is true but a 520 is probably not too many points from the top 25% either given that the highest possible score is a 528.

Further, this thread from the MD/PhD subforum shows that a lot of presumably high stats applicants are getting interviewed at the very tippy top programs. This suggests to me that super high stats, with research based/academic ECs are given more weight at MD/PhD programs v straight MD programs.

 

[fds86]

While this is understandable from an adcom view, I can’t help but feel that it’s a bit ridiculous that we’ve gotten to this point in MD admissions. What do any of those accomplishments have to do with being a good doctor? Why is it no longer enough to have a great science background and demonstrable compassion and people skills? I know that the point is that when you have 5000 incredible applicants to a top school they all start to look the same, so it’s good to stand out in some way, but from the perspective of a student, it just feels a bit unfair that we have to jump through all these hoops just to become a practicing physician. It’s not like this in other countries with great healthcare systems, and it wasn’t like this 20 years ago, so I’m just feeling down on my luck. I’m not trying to direct any negativity towards you, DokterMom, but just towards the vagueness of the process in general.

I think the navy seal/olympian stuff is a little overblown. Yeah, that stuff will get you places because it makes you extremely unique and amazing, but like 5% of a T20 class has that sort of stuff. And even then, the normal veterans, or D1 athletes in a non-premier sport (i.e. not baseball/football/bball) or DII/DIII people are already a rarity - people at the navy seal/olympian level are very very unique. I probably met like 100 people at different T20 interviews where many of them ended up very successful (i.e. multiple T5 acceptances), and nobody had the super crazy stores, and only a few had the more conservative versions. Once in a while there's a Johnny Kim, but they're just so rare (hence why they are prized so highly). But the meat of a T20 class is just people with good grades/scores and some semblance of a story and ECs to match, like oh I'm really into neurodegenerative disease and alzheimer's research, or I'm really into working with underserved communities. This is especially true for anyone coming straight from undergrad, since you really don't have time to get really out of the box.

There are a couple different explanations for the scarcity and confusion on part of top applicants. I think the hard part for applicants to wrap their heads around is how small the classes are. It's not like undergrad where programs are admitting thousands of kids, and there's sort of a general threshold that you pass, and if you do, you get accepted. If you're looking for a class of only 100, you can really get into the nitty gritty of each person and "build your class" around having a nice distribution of everything.

Think of it like making a football team - there might be that crazy gadget player, and you definitely want one of those on your team (like the unique story people). But a way larger chunk of your team are going to be linemen, who are a completely different type of athlete. The thing is, you've got to be the best at your position, and you're compared within. So yes, being 6'4" and 295 is great to be an LT, and you could probably play. But if a team could have anyone, why not take the guy clocking in at 6'6" and 330? Basically, if you're sort of meat-and-potatoes type applicant, it's not enough to just pass the threshold/class average - if you're about numbers and checking all the normal boxes, you've got to be impeccable because you're balancing the average out with the spicy applicants who might not be toting numbers as impressive, and a bigger chunk of the applicant pool is directly comparable to you. For example, you might be a research heavy neuro type person and a traditional applicant, and totally pass the T20 II/acceptance threshold. But if there are a some people with grades/ECs/essays a smidge better your cycle, you're going to get passed over unfortunately. Just like in a lineman heavy draft year, you might get drafted lower/paid less than you otherwise would.

The other big things would be a consistent and demonstrated interest in research. And then leadership of course, given the missions of these schools.

 

[skk_]

I think the navy seal/olympian stuff is a little overblown. Yeah, that stuff will get you places because it makes you extremely unique and amazing, but like 5% of a T20 class has that sort of stuff. And even then it's not like navy seal, it's more like a couple of them are veterans, and its not olympian, but more like one or two were D1 athletes in a non-premier sport (i.e. not baseball/football/bball) and maybe a few m DII/DIII. I probably met like 100 people at different T20 interviews where many of them ended up very successful (i.e. multiple T5 acceptances), and nobody had the super crazy stores, and only a few had the more conservative versions. Once in a while there's a Johnny Kim, but they're just so rare (hence why they are prized so highly). But the meat of a T20 class is just people with good grades/scores and some semblance of a story and ECs to match, like oh I'm really into neurodegenerative disease and alzheimer's research, or I'm really into working with underserved communities. This is especially true for anyone coming straight from undergrad, since you really don't have time to get really out of the box.

There are a couple different explanations for the scarcity and confusion on part of top applicants. I think the hard part for applicants to wrap their heads around is how small the classes are. It's not like undergrad where programs are admitting thousands of kids, and there's sort of a general threshold that you pass, and if you do, you get accepted. If you're looking for a class of only 100, you can really get into the nitty gritty of each person and "build your class" around having a nice distribution of everything.

Think of it like making a football team - there might be that crazy gadget player, and you definitely want one of those on your team (like the unique story people). But a way larger chunk of your team are going to be linemen, who are a completely different type of athlete. The thing is, you've got to be the best at your position, and you're compared within. So yes, being 6'4" and 295 is great to be an LT, and you could probably play. But if a team could have anyone, why not take the guy clocking in at 6'6" and 330? Basically, if you're sort of meat-and-potatoes type applicant, it's not enough to just pass the threshold/class average - if you're about numbers and checking all the normal boxes, you've got to be impeccable because you're balancing the average out with the spicy applicants who might not be toting numbers as impressive, and a bigger chunk of the applicant pool is directly comparable to you. For example, you might be a research heavy neuro type person and a traditional applicant, and totally pass the T20 II/acceptance threshold. But if there are a some people with grades/ECs/essays a smidge better your cycle, you're going to get passed over unfortunately. Just like in a lineman heavy draft year, you might get drafted lower/paid less than you otherwise would.

The other big things would be a consistent and demonstrated interest in research. And then leadership of course, given the missions of these schools.

So, I actually agree with you 100% - people like those that are being talked about in this thread, and that I listed on the previous page are absolute rarities that don't represent what the bulk of people at top tier schools are like (hence why they're so memorable), and you absolutely don't need anything like that to get into a top tier school. I mean, I have no shame in admitting I was a very generic applicant when I applied, and didn't really have much beyond good stats, high ECs hours plus a few publications, and that was still enough for me to get acceptances at multiple T5 schools.

You're however being extremely disingenuous by saying things like "And even then it's not like navy seal, it's more like a couple of them are veterans, and its not olympian, but more like one or two were D1 athletes in a non-premier sport (i.e. not baseball/football/bball) and maybe a few m DII/DIII", because that's massively underselling how impressive the absolute top applicants are every cycle, and who consequently make up the most impressive students in the incoming classes at very top schools each year. Its a fool's errand to compare yourself to them, but its equally as foolish to pretend they don't exist - one of the Olympic gold medalists I talked to during my second looks, as well as the guy who didn't just play D1 football at an elite program, but also played in the NFL for several years, both attend my school in the year above me with zero fanfare beyond a one sentence blurb in the news article about the entering class, and there are absolutely people in my own year who have accomplished things equally as impressive (if not more-so) prior to starting medical school.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Remember that 99 percentile MCATs become median or bottom 50% mcats of matriculants at these schools too. Median Mcat 521 makes 99% around 50%, 520 could be below average. High Mcat stats by no means guarantees anyone admission because there are so many people with higher.

I can't think of a single medical school whose MD program has an average MCAT of 521. Wash U is the only one:
Average GPA and MCAT Score for Every Medical School (Updated in 2018)

 

[MyOdyssey]

Mathematically, this is true but a 520 is probably not too many points from the top 25% either given that the highest possible score is a 528.

Further, this thread from the MD/PhD subforum shows that a lot of presumably high stats applicants are getting interviewed at the very tippy top programs. This suggests to me that super high stats, with research based/academic ECs are given more weight at MD/PhD programs v straight MD programs.

Here's the MD/PhD interview invitation thread I forgot to post earlier:
*** 2018-2019 MD/PhD Interview Invites ***

Many, many invitations to the very top MD/PhD programs.

 

[fds86]

So, I actually agree with you 100% - people like those that are being talked about in this thread, and that I listed on the previous page are absolute rarities that don't represent what the bulk of people at top tier schools are like (hence why they're so memorable), and you absolutely don't need anything like that to get into a top tier school. I mean, I have no shame in admitting I was a very generic applicant when I applied, and didn't really have much beyond good stats, high ECs hours plus a few publications, and that was still enough for me to get acceptances at multiple T5 schools.

You're however being extremely disingenuous by saying things like "And even then it's not like navy seal, it's more like a couple of them are veterans, and its not olympian, but more like one or two were D1 athletes in a non-premier sport (i.e. not baseball/football/bball) and maybe a few m DII/DIII", because that's massively underselling how impressive the absolute top applicants are every cycle, and who consequently make up the most impressive students in the incoming classes at very top schools each year. Its a fool's errand to compare yourself to them, but its equally as foolish to pretend they don't exist - one of the Olympic gold medalists I talked to during my second looks, as well as the guy who didn't just play D1 football at an elite program, but also played in the NFL for several years, both attend my school in the year above me with zero fanfare beyond a one sentence blurb in the news article about the entering class, and there are absolutely people in my own year who have accomplished things equally as impressive (if not more-so) prior to starting medical school.

I think you're right, and I think my post might have not come off correctly (and I've edited accordingly to avoid confusion). I just meant to say that even among an already rare segment of applicants ("hooked" you could say) that the described type of person is even more rare ("super-hooked"), not that they don't exist at all. I mean, at one T5 interview I met a current student who was an actual war hero (double amputee, in the news, etc.), so I've definitely had similar experiences. They're usually so amazing that they end up clustered in T5 schools, and they're rare even there - they're very literally one of a kind for whatever it is that is making them special

I was trying to instead emphasize that this type of person is such a tiny sliver of the applicant pool that more typical applicants shouldn't be hand-wringing and worrying about where they stand. You're not really fighting with the navy seal or olympian for your spot - wherever you are, most slots end up occupied by more conventional applicants.

 

[fds86]

I can't think of a single medical school whose MD program has an average MCAT of 521. Wash U is the only one:
Average GPA and MCAT Score for Every Medical School (Updated in 2018)

I think your source might be a little bit out of date - don't have MSAR anymore, but I remember that the latest version had Yale, WashU, NYU, and Vanderbilt all with a 521 median (although that could just be average vs. median I guess?)

 

[FroYoOreo]

I can't think of a single medical school whose MD program has an average MCAT of 521. Wash U is the only one:
Average GPA and MCAT Score for Every Medical School (Updated in 2018)

According to the newest MSAR, NYU 521, Vandy 521, WashU 521, Yale 521, Pritzker 520, Hopkins 520, Northwestern 520, UPenn 520.

 

[theKingLT]

According to the newest MSAR, NYU 521, Vandy 521, WashU 521, Yale 521, Pritzker 520, Hopkins 520, Northwestern 520, UPenn 520.

And no doubt NYU could take that even higher this year if they choose to

 

[FroYoOreo]

And no doubt NYU could take that even higher this year if they choose to

Median MCAT 525

 

[LizzyM]

I have no shame in admitting I was a very generic applicant when I applied, and didn't really have much beyond good stats, high ECs hours plus a few publications, and that was still enough for me to get acceptances at multiple T5 schools.

"A few publications" is more rare than a DII/DIII athletic career. Right there you have what set you apart from the crowd.

 

[MyOdyssey]

According to the newest MSAR, NYU 521, Vandy 521, WashU 521, Yale 521, Pritzker 520, Hopkins 520, Northwestern 520, UPenn 520.

If you take out the stats of all the MD/PhD matriculants, the medians probably go down 1 point or so.

That being said, MSAR data is more reliable that what I pooled up on Google.

A current student at Hopkins said that the students who get into Hopkins straight out of college have crazy high MCAT scores. If OP is applying straight out of college, he or she would be thrown into that pool.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

Thanks. Nature papers might be out there, as might Special Forces combat medics...but there probably haven't been any medical students with the Medal of Honor since at least WWII.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

I think it helps to have a 'sound bite' -- something memorable and unique about your application. Like ex. Navy Seal, Olympic Athlete, former Miss America, Peace Corps in Angola, etc. Something that sets you apart --

Edit: To clarify, I don't mean you necessarily have to have something of this caliber, but in a whole ocean full of superstars, an easy tag line -- "Remember, he's the one that invented the Rent-a-Widget Ap" or "She's the one who started the NGO to feed feral cats". Just something where they can remember you and tell you apart from all of the other superstars.

Out of all of these, I'd say that the Peace Corps experience is the least difficult to get. It's a hell of a lot easier to join the Peace Corps than to become a Navy SEAL.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

Haha hey I’m feeling the same! Was complete everywhere between early to mid August, and on my SDN thread, I got great feedback about my chances. But I literally have not heard back from a single T20 other than NYU and WashU, which I believe was partly because of my great GPA/MCAT (3.98/522). I don’t really think I could’ve done anything more as an undergrad bc I don’t have the talent to be an Olympic athlete or anything more impressive, so I guess I’m at peace knowing that I had 4 productive years in college and gave this process my best shot. No red flags on my app either. Stilll... assuming I don’t get interviews at any other T20s, what exactly does it take to get into them nowadays The only thing I can think of would’ve been applying a few weeks earlier, but from this thread I don’t think that would’ve made any difference.

Solve one of these problems:

Millennium Prize Problems - Wikipedia

You'll pretty much be able to write your ticket for any math PhD program in the world; medical schools would probably be impressed as well.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

If one can get > 300 hrs of service to others less fortunate than ones self, then that goes a long way for a lot of the Really Top Schools. No need to join the Peace Corps or the SEALs.

Three hundred hours? I was thinking more like a thousand, at a minimum - unless you've got some other stellar ECs like being a professional athlete or having a first-author Nature paper.

 

[deleted938090]

Solve one of these problems:

Millennium Prize Problems - Wikipedia

You'll pretty much be able to write your ticket for any math PhD program in the world; medical schools would probably be impressed as well.

At this point why the heck would they want to enter medicine, when their talent is better placed elsewhere? You wouldn’t even need entry to a math PhD program either because the work in itself serves more name power then a PhD.

Be real now, students have amazing experiences, but they are still students.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Three hundred hours? I was thinking more like a thousand, at a minimum - unless you've got some other stellar ECs like being a professional athlete or having a first-author Nature paper.

300 hours does seem to be on the light side.

 

[FroYoOreo]

At this point why the heck would they want to enter medicine, when their talent is better placed elsewhere? You wouldn’t even need entry to a math PhD program either because the work in itself serves more name power then a PhD.

Be real now, students have amazing experiences, but they are still students.

Exactly! I feel like those talented people (Olympic gold medalist, future physics noble prize laureate, navy seal, etc.) can do something better with their lives. Not saying anything bad about medicine, medicine is awesome. But I feel like they can contribute more to society or even humanity if they choose to continue what they have been doing (physics research, professional sports, etc.) But on the other hand, being talented grants you the privilege to choose what you want to do, not what other people think you should do.

 

[altblue]

300 hours does seem to be on the light side.

I have around 500, felt I got a lot out of it but it's really nothing special.

 

[theKingLT]

Exactly! I feel like those talented people (Olympic gold medalist, future physics noble prize laureate, navy seal, etc.) can do something better with their lives. Not saying anything bad about medicine, medicine is awesome. But I feel like they can contribute more to society or even humanity if they choose to continue what they have been doing (physics research, professional sports, etc.) But on the other hand, being talented grants you the privilege to choose what you want to do, not what other people think you should do.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this for the athletes. After your body is past its prime and you're no longer competitive at that level there's really not that much you can do. Coach, motivational speaker, social media advertiser, or announcer are the ones that come to mind

 

[LizzyM]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this for the athletes. After your body is past its prime and you're no longer competitive at that level there's really not that much you can do. Coach, motivational speaker, social media advertiser, or announcer are the ones that come to mind

Agree. There isn't much professional demand for speed skaters in the US; might as well go to med school.

 

[Stagg737]

Three hundred hours? I was thinking more like a thousand, at a minimum - unless you've got some other stellar ECs like being a professional athlete or having a first-author Nature paper.

300 hours does seem to be on the light side.

It's not just the number of hours, but the quality of those hours. I could get 1,000 volunteer hours as a dog walker and other than volume it's not very impressive. Conversely I could get 100 volunteer hours flying out to disaster zones after hurricanes or floods and it looks far stronger. I believe when @Goro was talking about 300 hours, he meant 300 meaningful hours, which many applicants (even those with 1,000+ hours) don't have.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

I can buy that. I've heard that hospice work was looked upon favorably - but 100 hours of anything seems like box checking, no? Even if you were a part of the Cajun Navy or something.

 

[Goro]

It's not just the number of hours, but the quality of those hours. I could get 1,000 volunteer hours as a dog walker and other than volume it's not very impressive. Conversely I could get 100 volunteer hours flying out to disaster zones after hurricanes or floods and it looks far stronger. I believe when @Goro was talking about 300 hours, he meant 300 meaningful hours, which many applicants (even those with 1,000+ hours) don't have.

300 hrs of meaningful activity. Of the people who who shared with me their "hooks" that got them into the Really Top Schools, service to the needy or unfortunate seems very common. Public health policy involvement also seems common.

 

[skk_]

"A few publications" is more rare than a DII/DIII athletic career. Right there you have what set you apart from the crowd.

I'm not denying that I had a competitive application for top-tiers, but its hard for me to view having publications as something that really made me stand out that much beyond just being competitive - we were told 60%+ of the class at my school came in with publications for my year, many with multiple papers and first authors, and that number has been nudging higher every year. While its easy to brush this off as a consequence of the school I attend just living up to its reputation, the two other schools I was debating between during my cycle had similar rates of publications for their incoming class too.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

About half of my list was composed of T20 schools, and I've heard nothing from any of them so far even though it's been over two months. Is there something wrong with my app? I'm beginning to think I messed up with my essays. :/

• Cumulative GPA: 3.88
• Science GPA: 3.84
• MCAT Scores: 524 (130/131/131/132)
• Research: 1000+ hours over 2 years, independent project, small funding award from school, 1 minor poster presentation
• Volunteering (clinical): 500+ as EMT, 20 hours at hospital ER
• Physician shadowing: 70 Hours across Internal Medicine, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Pathology
• Non-clinical volunteering: ~200 hours tutoring low-income/at risk groups

The devil may be in the details. Which T20 meds did you apply to and what is your home state? And are you an ORM?

Yes, I have a few from my state schools.

Ok you have a few interviews from your state med schools. Truth be told, most med students are attending their state schools, even those with impressive stats.

 

[lil_engine]

The devil may be in the details. Which T20 meds did you apply to and what is your home state? And are you an ORM?



Ok you have a few interviews from your state med schools. Truth be told, most med students are attending their state schools, even those with impressive stats.

I've applied to Pitt, UCSF, UCLA, Duke, Vandy, Cornell, Columbia, Penn, NYU, WUSTL, UChicago, Baylor, Harvard, Yale. I've been rejected from UCSF and Pitt, never got a secondary from UCLA. Silence from the rest.
EDIT: I applied to 16 other schools that are not T20: USC Keck, Miami, BU, UMD, Emory, Dartmouth, Rochester, Hofstra, Georgetown, GW, Tulane, Drexel, UVA, EVMS, VCU, Virginia Tech Carilion

Yes, I'm an ORM and I'm from Virginia.

 

[FroYoOreo]

I've applied to Pitt, UCSF, UCLA, Duke, Vandy, Cornell, Columbia, Penn, NYU, WUSTL, UChicago, Baylor, Harvard, Yale. I've been rejected from UCSF and Pitt, never got a secondary from UCLA. Silence from the rest.


Yes, I'm an ORM and I'm from Virginia.

wow...your list is really top heavy. I mean it's like there is only top schools.

 

[lil_engine]

wow...your list is really top heavy. I mean it's like there is only top schools.

That's only half my list, haha. PreMedMissteps just asked for which T20 schools I applied to. I edited my previous post to show the other schools.

 

[FroYoOreo]

That's only half my list, haha. PreMedMissteps just asked for which T20 schools I applied to. I edited my previous post to show the other schools.

my bad. I am pretty sure you will get some attention from T20 in the future.

 

[Cheenghee Koh]

I'm not denying that I had a competitive application for top-tiers, but its hard for me to view having publications as something that really made me stand out that much beyond just being competitive - we were told 60%+ of the class at my school came in with publications for my year, many with multiple papers and first authors, and that number has been nudging higher every year. While its easy to brush this off as a consequence of the school I attend just living up to its reputation, the two other schools I was debating between during my cycle had similar rates of publications for their incoming class too.

I think it is because it is Stanford? I believe your school is a total outlier that explicitly asks applicants to list their publications in secondaries. I am not surprised that you will end up having a class filled with people with multiple pubs. That is exactly what your school looking for, isn't it? Hey, even working in academia for almost a decade and having my own data, it still takes me on average a year to get things published. I don't think it is realistic to ask undergrads to have any major pub under their belt when submitting their app. Even I work full-time as a researcher, I can only have two to three pubs every year.

 

[skk_]

I think it is because it is Stanford? I believe your school is a total outlier that explicitly asks applicants to list their publications in secondaries. I am not surprised that you will end up having a class filled with people with multiple pubs. That is exactly what your school looking for, isn't it? Hey, even working in academia for almost a decade and having my own data, it still takes me on average a year to get things published. I don't think it is realistic to ask undergrads to have any major pub under their built when submitting their app. Even I work full-time as a researcher, I can only have two to three pubs every year.

Publications aren't a requirement here (or anywhere else) and definitely are not an expectation. Its just increasingly become one of the easier ways for applicants at top tiers to make their application "competitive" and have something that goes beyond the endless sea of high stats / high EC hours applicants these schools all get. I’m definitely aware of the difficulty and often blind luck that goes into getting published, and while having publications may be rare when looking at the overall pool of applicants for medical school, at the T5/T10 schools I know a good deal about, it has definitely not been my experience that they're as rare as is often implied on here. Given that these schools have a lot more freedom to pick the applicants they want and almost universally value research to a greater extent than mid/low-tier medical schools, maybe this shouldn't be that surprising.

Like I said in the second half of my previous post, it’s easy to dismiss the high % as due to Stanford's reputation (although for the record, while research is important here, how much the school values it compared to other comparative schools - which all also have research as a central component of their mission - is massively overblown, and it would be a huge mistake to make the assumption that the school is mainly looking for people with research-heavy backgrounds when applying here), the 2 other similarly ranked acceptances I was considering during my cycle both had very similar student profiles when it came to publications (and just about everything else really) too.

 

[Walter Raleigh]

@skk_ how common are first-author papers in Nature or journals of similar caliber - like Science or Cell? How about MacArthur Genius Grants? Ever had a full tenured professor change careers and apply to Stanford?

 

[Walter Raleigh]

300 hrs of meaningful activity. Of the people who who shared with me their "hooks" that got them into the Really Top Schools, service to the needy or unfortunate seems very common. Public health policy involvement also seems common.

That's interesting; I thought that something like Peace Corps, Americorps, or even military service was not uncommon.

 

[deleted938090]

I understand that it's easy to be sarcastic on online forums but obviously first-author papers in Nature, etc are extremely rare for medical students, unless they happened to be PhDs who switched careers. MacAuthor fellows tend to be people well in their careers, and since medical students tend to be in their twenties, it is very unlikely for that to be the case. Full tenured professor would definitely be a rarity too. Use common sense and look at https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/browse?affiliations=capMdStudent

Keep in mind that these are medical students; they may have a preference for research, but this is a program for MDs, not for PhDs.

 

[Mad Jack]

About half of my list was composed of T20 schools, and I've heard nothing from any of them so far even though it's been over two months. Is there something wrong with my app? I'm beginning to think I messed up with my essays. :/

• Cumulative GPA: 3.88
• Science GPA: 3.84
• MCAT Scores: 524 (130/131/131/132)
• Research: 1000+ hours over 2 years, independent project, small funding award from school, 1 minor poster presentation
• Volunteering (clinical): 500+ as EMT, 20 hours at hospital ER
• Physician shadowing: 70 Hours across Internal Medicine, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Pathology
• Non-clinical volunteering: ~200 hours tutoring low-income/at risk groups
• Extracurricular activities: 1 leadership position in professional fraternity, competed in national level athletic competition
• Employment history: 2 semesters as TA, 2 years part time tutor, gap year job is MCAT director at a small test prep company
• Specialty of interest: neurology, psychiatry
• Potential red flag: minor alcohol violation as a freshman that resulted in IA (had to write a reflection paper). I explained how I learned from the incident in my AMCAS.

Yeah, the problem is that you're expecting responses from top 20s. It's kind of a crapshoot at that level.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I understand that it's easy to be sarcastic on online forums but obviously first-author papers in Nature, etc are extremely rare for medical students, unless they happened to be PhDs who switched careers. MacAuthor fellows tend to be people well in their careers, and since medical students tend to be in their twenties, it is very unlikely for that to be the case. Full tenured professor would definitely be a rarity too. Use common sense and look at https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/browse?affiliations=capMdStudent

Keep in mind that these are medical students; they may have a preference for research, but this is a program for MDs, not for PhDs.

Those Stanford student profiles seem really incomplete. Most of them are essentially blank. You can't fairly deduce Stanford MD candidates' publication records from these online profiles.

 

[MyOdyssey]

The publications section is actually automatically populated with pubmed records, so this is likely the most complete part of the profile

It's good to have knowledgeable Stanford MD candidate posters here!

 

[skk_]

@skk_ how common are first-author papers in Nature or journals of similar caliber - like Science or Cell? How about MacArthur Genius Grants? Ever had a full tenured professor change careers and apply to Stanford?

Anywhere from 0-3 people come in with a first author nature/cell-tier publication each year here (and probably most top tiers will be the same). i.e. its extremely rare. As @Sophist mentioned, having something like that is considerably different than having a middle-author credit in those types of journals or a first author publication in a decent IF journal (of which many more people come in with), and definitely falls into the realm of "extraordinary" alongside the gold medalists and so on. That entire category probably accounts for < 10% of the entering class at any of the very top tier schools.

I feel like what I was trying to get across has gotten somewhat lost in this thread. What I was trying to say was basically:

- At every top tier school each year, there are people who have unbelievable achievements that are not feasible for normal people to obtain. This isn't shocking, given that the absolute most impressive people that apply each year tend to end up at these schools. Having been at one "top tier" school for a while now, its kinda dumb to pretend these people only come along once in a life-time, because that's just not true (...especially if you end up at these schools and have to take the same tests and exams they do). The big takeaway for me at least has really been that there's always going to be people who have advantages you simply cannot get, and generally are (fairly or unfairly) just "better" than you. Medical school is no different, and perpetually comparing yourself to people like that like a lot of people tend to do online, rather than just focusing on what you yourself can improve with the options/tools you have, is a recipe for becoming very bitter very quickly.

- People should however take comfort that the vast majority of people at top tier schools don't have anything like that. The majority of people just have high stats, high EC hours, great letters of recommendation, and a small handful of things that elevates them above the norm that usually aren't anything out of this world (publications, elite scholarships, non-medical ECs like being a D1 athlete or non-trad leaving a successful career that provides concrete evidence of a lot of the intangibles adcoms at these school tend to look for, important clinical/volunteer work etc.)

I understand that it's easy to be sarcastic on online forums but obviously first-author papers in Nature, etc are extremely rare for medical students, unless they happened to be PhDs who switched careers. MacAuthor fellows tend to be people well in their careers, and since medical students tend to be in their twenties, it is very unlikely for that to be the case. Full tenured professor would definitely be a rarity too. Use common sense and look at Browse School of Medicine | Stanford Medicine Profiles

Keep in mind that these are medical students; they may have a preference for research, but this is a program for MDs, not for PhDs.

Agree with everything you said, but just note that extremely few students have a CAP profile that has anything more than their name, since its mostly used to try to find faculty mentors rather than describe current students. I definitely have nothing there (despite having a few publications), and neither does anyone I know.

The publications section is actually automatically populated with pubmed records, so this is likely the most complete part of the profile

This is not true at all lol. Maybe its different for the other schools at Stanford, but for medstudents the process of importing pubs from SUL is nowhere near automatic - you have to log in and make an active decision to do this, which also requires you to actually construct a proper profile, and almost no one does since the system isn't really used for that. Like I said, my profile there is blank, and so are the profiles of everyone I know here, including many of the people I know who have crazy publication records.

 

[ExcitatorySynapse]

The people who I have known that got into top 20 medical schools went to a top undergrad (t10), had great GPA/MCAT, a good amount of volunteering (if gap year, clinical research job), and a good amount of research. They were all ORMs. Princeton -> Columbia MD/PhD, Columbia -> Columbia x2, Penn/Duke MD/PhD, WUStL MD/PhD, Penn -> Yale/Columbia MD, Yale -> Sinai MD.

I think it's more like undergraduate admissions than you think. You have your elite prep schools (Exeter/Andover/Horace Mann etc.) and they and their collegiate equivalents (Ivies) feed students to top postsecondary institutions or professional schools. Getting in that pipeline means that you are very smart as is and are good at standardized testing. If you are outside of that bubble, and especially as an international, it's important to have some national or international awards along with the grades/scores/ECs.

It's just another game. I regret playing it when I was a burnt out mess. You just need to be really focused throughout to win it early (as a traditional applicant).