The Method ADCOM reviews applicants

[Mortal_Lessons]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,
Trying to get some corroboration on an idea I've seen posted and feel is an accurate description of the way ADCOM committees invite applicants for interviews.

It is a commonly held belief that ADCOM committees evaluate applications based on the order they were received. I believe this is somewhat true, but there may be an extra nuance. If your MCAT+GPA is not much higher than their school average, they may wait to see what other applications they receive before giving you an invitation. Basically, all those with really high MCAT+GPAs get bumped to the front of the line, while those that are qualified, just not overly qualified that is, have to wait for them to get through all the stellar applications.

Can I please get some comments on this description and possibly your own take on the priority in which ADCOMs hand out invitations for interview.

Thanks.

 

[Mortal_Lessons]

bump...figure some of you would have some insight into this...

 

[Law2Doc]

bump...figure some of you would have some insight into this...

There are 125ish schools and they each probably have their own methodology. No one universal system exists. But FWIW, schools won't give subpar people spots just because they got their app in first.

 

[stoppushingit]

Hi,
Trying to get some corroboration on an idea I've seen posted and feel is an accurate description of the way ADCOM committees invite applicants for interviews.

It is a commonly held belief that ADCOM committees evaluate applications based on the order they were received. I believe this is somewhat true, but there may be an extra nuance. If your MCAT+GPA is not much higher than their school average, they may wait to see what other applications they receive before giving you an invitation. Basically, all those with really high MCAT+GPAs get bumped to the front of the line, while those that are qualified, just not overly qualified that is, have to wait for them to get through all the stellar applications.

Can I please get some comments on this description and possibly your own take on the priority in which ADCOMs hand out invitations for interview.

Thanks.

i doubt that's true.
1) each school has its own methods
2) how do you account for phenomenal trends in GPA?
3) how do you account for phenomenal EC's (olympic athletes, saving the world, curing cancer)?
4) under-represented minorities?
5) undergraduate institutions?
6) legacy?
7) personal statement that is written pulitzer-quality.
8) phenomenal recommendations from the dean of the med school itself or from someone like Kofi Annan or surgeons general?

 

[63768]

wow. innovative thoughts. you're the first person to ever ask this question. /sarcasm

whatever answer you come up with will not apply to 90% of the other schools out there. here's the general rule:

get a high MCAT, study hard and have a 3.6+ GPA, shadow and get medical experience, do research or abroad work if you want to but it's not necessary, develop relationships with mentors/profs and get good LORs, do some fun outside of school/medicine activities, write good PS and essays.

just do that.

 

[Mortal_Lessons]

wow. innovative thoughts. you're the first person to ever ask this question. /sarcasm

whatever answer you come up with will not apply to 90% of the other schools out there. here's the general rule:

get a high MCAT, study hard and have a 3.6+ GPA, shadow and get medical experience, do research or abroad work if you want to but it's not necessary, develop relationships with mentors/profs and get good LORs, do some fun outside of school/medicine activities, write good PS and essays.

just do that.

Yeah, my post wasn't about how to get an interview; it was more about predicting when the ADCOM committee will invite you for an interview, or at least sit down and vote on your applicaiton.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

some schools bump in-staters to the front, alums, and legacies.

 

[Rafa]

I spoke with a Harvard adcom member the other day (it was vaguely surreal), and s/he was talking about how they evaluated applicants by a sort of point system.

Grades were one factor. Extracurriculars were another - and so on. And s/he spoke about how applicants were graded in each category on like an A/B/C scale, and how to have a good chance, you really had to get A's for the majority of categories. S/he went on for hours; it was pretty cool. I have no interest in attending Harvard for med school - I've had enough of BoCam - but if I did, everything s/he said in that hour would have been incredibly useful. People - they *want* you to get in. But they want the best. And they're just one school. Each one is different. Instead of looking at it all as some monolithic game of Tetris to beat, take each school as it comes, and try to figure out if it's right for you before shooting off an application. Believe me - it's worth it.

 

[solitude]

I spoke with a Harvard adcom member the other day (it was vaguely surreal), and s/he was talking about how they evaluated applicants by a sort of point system.

Grades were one factor. Extracurriculars were another - and so on. And s/he spoke about how applicants were graded in each category on like an A/B/C scale, and how to have a good chance, you really had to get A's for the majority of categories. S/he went on for hours; it was pretty cool. I have no interest in attending Harvard for med school - I've had enough of BoCam - but if I did, everything s/he said in that hour would have been incredibly useful. People - they *want* you to get in. But they want the best. And they're just one school. Each one is different. Instead of looking at it all as some monolithic game of Tetris to beat, take each school as it comes, and try to figure out if it's right for you before shooting off an application. Believe me - it's worth it.

So what sort of top-secret stuff can you tell us?

 

[Rafa]

So what sort of top-secret stuff can you tell us?

A lot of it was actually similar to SDN talk. One of the things that stood out was the clinic experience. She (I'm just going to use she now) really hammered that - that whole 'knowing what you're getting into' thing. Oh, and the interview - this might help some of y'all out. So there are two interviews - one with faculty, and one with a student. The student one isn't really an interview - it's more of a tour. As in the MS tours the preemie. But it's as much of a test as the interview. She basically said that after the tour, the MS gets back with the interviewers. If said MS said s/he wouldn't want to hang out with that preemie as a med student, then his/her chances are as good as dead. In other words, they have a freak filter. And it counts big-time.

Other things...extra-curicculars could supplement slightly lower academics, but they had to be top-notch. Like nationally ranked sharpsmen, Olympic swimmers - that sort of thing. It reminds me of a post someone made here some time ago about how Harvard could fill their classes with top-notch students (academically speaking) any year. And they do. But what separates them from most other schools is that they don't just want the best students. They want the best pianists. The best authors. The best runners - and so on. And it makes sense. What separates the "big" schools from the "good" ones is the star-power they draw. There's a reason why famous youngfolk (Natalie Portman) go to schools like Harvard/Princeton/Stanford and not to any old top-10 school. So if you're planning on getting in with an EC, it's got to be something they can brag about.

What else? Oh yeah. Being well-rounded. A lot of otherwise smart kids don't get in because of a lack of people skills, but also because they only take classes within their majors. If you don't branch out, you don't get picked. She was sort of emphatic on that. They don't want the engineer-types who never take anything that doesn't end in "...equations" or "...mechanics". Also mentioned that most students are single majors, occasionally double, but almost always single. They typically take normal class loads, and distinguish themselves by kicking ass off the court - in other words, ECs again. She held a low opinion of students who took more than a handful of classes each term, as it kept them from pursuing out-of-class interests.

These were three of the biggest areas she covered when we talked. As you can see, it's pretty logical stuff - but it somehow takes on ginormous proportions when hearing it from the horse's mouth. She also talked about high GPAs and so forth - but the other things...ECs...social skills...academic breadth...those were the biggies.

 

[solitude]

Awesome, thanks!

A lot of it was actually similar to SDN talk. One of the things that stood out was the clinic experience. She (I'm just going to use she now) really hammered that - that whole 'knowing what you're getting into' thing. Oh, and the interview - this might help some of y'all out. So there are two interviews - one with faculty, and one with a student. The student one isn't really an interview - it's more of a tour. As in the MS tours the preemie. But it's as much of a test as the interview. She basically said that after the tour, the MS gets back with the interviewers. If said MS said s/he wouldn't want to hang out with that preemie as a med student, then his/her chances are as good as dead. In other words, they have a freak filter. And it counts big-time.

Other things...extra-curicculars could supplement slightly lower academics, but they had to be top-notch. Like nationally ranked sharpsmen, Olympic swimmers - that sort of thing. It reminds me of a post someone made here some time ago about how Harvard could fill their classes with top-notch students (academically speaking) any year. And they do. But what separates them from most other schools is that they don't just want the best students. They want the best pianists. The best authors. The best runners - and so on. And it makes sense. What separates the "big" schools from the "good" ones is the star-power they draw. There's a reason why famous youngfolk (Natalie Portman) go to schools like Harvard/Princeton/Stanford and not to any old top-10 school. So if you're planning on getting in with an EC, it's got to be something they can brag about.

What else? Oh yeah. Being well-rounded. A lot of otherwise smart kids don't get in because of a lack of people skills, but also because they only take classes within their majors. If you don't branch out, you don't get picked. She was sort of emphatic on that. They don't want the engineer-types who never take anything that doesn't end in "...equations" or "...mechanics". Also mentioned that most students are single majors, occasionally double, but almost always single. They typically take normal class loads, and distinguish themselves by kicking ass off the court - in other words, ECs again. She held a low opinion of students who took more than a handful of classes each term, as it kept them from pursuing out-of-class interests.

These were three of the biggest areas she covered when we talked. As you can see, it's pretty logical stuff - but it somehow takes on ginormous proportions when hearing it from the horse's mouth. She also talked about high GPAs and so forth - but the other things...ECs...social skills...academic breadth...those were the biggies.

 

[Law2Doc]

A lot of it was actually similar to SDN talk. One of the things that stood out was the clinic experience. She (I'm just going to use she now) really hammered that - that whole 'knowing what you're getting into' thing. Oh, and the interview - this might help some of y'all out. So there are two interviews - one with faculty, and one with a student. The student one isn't really an interview - it's more of a tour. As in the MS tours the preemie. But it's as much of a test as the interview. She basically said that after the tour, the MS gets back with the interviewers. If said MS said s/he wouldn't want to hang out with that preemie as a med student, then his/her chances are as good as dead. In other words, they have a freak filter. And it counts big-time.

Other things...extra-curicculars could supplement slightly lower academics, but they had to be top-notch. Like nationally ranked sharpsmen, Olympic swimmers - that sort of thing. It reminds me of a post someone made here some time ago about how Harvard could fill their classes with top-notch students (academically speaking) any year. And they do. But what separates them from most other schools is that they don't just want the best students. They want the best pianists. The best authors. The best runners - and so on. And it makes sense. What separates the "big" schools from the "good" ones is the star-power they draw. There's a reason why famous youngfolk (Natalie Portman) go to schools like Harvard/Princeton/Stanford and not to any old top-10 school. So if you're planning on getting in with an EC, it's got to be something they can brag about.

What else? Oh yeah. Being well-rounded. A lot of otherwise smart kids don't get in because of a lack of people skills, but also because they only take classes within their majors. If you don't branch out, you don't get picked. She was sort of emphatic on that. They don't want the engineer-types who never take anything that doesn't end in "...equations" or "...mechanics". Also mentioned that most students are single majors, occasionally double, but almost always single. They typically take normal class loads, and distinguish themselves by kicking ass off the court - in other words, ECs again. She held a low opinion of students who took more than a handful of classes each term, as it kept them from pursuing out-of-class interests.

These were three of the biggest areas she covered when we talked. As you can see, it's pretty logical stuff - but it somehow takes on ginormous proportions when hearing it from the horse's mouth. She also talked about high GPAs and so forth - but the other things...ECs...social skills...academic breadth...those were the biggies.

This is actually good advice at quite a few schools -- not just H. Treat the tour guides as potential interviewers, as sometimes they are.
And be sure to have excelled in the non-numeric stuff as that counts big-time -- in fact, once you crack a certain threshhold, your ECs and experiences count a lot more than a few additional points in the GPA or MCAT. Few schools select simply by the numbers; they want it all. The highest stat folks don't always get their top choices because they often haven't done enough outside the library. Schools often would rather have the 3.7/32 who has done amazing things over the 4.0/40 who is less multidimensional. Which is why whenever folks on SDN float number based formulaic approaches you can know it is bunk at a lot of places.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

This is actually good advice at quite a few schools -- not just H. Treat the tour guides as potential interviewers, as sometimes they are.
And be sure to have excelled in the non-numeric stuff as that counts big-time -- in fact, once you crack a certain threshhold, your ECs and experiences count a lot more than a few additional points in the GPA or MCAT. Few schools select simply by the numbers; they want it all. The highest stat folks don't always get their top choices because they often haven't done enough outside the library. Schools often would rather have the 3.7/32 who has done amazing things over the 4.0/40 who is less multidimensional. Which is why whenever folks on SDN float number based formulaic approaches you can know it is bunk at a lot of places.

Doesnt this subjective assessment of ECs piss you off? It pisses me off! I've heard of kids who volunteered in an orphanage in africa just so they can have that slice of EC and experience. just so they can get into harvard. its sickening, what this process does to people.

on top of that, if harvard always takes the pianists, runners, etc over people with more raw intellectual talent and very personable approaches (they arent closet nerds, they have clinical experience, just not crazy wierd stuff), then dont you think they wont produce the best doctors 25 years from now? this is of course in regards to the new pathway program, not the HST.

 

[Law2Doc]

Doesnt this subjective assessment of ECs piss you off? It pisses me off! I've heard of kids who volunteered in an orphanage in africa just so they can have that slice of EC and experience. just so they can get into harvard. its sickening, what this process does to people.

on top of that, if harvard always takes the pianists, runners, etc over people with more raw intellectual talent and very personable approaches (they arent closet nerds, they have clinical experience, just not crazy wierd stuff), then dont you think they wont produce the best doctors 25 years from now? this is of course in regards to the new pathway program, not the HST.

Doesn't piss me off because as a career changer, I had pretty unique ECs that undoubtedly got me looked at at some places over some folks with higher numbers.😀 The orphanage in Africa approach doesn't generally fly (as some adcoms feel that is an experience that can be "bought", as adcoms on this board have suggested), but other kinds of experiences certainly do.

But as for your latter point, the increase in weight on subjective factors and ECs started in relatively recent history, after schools determined that the "pure numbers applicants" high scoring bio majors were not, in fact, producing the "best doctors", at least from the patients' and profession's point of view. Hence the increase in non-sci majors, nontrads, as well as the really unique applicants etc. in various med schools. Time will tell if this approach does any better.

But you will meet many great doctors over the course of your career who were not cut from the 4.0/40 mold, so don't fall into the undergrad trap of thinking these numbers directly equate to anything beyond the admissions process.

 

[gmsquid]

I think sincerity can easily be seen in a lot of cases. Its kind of hard for most people to fake their true personality, especially with the incisive questions medical schools ask whether it be the AMCAS personal statement, the individual essays for each medical school, or the interview questions. Also, I had a mock interview with a professor at my school for my letter of recommendation process, and he told me that maturity is huge. If they can sense your maturity in making your decision to pursue medicine, then they will love you. I think if you can convince them that you want to do medicine truly, then you should get in. All in all, its an interesting process. Yeah, and I would think the selection process for NP and HST are widely different because of the more technical focus of the HST program, but who knows, they may not be.

So we shall see how they examine mine and all of our extracurriculars in the process, and what the interview does to each one of us. We all hope for that interview, to maybe show that special something about us that will have the adcom drooling over us. I would tend to think this is the biggest part of the process, if you get here, more than half the battle is over. But, I have not had any interviews yet (just got complete at all my schools except one), so we shall see. Just speculation from me. Good luck everybody.

 

[stoppushingit]

A lot of it was actually similar to SDN talk. One of the things that stood out was the clinic experience. She (I'm just going to use she now) really hammered that - that whole 'knowing what you're getting into' thing. Oh, and the interview - this might help some of y'all out. So there are two interviews - one with faculty, and one with a student. The student one isn't really an interview - it's more of a tour. As in the MS tours the preemie. But it's as much of a test as the interview. She basically said that after the tour, the MS gets back with the interviewers. If said MS said s/he wouldn't want to hang out with that preemie as a med student, then his/her chances are as good as dead. In other words, they have a freak filter. And it counts big-time.

Other things...extra-curicculars could supplement slightly lower academics, but they had to be top-notch. Like nationally ranked sharpsmen, Olympic swimmers - that sort of thing. It reminds me of a post someone made here some time ago about how Harvard could fill their classes with top-notch students (academically speaking) any year. And they do. But what separates them from most other schools is that they don't just want the best students. They want the best pianists. The best authors. The best runners - and so on. And it makes sense. What separates the "big" schools from the "good" ones is the star-power they draw. There's a reason why famous youngfolk (Natalie Portman) go to schools like Harvard/Princeton/Stanford and not to any old top-10 school. So if you're planning on getting in with an EC, it's got to be something they can brag about.

What else? Oh yeah. Being well-rounded. A lot of otherwise smart kids don't get in because of a lack of people skills, but also because they only take classes within their majors. If you don't branch out, you don't get picked. She was sort of emphatic on that. They don't want the engineer-types who never take anything that doesn't end in "...equations" or "...mechanics". Also mentioned that most students are single majors, occasionally double, but almost always single. They typically take normal class loads, and distinguish themselves by kicking ass off the court - in other words, ECs again. She held a low opinion of students who took more than a handful of classes each term, as it kept them from pursuing out-of-class interests.

These were three of the biggest areas she covered when we talked. As you can see, it's pretty logical stuff - but it somehow takes on ginormous proportions when hearing it from the horse's mouth. She also talked about high GPAs and so forth - but the other things...ECs...social skills...academic breadth...those were the biggies.

thanks for sharing! once in a while, we need to be reminded that adcoms are our friends (prior to rejection that is 😛 )

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Doesn't piss me off because as a career changer, I had pretty unique ECs that undoubtedly got me looked at at some places over some folks with higher numbers.😀 The orphanage in Africa approach doesn't generally fly (as some adcoms feel that is an experience that can be "bought", as adcoms on this board have suggested), but other kinds of experiences certainly do.

But as for your latter point, the increase in weight on subjective factors and ECs started in relatively recent history, after schools determined that the "pure numbers applicants" high scoring bio majors were not, in fact, producing the "best doctors", at least from the patients' and profession's point of view. Hence the increase in non-sci majors, nontrads, as well as the really unique applicants etc. in various med schools. Time will tell if this approach does any better.

But you will meet many great doctors over the course of your career who were not cut from the 4.0/40 mold, so don't fall into the undergrad trap of thinking these numbers directly equate to anything beyond the admissions process.

no im saying harvard takes kids with random random experiences that may be worse than a 40/4.0 that IS personable and DOES have a lot of volunteer experiences (but not random random ones like in antarctica saving the penguins... maybe just at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or on the neurosurgery floor of hteir local hospital)... they want RANDOM. thats what pisses me off, bc i know people force RANDOM on themselves instead of doing things that may be better.... such as getting those clinical experiences etc.

how will being a pianist make you a better doc? it wont. i think the best doc mold would be ideally someone who has stellar numbers, dedication, and AND AND AND has shown to be personable and will WILL WILL care for patients.... who has extensive clinical experience and good letters of rec from people that show their true colors.

i do agree that the 3.7 32 who is personable and has random ECs will likely be a better doc than a 4.0 40 who is not personable and is nerdy (from the patient's perspec at least). i do NOT agree that a 3.7 3.2 who is personable and has random ECs will likely be a better doc than a 4.0 40 who is personable and has arguably more relevant ECs in pursuit of medicine.

I think diversity is overplayed. case in point.

 

[Law2Doc]

I think diversity is overplayed. case in point.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.😀

 

[Law2Doc]

how will being a pianist make you a better doc? it wont. i think the best doc mold would be ideally someone who has stellar numbers, dedication, and AND AND AND has shown to be personable and will WILL WILL care for patients.... who has extensive clinical experience and good letters of rec from people that show their true colors.

I think the feeling is that too few people have the "AND AND AND"s. So they err for the pianist over the pure stellar numbers, when folks have mostly one or the other. There is certainly a strong correlation between folks that get the highest number and folks that don't have a life outside of their books, and hence bring less to the table in terms of the subjective stuff. So to some extent the highest numbers don't get the benefit of the doubt. They are getting burned by the perception that the prior generations of high stat bio majors with a modicum of premed ECs simply didn't produce the ideal. Again, we will see in a few decades if this new criteria produces closer to the desired kind of physician. They already know they don't like the past version.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.😀

im not. i know ill do fine in this process. its just irritating how premeds adapt themselves to the process isntead of being themselves. and the interview is bogus, anyone can fake sincerity for a day. anyone can fake maturity. premeds are smart enough to know how the game is played. the number one advice i keep getting from people at medschools is to be enthusiastic about things you have done. even if you are naturally enthusiastic about your accomplishments and activities, still they want you to be more so on that day.

case in point we're always selling ourselves.

ill give a little story:
at my first interview, my conversation was very natural and everything went well. the faculty interviewer seemed to be impressed with all my stuff. we ended up talking about keanu reeves and the matrix and how we still both went to see matrix 3 on opening night even though matrix 2 sucked. as you can see, it was very normal and i was very happy with just how it went.. how conversational it was. after, on the walk out i told him this was my first interview and if he had any criticisms. he said well u didnt sell urself enough. he said he had to pry my ECs out of me.... so for ex if there was a question on how you know youre confident enough for medicine... then you would say i know bc my personality is like blank, and i have experience to back it up with 1, 2, and 3. the thing is i feel like its unnatural and maybe even arrogant to place activities in answers if they dont naturally fit. if thats not how you would normally answer the question to a friend sitting on a couch next to you. but thats what he said you have to do. if you dont do it, someone else will, and theyll have a better chance of getting in. honest to god thats what he said. so im thinking now, ok, so i have to NOT be myself in order to get in. sweet.

 

[Law2Doc]

and the interview is bogus, anyone can fake sincerity for a day. anyone can fake maturity. premeds are smart enough to know how the game is played.

You would think this, but I've known plenty of folks who didn't come off well in their interviews, and folks told by adcoms after the fact that the interview was or wasn't the reason they got in or didn't get in somewhere.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

You would think this, but I've known plenty of folks who didn't come off well in their interviews, and folks told by adcoms after the fact that the interview was or wasn't the reason they got in or didn't get in somewhere.

some are better at it than others.

but in general, ah, ive seen people sort of blank and and kind of gunnerish at interviews. they act that way only when no one who can potentially evaluate them with this negative are around. later on in the day, when a faculty interviewer comes by to pick them up, they get totally smiles right away. you can tell they switched off a certain "honesty" switch on the back of your heads. maybe im just cynical and dont give adcomms enough credit. dont know. but its irritating bc i see it in front of my face.

i know to some degree we're all putting our best face on. but for some people, its an entirely different face.

 

[Law2Doc]

some are better at it than others.

but in general, ah, ive seen people sort of blank and and kind of gunnerish at interviews. they act that way only when no one who can potentially evaluate them with this negative are around. later on in the day, when a faculty interviewer comes by to pick them up, they get totally smiles right away. you can tell they switched off a certain "honesty" switch on the back of your heads. maybe im just cynical and dont give adcomms enough credit. dont know. but its irritating bc i see it in front of my face.

i know to some degree we're all putting our best face on. but for some people, its an entirely different face.

Have a little faith that some of these folks aren't as good at faking it as you think. After seeing a few thousand applicants, most interviewers actually get reasonably good at ferretting out the most blatent of these. Plus other schools do what Harvard apparently does and use tour guides as moles.

 

[liverotcod]

so i have to NOT be myself in order to get in. sweet.

But it was an interview, not a normal conversation. So of course you have to sell yourself. It's kind of a fine line. You only get 1/2 hour or whatever to communicate the positive things about you to the interviewer. But these things should be about YOU, not some made up crap. That's being yourself.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Have a little faith that some of these folks aren't as good at faking it as you think. After seeing a few thousand applicants, most interviewers actually get reasonably good at ferretting out the most blatent of these. Plus other schools do what Harvard apparently does and use tour guides as moles.

so some schools even say that though these kids are not evaluating you... they are?

and what does "advisor" mean in terms of your profile... are you an adcomm?

 

[Doctor~Detroit]

ill give a little story:
at my first interview, my conversation was very natural and everything went well. the faculty interviewer seemed to be impressed with all my stuff. we ended up talking about keanu reeves and the matrix and how we still both went to see matrix 3 on opening night even though matrix 2 sucked. as you can see, it was very normal and i was very happy with just how it went.. how conversational it was. after, on the walk out i told him this was my first interview and if he had any criticisms. he said well u didnt sell urself enough. he said he had to pry my ECs out of me.... so for ex if there was a question on how you know youre confident enough for medicine... then you would say i know bc my personality is like blank, and i have experience to back it up with 1, 2, and 3. the thing is i feel like its unnatural and maybe even arrogant to place activities in answers if they dont naturally fit. if thats not how you would normally answer the question to a friend sitting on a couch next to you. but thats what he said you have to do. if you dont do it, someone else will, and theyll have a better chance of getting in. honest to god thats what he said. so im thinking now, ok, so i have to NOT be myself in order to get in. sweet.

i think this is a good point. not only is it insincere, but how can it be done without being arrogant?

 

[mmmkay121]

i think this is a good point. not only is it insincere, but how can it be done without being arrogant?

Yea, really.

"So, who are you"

"Well, I'm on varsity swimming, I volunteered in a 3rd World Country, I have been in a research lab before I even finished Gen. Bio, I have played piano in front of hundreds of peopl"

"OK, nice accomplishments but who are you?"
----------------------------------------------------

I still believe a conversation like the one stolenspat's had with his interviewer revealed more about his personality and who he really is than a rant about all your premed accomplishments. "Sell yourself". WTF, everything a school needs to know about your achievements are in AMCAS. It's beyond me why interviews are all about ECs and stuff. The interview should be about how you come across as a person. I know plenty of arrogant tools who will be quick to spit out all their accomplishments to me after I simply ask "what's up?"

 

[solitude]

This is actually good advice at quite a few schools -- not just H. Treat the tour guides as potential interviewers, as sometimes they are.
And be sure to have excelled in the non-numeric stuff as that counts big-time -- in fact, once you crack a certain threshhold, your ECs and experiences count a lot more than a few additional points in the GPA or MCAT. Few schools select simply by the numbers; they want it all. The highest stat folks don't always get their top choices because they often haven't done enough outside the library. Schools often would rather have the 3.7/32 who has done amazing things over the 4.0/40 who is less multidimensional. Which is why whenever folks on SDN float number based formulaic approaches you can know it is bunk at a lot of places.

I pretty much agree with you, but I think 3.7/32 vs. 4.0/40 is a huge difference. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, a 3.7/32 will almost never get admitted to HMS, barring URM, Olympic athlete, or some other phenomenal EC that puts the person in a category that can't be generalized as has been done here. In my opinion, 3.8/36 and you're academically in the range, and then this advice is more pertinent.

 

[63768]

it's not arrogant to sell yourself. it's an interview. this happens in every industry. stolenspatulas, your view is noble but naive. where there's competition the onus is upon you to sell yourself.