State School

[blazinfury]

---

Members do not see this ad.

From what I gathered from this board, most of the ppl here who applied and were accepted into MSTP came from state schools or small privates. Is there any reason for this trend or is it just coincidental? Did most of you know that you wanted to do MSTP from early on during your college careers or did you just decide to do it during your college tenure b/c you liked doing research, while not giving up the clinical aspect?

I ask because I was doing my own research on MSTP programs and when I looked at the schools from which the accepted students came from, most came from big name/ivy institutions. Is this a coincidence or is it because there will always be ivy applicants for this program with top grades and as a result, these ppl will be accepted b/c of their undergrad's prestige combined with their stellar grades and MCATs? I am just curious and do not mean to offend anyone by this. Thanks.

 

[Neuronix]

Is there any reason for this trend or is it just coincidental?

Coincidental. Seems like the majority at my school are from top-tier undergrads. Maybe the upper crust doesn't concern themselves with message boards I know I'm here because my advising in undergrad was LOUSY and so I wanted to make sure others in my shoes had decent advice.

Did most of you know that you wanted to do MSTP from early on during your college careers or did you just decide to do it during your college tenure b/c you liked doing research, while not giving up the clinical aspect?

The latter. I figured it out around Junior year sometime.

Is this a coincidence or is it because there will always be ivy applicants for this program with top grades and as a result, these ppl will be accepted b/c of their undergrad's prestige combined with their stellar grades and MCATs?

I really doubt the prestige of the undergrad has much to do with admissions. I've heard that over and over again. What is more likely is that the students at schools affiliated with medical schools have more exposure to MD/PhD. It is also likely they were the top high school students and are continuing on to top colleges where they will get the biggest MCAT scores because they are the hardest working/brightest students. I also correlate it with parents. The children of physicians seem more likely to be at big name undergrads, and they're more likely to find their way to MD/PhD. But this is all speculation.

 

[CCLCMer]

I really doubt the prestige of the undergrad has much to do with admissions. I've heard that over and over again. What is more likely is that the students at schools affiliated with medical schools have more exposure to MD/PhD. It is also likely they were the top high school students and are continuing on to top colleges where they will get the biggest MCAT scores because they are the hardest working/brightest students.

I think this is basically right. People also self-select based on where they decide to apply, interview, and attend. At my school, we have a lot of people with liberal arts degrees and not so many with Ivy League degrees. The adcomm doesn't purposefully choose people based on the fact that they went to liberal arts colleges, but those are the kind of people who tend to like CCLCM.

 

[bd4727]

I really doubt the prestige of the undergrad has much to do with admissions. I've heard that over and over again. What is more likely is that the students at schools affiliated with medical schools have more exposure to MD/PhD. It is also likely they were the top high school students and are continuing on to top colleges where they will get the biggest MCAT scores because they are the hardest working/brightest students. I also correlate it with parents. The children of physicians seem more likely to be at big name undergrads, and they're more likely to find their way to MD/PhD. But this is all speculation.

I think everything in this statement is right on. You will see that a disproportionate amount of people interviewing at MSTPs are either from California or went to school there-- just more students in California as a percentage of all college students, and hence the trend.

I would say, IMO, all else being equal name recognition may give an applicant an edge. But I don't think all else is ever equal. I would not worry about it.

 

[gbwillner]

I think everything in this statement is right on. You will see that a disproportionate amount of people interviewing at MSTPs are either from California or went to school there-- just more students in California as a percentage of all college students, and hence the trend.

I would say, IMO, all else being equal name recognition may give an applicant an edge. But I don't think all else is ever equal. I would not worry about it.

Unless things have changed in the last 10 years, it is a FACT that undergrad reputation DOES matter to some extent at SOME top programs, but definitely not all. Neuronix, why do you think that most of your classmates were Ivy leaguers?????? Of course as you guys have stated, not all is ever equal, and the significance of the undergrad affiliation is probably minor compared to the research experience, GPA, MCAT, and your likability. But let's not kid ourselves, most MSTP applicants are stellar and overall probably have similar GPA, research, and MCAT scores.

As for those that attend this forum, don't forget that there are a TON more people graduating from state schools/LA colleges yearly than "top-notch" undergrads. They are overall a majority of all MSTPs for that very reason.

 

[Ariodant]

As for those that attend this forum, don't forget that there are a TON more people graduating from state schools/LA colleges yearly than "top-notch" undergrads. They are overall a majority of all MSTPs for that very reason.

I'm not sure if they are still the majority at interviews. Interviewees I met at top schools are mostly from top 30 undergrad institutes.

 

[Neuronix]

Unless things have changed in the last 10 years, it is a FACT that undergrad reputation DOES matter to some extent at SOME top programs, but definitely not all. Neuronix, why do you think that most of your classmates were Ivy leaguers??????

I know it matters to some extent. Two adcoms here have told me as much. My first rotation advisor said "You came from THERE?" You must be very qualified because we usually don't interview people from your school. I think my school is particularly loving of brand name, and this continues into residency.

Still, I don't believe it's a major factor. From all of conversations, anecdote, and this forum. If there was serious selection bias for this, we'd see it all over this forum--"My 3.9/36/2 years of research experience wasn't good enough from my state school but that guy from Cornell got in with it!". We just don't see it. Would the guy from Cornell have fared better? Who knows. The one guy I've seen who got into the most programs (21 interviews extended out of 22 applied, ranked 1-22 on USNews, 14 acceptances out of 15 places interviewed including all the biggest name places) was from URochester.

As for those that attend this forum, don't forget that there are a TON more people graduating from state schools/LA colleges yearly than "top-notch" undergrads. They are overall a majority of all MSTPs for that very reason.

I'd like to see data rather than speculating. Controlling for GPA/MCAT/Research experience, do certain undergrads fare better? Unfortunately we don't have access to data like that. Though one of the adcoms who hangs out on the forum from a top program once posted that undergrad doesn't matter (I can't give you the link because I can't blow someone's cover).

It would be a similar argument to say, there are a smaller percentage of URMs in MD/PhD programs than there are for MD or PhD alone. They must be selected against. The opposite is the case. The URM application rate is also lower. I think the same is true for state school candidates. I don't believe one iota that there's a significant bias against non-brand name schools. There's two possibilities: they don't apply as much (likely) and they don't have the stats the Ivy Leaguers and such have (less likely but possible).

I think it has a lot more to do with exposure to MD/PhD as an undergrad. If my pre-med advisor faculty member hadn't told me about MD/PhD I'd probably never have even thought about it. His son was a MD/PhD so that's why he mentioned it. Strangely, he immediately tried to talk me out of it and continues to badmouth MD/PhD programs to this day. Mentioning it to the advisors at my undergrad will get a tremendously negative response. I still find an occasional well qualified pre-med at my undergrad and I still hear "well I got talked out of MD/PhD..." So despite my undergrad institution putting out something like 16,000 undergrads and ~60 med school applicants per year, maybe 1 every several years applies MD/PhD. I and my program have tried to reach out to them in numerous ways and it always falls on deaf ears. Meanwhile when I was an undergrad I don't believe there was an MD/PhD in my entire state. One moved to an institute affiliated with Jefferson when I was a senior and I started working for him.

 

[gbwillner]

The one guy I've seen who got into the most programs (21 interviews extended out of 22 applied, ranked 1-22 on USNews, 14 acceptances out of 15 places interviewed including all the biggest name places) was from URochester..

Wow... he must have slept with all his interviewers...

I still believe that in the general equation programs use the "prestiege" factor is a small one, but it can have a large impact since most applicants have similar stats. It's true that your acceptance to any one school is based on many factors-including some that are out of your control like your interviewer had a huge fight with his wife last night and takes it out on you- and if you are stellar in every respect it probably does not matter where you come from. Maybe your friend had a 4.0 GPA with a 43 MCAT and wasn't a total douchebag... that would be good enough everywhere. Anecdotal evidence like this is everywhere. But most applicants to top-tier schools have a 3.8-3.9 GPA and a 33-36 MCAT with 2-4 years research experience +/- a publication or full-time research experience. How do you separate them? Well, Penn preferrentially takes people from a list of "top-tier" undergrads because they have a higher multiplier on their scorecard, and the other numbers even out. Let's not forget this is a statistical issue- and not really true for any one applicant. As far as I can remember, WashU does not use this multiplier on their acceptance requirement, and I bet there are a lot more state school people matriculating there- even though WashU and Penn are probably the top 2 overall MSTPs (based solely on number of students).

As far as your claim that you don't hear that people get passed over with good scores for people from Cornell.... I'm sure this does happen all the time but how would anyone know who they were passed over for??? I remember being a good applicant from a state school. I was the 3.9GPA/36MCAT/4 years research with full-time NIH work and good LORs. I was only rejected post-interview from 2 schools- Harvard and Yale, and received 2 quick outright acceptances... the rest of my top choices wait-listed me. Now, I could have been a total douchebag on my interviews, but really, where there THAT many outstanding applicants ahead of me in 1999-2000?

I'm not saying the the nepotism and prestiege-searching are wrong. There are probably many advantages to it or other reasons for it that I do in fact understand. I just think its naive to think that it doesn't really exist or that it doesn't matter.

 

[Neuronix]

I just think its naive to think that it doesn't really exist or that it doesn't matter.

That is a very fair response. So let me turn a question to you given that I know from private communications that a couple people reading this thread have some other motivations in mind.

Would you advise an undergrad to transfer from a state school where that student is already established in a lab for a year or more, is doing well GPAwise, and has things like volunteering/shadowing setup, to an Ivy League or equivalent school just because of the name and a nebulous sense of extra opportunities? I've been saying NO NO NO. How do you feel?

 

[seraph524]

I agree with Neuronix. There IS no good reason to transfer to Cornell simply because of the name.

Hmm...damn Penn and their multiplier =P

 

[Neuronix]

Penn accepted me off the waitlist. WashU didn't even interview me. Damn WashU and their multiplier? 😛

 

[gbwillner]

That is a very fair response. So let me turn a question to you given that I know from private communications that a couple people reading this thread have some other motivations in mind.

Would you advise an undergrad to transfer from a state school where that student is already established in a lab for a year or more, is doing well GPAwise, and has things like volunteering/shadowing setup, to an Ivy League or equivalent school just because of the name and a nebulous sense of extra opportunities? I've been saying NO NO NO. How do you feel?

I wouldn't advise for or against it. I was also asked this in private so I don't want to say too much but I think there are both positives and negatives to the move, and it really depends on the motivations of the applicant. Assuming the applicant can do as well at Cornell as they did in the state school, it would help them to do it. How much so is debatable. I would wager that it helps them more than others might think- and it does so in different ways beyond the "presteige" factor. For example, you may end up working for a more famous PI with better recognition, making your LORs much better. There are certainly negatives, like paying tuition at an Ivy vs. state. If it were me- given my undergrad experience, I would have done it (knowing what I know now) had I even considered it and could have afforded it. But I don't want to sound bitter- I ended up doing very well anyway.

I guess my advice to people who are really concerned about this is to ask the administrators how they decide on candidates, and if they have a formula to show it to you. I did that at a few places, and one was Penn. In hindsight maybe that was a bad move and made me look insecure... so I can say I sacrificed my admission there just to help you all out. You are welcome.

 

[seraph524]

Penn accepted me off the waitlist. WashU didn't even interview me. Damn WashU and their multiplier? 😛

Well gbwillner said WashU doesn't use a multiplier, so bleh! WashU is the haven for no-name school students 😉

 

[gbwillner]

Well gbwillner said WashU doesn't use a multiplier, so bleh! WashU is the haven for no-name school students 😉

If I remember correctly undergrad institution wasn't part of it, but I could be wrong. It certainly wasn't at BCM. Although being from a "top" UG institution could affect your application in other ways, like directly impressing the interviewers.

 

[gbwillner]

Well gbwillner said WashU doesn't use a multiplier, so bleh! WashU is the haven for no-name school students 😉

It's also no surprise that both BCM and WashU both rely more on MCAT scores and GPA for admissions than any other institution. For as long as I can remember, both had the most stringent GPA and MCAT requirements.

 

[QofQuimica]

Would you advise an undergrad to transfer from a state school where that student is already established in a lab for a year or more, is doing well GPAwise, and has things like volunteering/shadowing setup, to an Ivy League or equivalent school just because of the name and a nebulous sense of extra opportunities? I've been saying NO NO NO. How do you feel?

Hmm, it's like y'all have been reading my PM box. 😉

FWIW, I agree completely with Neuro and seraph on this one. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We ought also to consider that these supposed school name advantages can work both ways. There are most definitely adcoms who are prejudiced *against* applicants from certain high-power UGs, based on previous bad experiences with applicants from these schools who look stellar on paper but turn out to be total tools in person.

 

[Neuronix]

Hmm, it's like y'all have been reading my PM box. 😉

Only the admins can do that. My guess is certain SDNers are shotgunning private messages for advice instead of posting their question publicly...

 

[achamess]

Transferring to an 'elite' UG for the possibility -not guarantee- of a slight boost in the admissions process seems pretty foolish to me. It is one thing to go elsewhere if one is thoroughly unhappy, uncomfortable or dissatisfied with one's current school, but to transfer for something that by all accounts seems like a small marginal benefit only to those who are outstanding candidates to begin with - irrespective of where they were for UG - is really unnecessary.

One thing the OP could not guarantee is that he would be able to achieve the highest marks at a school where the expectations and the competition are likely to be higher than whatever state school he comes from (A gross generalization, I know). More realistically, it is likely he would have greater difficulty in getting those high grades and, more importantly in my mind, from distinguishing himself from his peers.

As concerns research, who is to say that a spot in a lab at the new school will be waiting? At a top UG the demand for UG researchers is probably smaller, as the high-achieving undergrads there have likely filled many of those spots, whereas at the state school, which is a bigger school I imagine as well, there will be less difficulty in getting a position in a lab.

In my mind, the benefits are too uncertain to warrant a move, and the financial and academic costs too great. Plus, I don't know if the OP has already made a network of contacts at his present school, but this too is a loss if he moves.

So as people like Q and Neuronix have been saying for as long as I have frequented this board, kicking ass in one's UG courses and doing very well on the MCAT, combined with copious and quality research experience, is a recipe for success, no matter where you are.

 

[QofQuimica]

Only the admins can do that. My guess is certain SDNers are shotgunning private messages for advice instead of posting their question publicly...

Neuro, the joke is not funny if I have to explain it to you. I *know* you didn't really read my PM box. We got the same PMs. And actually, I don't think most of the admins can read our PMs either except for the techies.

 

[Neuronix]

I *know* you didn't really read my PM box.

 

[seraph524]

I read Neuronix's PM box.

O___O