thank

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Hopefully those IIs turn into an acceptance. Out of curiosity, what was your list?

I think adding the food bank and clinical volunteering was a good idea if you have to reapply.
 
Banco said:
Hopefully those IIs turn into an acceptance. Out of curiosity, what was your list?

I think adding the food bank and clinical volunteering was a good idea if you have to reapply.
Click to expand...
My list was hecka top heavy. 12 top 20s, 3 top 50s and my state school. I took my state school for granted and only applied significantly above it. I understand my flaws in that regard now haha.

And do you think my additions are sufficient yet?
 
Lorien said:
My list was hecka top heavy. 12 top 20s, 3 top 50s and my state school. I took my state school for granted and only applied significantly above it. I understand my flaws in that regard now haha.

And do you think my additions are sufficient yet?
Click to expand...
I actually think that school list is fine. With your LM and WARS, you should pretty much only be applying to schools within the T30 + any in state schools+ schools you have a demonstrated connection to.
 
justwaking said:
I actually think that school list is fine. With your LM and WARS, you should pretty much only be applying to schools within the T30 + any in state schools+ schools you have a demonstrated connection to.
Click to expand...
I'm scared of doing that again though, for fear of a similar result playing out.
 
Lorien said:
I'm scared of doing that again though, for fear of a similar result playing out.
Click to expand...


Unless you got any responses from schools with lower stat averages this time around, it's safe to those same schools will ignore you again. Including them on your list again would just be another waste of hundreds/thousands of dollars and time taken away from filling out the secondaries for schools whose stats you match better.
 
justwaking said:
Unless you got any responses from schools with lower stat averages this time around, it's safe to those same schools will ignore you again. Including them on your list again would just be another waste of hundreds/thousands of dollars and time taken away from filling out the secondaries for schools whose stats you match better.
Click to expand...
It seems I'm in a bit of a crunch. Stats too high for most schools and my ECs don't stack up, so the net result is I don't really fit anywhere
 
To be honest, with 13/15 apps being top 20s, your yield of 2 II's isn't even bad, because the main issue with your application is this:

"55 hours shadowing, half in primary care and half in oncology
110 hours clinical volunteering at my local hospital
50 hours nonclinical volunteering at my local food bank"


That's pretty light activities wise. You have fixed some of that with your activities over the past year. And your research experience is good.


Hopefully you get an A this year, but if you have to reapply and shotgun approach top 20s, you need to have more applications. Aim for 25-30 schools - keep the top schools but add some more mid tiers and safeties. Improve your essays and letters.
 
Banco said:
To be honest, with 13/15 apps being top 20s, your yield of 2 II's isn't even bad, because the main issue with your application is this:

"55 hours shadowing, half in primary care and half in oncology
110 hours clinical volunteering at my local hospital
50 hours nonclinical volunteering at my local food bank"


That's pretty light activities wise. You have fixed some of that with your activities over the past year. And your research experience is good.


Hopefully you get an A this year, but if you have to reapply and shotgun approach top 20s, you need to have more applications. Aim for 25-30 schools - keep the top schools but add some more mid tiers and safeties. Improve your essays and letters.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly in a financial position to do that, though, especially after throwing away $2500 this cycle. I need to be more selective because I can't just funnel money into it
 
Lorien said:
I'm not exactly in a financial position to do that, though, especially after throwing away $2500 this cycle. I need to be more selective because I can't just funnel money into it
Click to expand...

Where did you get your 2 interviews this year? (tier wise).
 
Lorien said:
State school (T~65) and T5
Click to expand...

Well based on this information, how will you go about building your list? Because this says you should apply to only top tier schools again and your state school. But I wouldn't feel so secure doing that without 10 or so mid-tiers added into that list. In your position it's hard to do a pinpointed app - I think sadly you will have to take a bit of a financial hit (or better said, an investment).


What you can do is call the school if you ultimately don't get accepted for feedback - that might be helpful. If they say it was lack of clinical or non-clinical volunteering, then you have improved on that this time around, and can feel a bit better.
 
Banco said:
Well based on this information, how will you go about building your list? Because this says you should apply to only top tier schools again and your state school. But I wouldn't feel so secure doing that without 10 or so mid-tiers added into that list. In your position it's hard to do a pinpointed app - I think sadly you will have to take a bit of a financial hit (or better said, an investment).


What you can do is call the school if you ultimately don't get accepted for feedback - that might be helpful.
Click to expand...
Let's talk verbiage here. If I get in next cycle, such a move is an 'investment.' If I don't, such a move is a 'stupid gamble.' I agree that what you suggest is ideal, but I can never be sure the outcome will be the former instead of the latter, no? And then I'm in an even worse position than I am now.
 
I will tell you know with like 95% confidence that with increased hours in your reapp, no mid/lowtiers (unless you have demonstrated a connection or they are in-state) will pay you any mind.

If finances are a concern, leave them out of consideration (they will do the same to you).

You have enough shadowing, and provided you have a clinical job, you will have hundreds if not >1000 hrs of clinical exposure by the time you reapp.
If you have a research job, just make sure you are putting in a few hours of clinical volunteering each week.

Continue your nonclinical volunteering if you can.
 
justwaking said:
I will tell you know with like 95% confidence that with increased hours in your reapp, no mid/lowtiers (unless you have demonstrated a connection or they are in-state) will pay you any mind.

If finances are a concern, leave them out of consideration (they will do the same to you).

You have enough shadowing, and provided you have a clinical job, you will have hundreds if not >1000 hrs of clinical exposure by the time you reapp.
If you have a research job, just make sure you are putting in a few hours of clinical volunteering each week.

Continue your nonclinical volunteering if you can.
Click to expand...
Do you have suggestions on ideal hour counts to shoot for on all fronts?
 
Lorien said:
Let's talk verbiage here. If I get in next cycle, such a move is an 'investment.' If I don't, such a move is a 'stupid gamble.' I agree that what you suggest is ideal, but I can never be sure the outcome will be the former instead of the latter, no? And then I'm in an even worse position than I am now.
Click to expand...

There are no certainties, you're right.

But if you apply to 15 schools again, with the same distributions, you're assuming that 150 hours of nonclinical volunteering and 50 hours of clinical experience were the issue with your application. You can only be sure of this if you get some feedback from the schools.
 
Banco said:
There are no certainties, you're right.

But if you apply to 15 schools again, with the same distributions, you're assuming that 150 hours of nonclinical volunteering and 50 hours of clinical experience were the issue with your application. You can only be sure of this if you get some feedback from the schools.
Click to expand...
This brings another question, then - so, I got rejected from the T65 state school but waitlisted at the T5. Can I call up the T5 while I'm still on the waitlist and ask what I did wrong? Or do I have to wait until after?

(As an aside, to any neutral observers, I will point to these results as evidencing why this process makes no sense)
 
Lorien said:
This brings another question, then - so, I got rejected from the T65 state school but waitlisted at the T5. Can I call up the T5 while I'm still on the waitlist and ask what I did wrong? Or do I have to wait until after?

(As an aside, to any neutral observers, I will point to these results as evidencing why this process makes no sense)
Click to expand...

Uh, I guess I wouldn't call the waitlist school haha. Call the T65.
 
I think this is pretty straightforward. If you don't get in, you need to increase / build your EC hours and apply more broadly and judiciously. It's a numbers game. I think 25-30 carefully chosen schools will do it if you get those hours up a little.
 
Putkernerinthehall said:
I think this is pretty straightforward. If you don't get in, you need to increase / build your EC hours and apply more broadly and judiciously. It's a numbers game. I think 25-30 carefully chosen schools will do it if you get those hours up a little.
Click to expand...
What is a good hour amount to shoot for, in your eyes?
 
Lorien said:
What is a good hour amount to shoot for, in your eyes?
Click to expand...
Based on what I've heard from others, I think for most schools 200-300 clinical hours, 150-200 non-clinical hours, and 40-60 hours of shadowing with at least a couple doctors would suffice. More is better especially for clinical. There are some select schools that expect more.
 
Lorien said:
My list was hecka top heavy. 12 top 20s, 3 top 50s and my state school. I took my state school for granted and only applied significantly above it. I understand my flaws in that regard now haha.

And do you think my additions are sufficient yet?
Click to expand...
You’re in a space that appears to lack the clinical hours needed for T25 and too high on stats to get interviews below that.

With your stats, will anyone outside the top 25 even grant an interview (yield protection)?

You saved money that would have otherwise been wasted on yield protection.
 
Last edited:
madhatter3 said:
You’re in a space that appears to lack the clinical hours needed for T25 and too high on stats to get interviews below that.

With your stats, will anyone outside the top 25 even grant an interview (yield protection)?

You saved money that would have otherwise been wasted on yield protection.
Click to expand...
These stats are a curse
 
Lorien said:
These stats are a curse
Click to expand...
The irony is that it seems the industry needs but one smart adcom who wanted to raise their program's MCAT/GPA average to find such anomalies in the T25 algorithm. That program might even be able to move up into the top 25 with a small hit to their yield ratios. Is yield even in the school rankings, for that matter? I'm assuming it is not and that MCAT/GPA are. And, does any applicant ever consider yield ratios?
 
madhatter3 said:
The irony is that it seems the industry needs but one smart adcom who wanted to raise their program's MCAT/GPA average to find such anomalies in the T25 algorithm. That program might even be able to move up into the top 25 with a small hit to their yield ratios. Is yield even in the school rankings, for that matter? I'm assuming it is not and that MCAT/GPA are. And, does any applicant ever consider yield ratios?
Click to expand...
Yeah, right? Like if some top 50 program would come and take me at this point I'd happily go along, and contribute my 524 to their averages in doing so
But nope
 
madhatter3 said:
The irony is that it seems the industry needs but one smart adcom who wanted to raise their program's MCAT/GPA average to find such anomalies in the T25 algorithm. That program might even be able to move up into the top 25 with a small hit to their yield ratios. Is yield even in the school rankings, for that matter? I'm assuming it is not and that MCAT/GPA are. And, does any applicant ever consider yield ratios?
Click to expand...
yield is included in USNWR rankings, as acceptance rate is included. the lower the yield, the more applicants a school has to accept to meet their class size. however, it is such a small portion (1%) of a ranking that most medical professionals recognize is meaningless, i would be surprised if rankings were really why anyone cared. if there was a 1/13 chance or greater the student would attend, then it would be worth it for the rankings points to raise the median MCAT. its probably just that Adcoms don't want to waste their time on someone they doubt will attend. as someone who has done hiring at a company, i always skip right over the overqualified candidates
 
Screamapillar said:
yield is included in USNWR rankings, as acceptance rate is included. the lower the yield, the more applicants a school has to accept to meet their class size. however, it is such a small portion (1%) of a ranking that most medical professionals recognize is meaningless, i would be surprised if rankings were really why anyone cared. if there was a 1/13 chance or greater the student would attend, then it would be worth it for the rankings points to raise the median MCAT. its probably just that Adcoms don't want to waste their time on someone they doubt will attend. as someone who has done hiring at a company, i always skip right over the overqualified candidates
Click to expand...
Is over qualified the right word, exactly? Im not sure. If you looked at my app, you'd say I'm under qualified to go to a top 10, mostly due to my ECs. Does that still make me over qualified for top 50s? What then, exactly, am I just qualified for?
 
Lorien said:
Is over qualified the right word, exactly? Im not sure. If you looked at my app, you'd say I'm under qualified to go to a top 10, mostly due to my ECs. Does that still make me over qualified for top 50s? What then, exactly, am I just qualified for?
Click to expand...
overqualified is the word i would use when someone with a masters degree or 6 years experience applied for an entry level research associate position. could they do the job well? yes. would i expect them to accept another position before we even got to the interview? definitely. its not perfect because med school is definitely more competitive than the job market, but thats just my experience and probably what some low-middle tiers are thinking looking at your stats unless you have a real reason to go to their school. why would i waste the effort just to see him/her go to JHU?

i'm just a pre-med too but i see no glaring holes in your app. you have solid research, no pubs but thats more a reflection the lab than you. you check the box for shadowing and clinical exposure, you're maybe a little box-checky but with your stats i doubt anyone would care. you got two II's which means you don't have many red flags, but maybe you could do more research into specific schools and have more to say about why you want to go there if its not a t25. when did you submit your secondaries? i would just run it back with your additional activities and try to find out which schools are really hungry for high stats. i'm surprised that schools like WashU and Penn didn't show more interest.
 
Lorien said:
Is over qualified the right word, exactly? Im not sure. If you looked at my app, you'd say I'm under qualified to go to a top 10, mostly due to my ECs. Does that still make me over qualified for top 50s? What then, exactly, am I just qualified for?
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

Calling high stats applicants with low clinical or whatever hours (since that's the criterion these top schools apply) is the wrong label. The debate on whether working a week or two more than you did in a clinical setting is worth including as a qualifier is a different topic, but it IS what they are doing/(did in your case). So, it is part of the qualifications required. Schools also want you to assume that they know you are interested if you send an application ("please no updates"), yet they don't assume a high stats app is interested enough to attend to admit (or even interview) you. But, you would accept an offer if it had been extended. I totally believe that.

I think this mis-categorization as an overqualified applicant based on your stats (which I agree with Screamapillar is what they are doing) explains why so many high stat applicants don't get admitted. As a result, med schools ranked T25-T50 adcoms generally underperform with respect to getting the best applicants they can. Yours is an example (anecdote), but the high stats apps that go without acceptance each year warrant more research and fewer assumptions that adcoms are performing optimally. To miss that many people EVERY year... they can't be. It'd be worth a publication for those doing research on MedEd, especially by someone who isn't protecting industry practice and just publishing confirmation bias outcomes.

It should also be dropped from the rankings since it is rather bogus and has created this obsession ("yield protection") as a root cause that ultimately hurts medical practice. Who would rather have a less intelligent doctor who worked two more weeks pre-med? By the time doctors are practicing, they have an enormous number of clinical hours (aka residency). I just don't believe the excuse that people with your record haven't demonstrated enough commitment to medicine or that you don't know enough about the profession to pursue it. We're all patients and exposure to medical practice is literally... a part of life.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned in this thread & from my own cycle experience, yield protection is very real, so you are definitely in a tough spot... I think it's just that the competition is crazily intense at the schools you applied to. You don't have any deficiencies but your activities also don't stand out. Having high stats (based on the average of your demographics, ORM or URM) is pretty much a requirement to get any attention at those schools, so I wouldn't count your stats as a distinguishing factor.
I hope you get in this cycle, but if you don't, I'd work on beefing up your resume to be up to par with the schools you'd be targeting with those stats.
 
Lifeblood_20 said:
As mentioned in this thread & from my own cycle experience, yield protection is very real, so you are definitely in a tough spot... I think it's just that the competition is crazily intense at the schools you applied to. You don't have any deficiencies but your activities also don't stand out. Having high stats (based on the average of your demographics, ORM or URM) is pretty much a requirement to get any attention at those schools, so I wouldn't count your stats as a distinguishing factor.
I hope you get in this cycle, but if you don't, I'd work on beefing up your resume to be up to par with the schools you'd be targeting with those stats.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the point of the thread that Lorien’s stats should be distinguishing in the T25-T50 application pool?

And, that Lorien would happily enroll there had they not accepted a class full of applicants with similar activities, but lower stats (about 10 points or more lower on the MCAT)?
 
madhatter3 said:
Isn’t the point of the thread that Lorien’s stats should be distinguishing in the T25-T50 application pool?

And, that Lorien would happily enroll there had they not accepted a class full of applicants with similar activities, but lower stats (about 10 points or more lower on the MCAT)?
Click to expand...
Theoretically OP would be outstanding at T50s but they did not apply to enough of them.
 
Lifeblood_20 said:
Lifeblood_20 said:
Yeah, a more targeted school list should help. Of course, I'm hopeful that you get in this cycle! Good luck.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Could you share which schools and how you targeted them, without just saying use their mission statement? Is it like, you’re interested in pediatrics (like Cincinnati) and that’s what they do best?
 
Last edited:
There is often a wide range for MCAT scores, with mid-tiers schools having many 520+ matriculants. People need to stop thinking of schools using this arbitrary Top X USNWR framework and talking about over- vs. under-qualified. If you want to shotgun approach the high-stat research schools, you need to apply to more schools, point blank. Like I said, you have 2 interviews from an incredibly top heavy list and minimal activities over 4 years (apart from research). That's not a bad yield and it means you have no red flags. Now that you've improved some of your activities, you have a better shot, but if you just reapply to only 15 schools, you're not learning from your mistake.

Schools I can suggest off the bat that you may have avoided the first go around. Rochester (they like research, have a relatively high MCAT), Hofstra (they love high MCATs), Case Western, Emory.


NYU, WashU, Penn will love your stats, in case you skipped that on the first go around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Answered, thank you!
Replies
3
Views
398
maisycool
M
D
Thank you
Replies
1
Views
384
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
Thank you
Replies
2
Views
344
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
S
Thank you!
Replies
7
Views
668
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
G
  • Locked
DELETED THANK YOU!
Replies
5
Views
625
Faha
F
Top