"the whole process is a crapshoot"

[kdburton]

Somoene must have said this once and now there is an epidemic of the use of the term "crapshoot" when describing the med school application procress. Why do people keep saying this. I actually get annoyed for some reason... Its not really that unpredictable

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Instatewaiter]

I'm really glad you started an entire thread to say that...

 

[deleted50541]

It's certainly a shade better than, "hey guys, I can't be bothered to read the AMCAS application instructions or do a search to answer a question that's been asked a thousand times. help plz?".

 

[deleted106503]

It would make more sense if they said "the whole process is crap."

 

[TMP-SMX]

Oh but it is. You have to apply to numerous schools spending all of your money while writing useless essays to have a computer look at your numbers and screen you out. One hoop after another you have to jump to get to med school. Unless you have an unlimited supply of money, time, and patience it's a pain in the ass and very unpredictable.

 

[kdburton]

Oh but it is. You have to apply to numerous schools spending all of your money while writing useless essays to have a computer look at your numbers and screen you out. One hoop after another you have to jump to get to med school. Unless you have an unlimited supply of money, time, and patience it's a pain in the ass and very unpredictable.

Ya but that has nothing to do with predictability or being a "crapshoot". If I had unlimited funds, time, and patience (along with starts that are approximately average), I could reasonably assume that I would get into at least one school. I would be able to apply to every single school. If I was a broke-@$$ that could only afford to apply to one school with the same stats, then I would have a much less chance, statistically, at being admitted. With my stats and the fact that I was financially and otherwise able to apply to 10 schools, I was able to reasonably assume that I would be admitted to at least one school (even though I applied super late). I was right. And I might even have yet another acceptance of a waitlist that I'm on right now. Numerically screening schools will typically tell you what their automatic cutoffs are for numbers if you ask them. That is if they don't already have them posted on their website. If you don't meet those requirements then you shouldn't waste your time applying to those schools. The essays you write on yoru primary AMCAS may not be looked at before the point that they decide to send you a secondary, but they will most likely be accounted for in the "entire package" when the school is deciding whether to invite you for an interview or not. Then when you do get invited for an interview you can come on SDN, read your applications over, think about reasonable questions they might ask and you'll easily be able to assume what kinds of questions they may ask. If, by past experience, you know that you're also a likable person who knows how to talk/interview well on top of knowing what may be asked of you, then you will probably be able to say you did well on the interview. Save one school, I've been able to predict what will happen to my application at every school I applied to.

 

[Law2Doc]

Somoene must have said this once and now there is an epidemic of the use of the term "crapshoot" when describing the med school application procress. Why do people keep saying this. I actually get annoyed for some reason... Its not really that unpredictable

It's not unpredictable if you know what each adcom considers a "good fit" for his school and know what the other applicants in the applicant pool have in their applications, and how yours is deemed to compare. Since a lot of this is subjective and not something you can actually know, the decisions you see are often quite surprising to many. Most applicants look at the process as an objective, by the numbers, process, which is why many acceptances and rejections seem not to make sense. It is not really a by the numbers, objective process and you condemn yourself to confused frustration if you look at it totally as such. So no, it's not a crapshoot (ie random) -- there is a lot of method to the madness, and if you knew everything the adcoms knew and could look through their eyes, you might be able to predict things with some certainty -- but from the vantage point of an applicant, you can probably see how its perplexing.

 

[lord_jeebus]

I always thought the crapshoot analogy referred to one's prospects at any particular school.

Over a large number of applications, the process is rather predictable, as is a large number of crapshoots.

 

[deuist]

Somoene must have said this once and now there is an epidemic of the use of the term "crapshoot" when describing the med school application procress. Why do people keep saying this. I actually get annoyed for some reason... Its not really that unpredictable

It was me. I said it and I wish people the best in their application endeavors.

 

[docolive]

It's not unpredictable if you know what each adcom considers a "good fit" for his school and know what the other applicants in the applicant pool have in their applications, and how yours is deemed to compare. Since a lot of this is subjective and not something you can actually know, the decisions you see are often quite surprising to many. Most applicants look at the process as an objective, by the numbers, process, which is why many acceptances and rejections seem not to make sense. It is not really a by the numbers, objective process and you condemn yourself to confused frustration if you look at it totally as such. So no, it's not a crapshoot (ie random) -- there is a lot of method to the madness, and if you knew everything the adcoms knew and could look through their eyes, you might be able to predict things with some certainty -- but from the vantage point of an applicant, you can probably see how its perplexing.

Very well said Law2doc!!

 

[DDSBound]

This is true for many popular fields. I have a friend that got into LECOMs DO program with a 2.9 undergrad GPA, 3.8 graduate GPA in epidemiology, 26 MCAT and working as a receptionist in a hospital. She was accepted 2 years ago. I have friends who couldn't get into any MD or DO program with a 3.5-3.6 undergrad and a 29 on the MCAT and biomedical research experience. Is that fair? Sounds kind of like a crapshoot to me.

 

[kdburton]

This is true for many popular fields. I have a friend that got into LECOMs DO program with a 2.9 undergrad GPA, 3.8 graduate GPA in epidemiology, 26 MCAT and working as a receptionist in a hospital. She was accepted 2 years ago. I have friends who couldn't get into any MD or DO program with a 3.5-3.6 undergrad and a 29 on the MCAT and biomedical research experience. Is that fair? Sounds kind of like a crapshoot to me.

I don't know much about DO admissions, but it seems very reasonable with those numbers that your friend would get accepted to a DO school given that there are people who have similar GPAs and a low-end MCAT scores who have been admitted to MD schools. The 3.5/3.6 with 29 on the MCAT most likely got them interviews at MD and DO schools. Did they interview there? If so, I'm willing to guess that they didn't do very well in the interview or their essays or in the end their "whole package" wasn't good enough when the adcomm voted. As a poster above stated, its more than just a numbers game. So it could definately be fair how your friends' situations turned out... Not a crapshoot.

 

[spicedmanna]

No, the application process is not a total "crapshoot." However, it is not utterly predictable, either. I don't think I would be able to actually quantify someone's chances, nor are all the elements quantifiable. There are things that an applicant can do to enhance their chances and options. It can become more predictable on the edges, but if your profile is somewhere in the middle, it's pretty hard to guess; that's most people, naturally. It's always possible to make some educated guess, but, again, I'm always hestant to quantify them.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't know much about DO admissions, but it seems very reasonable with those numbers that your friend would get accepted to a DO school given that there are people who have similar GPAs and a low-end MCAT scores who have been admitted to MD schools. The 3.5/3.6 with 29 on the MCAT most likely got them interviews at MD and DO schools. Did they interview there? If so, I'm willing to guess that they didn't do very well in the interview or their essays or in the end their "whole package" wasn't good enough when the adcomm voted. As a poster above stated, its more than just a numbers game. So it could definately be fair how your friends' situations turned out... Not a crapshoot.

Agreed. In a process where in allo the average is about a 3.5/30 while in DO it is slightly lower, and where in DO the average age is somewhat higher because more deference is reportedly given to post-undergrad accomplishments and less emphasis on some of the traditional stats, this seems pretty consistent, and doesn't really support the crapshoot suggestion. Far better examples exist -- there are always a few people with like 3.7/35 who for a whole variety of reasons (poor or inadequate school selection, bad/too cocky interviewing skills, unimpressive essays, etc) get passed over by admissions.

 

[variablistic]

Agreed. In a process where in allo the average is about a 3.5/30 while in DO it is slightly lower, and where in DO the average age is somewhat higher because more deference is reportedly given to post-undergrad accomplishments and less emphasis on some of the traditional stats, this seems pretty consistent, and doesn't really support the crapshoot suggestion. Far better examples exist -- there are always a few people with like 3.7/35 who for a whole variety of reasons (poor or inadequate school selection, bad/too cocky interviewing skills, unimpressive essays, etc) get passed over by admissions.

Hey! 3.7/35... That's me!

I probably didn't get in because I applied late, to 4 schools (2 reaches), and I completely blew one of my two interviews.

While we can always point to reasons, you have to admit there is some air of unpredictability in admissions for certain people and certain schools.
Similar to Lord Jeebus, a sample size of 1 is unpredictable, where in large numbers, the crapshoot becomes much more predictable.

 

[valiteq]

I applied late... and that almost certainly has something to do with it. but it seemed pretty random to me. some schools were interested and others weren't - it didn't really seem to matter what the average acceptance stats were either (schools with higher stats seemed MORE interested). Yes I got in... and in that sense it fit my prediction. But where I got interviews and where I was accepted... that part was very hard to make sense out of. Oh well.

 

[johnboy12]

There may be a method to the madness. However, whatever objectivity exists is beyond me. With a 36/3.7, decent EC's (lots of clinical exposure, volunteer work, interesting experiences) and what I honestly felt was a strong interview, I received no love from my state school. KDBurton, as a fellow MN resident, wouldn't you have at least hoped for an alternate position?? I am not bitter as I am grateful to have been accepted somewhere, but the whole process has been not at all been what I would have predicted.

 

[littlealex]

Its not really that unpredictable

Well I do think the process is unpredictable, largely because of the differences in the undergraduate institutions as well as what each student get out of a particular volunteering experience.

How do you compare a 3.60 student from MIT to a 3.8 student from UC Irvine, for example? There really is no good way of doing that, because we can't say how one would do in the other's situation.

Further adcoms do judge the level of maturity of a candidate, which isn't exactly a quantifiable quality.


When it comes down to it, its a crapshoot. In fact, if you look at the schools that track their pre-med students such as UMich, you'll realize that many great applicants do not get in anywhere despite their accomplishments.

 

[cleothecat]

Random process if the applicant is in the MCAT 28-30 range regardless of GPA.

Somewhat predictable if you are in the MCAT 35+ ,GPA3.6+ range

 

[glamqueen]

it isn't completely a crap shoot, but how on earth are applicants supposed to know beyond the MSAR what the adcomm's are looking for? Ex. how am I supposed to know that I am what Vandy wants, but I am not what Columbia is looking for that year?

Does anyone want to add to this thread and post what they know various schools are looking for? I, for one, would love to know more people's opinions on Columbia, Dartmouth and Vandy...

 

[riverwoman1040]

Ya but that has nothing to do with predictability or being a "crapshoot". If I had unlimited funds, time, and patience (along with starts that are approximately average), I could reasonably assume that I would get into at least one school. I would be able to apply to every single school. If I was a broke-@$$ that could only afford to apply to one school with the same stats, then I would have a much less chance, statistically, at being admitted. With my stats and the fact that I was financially and otherwise able to apply to 10 schools, I was able to reasonably assume that I would be admitted to at least one school (even though I applied super late). I was right. And I might even have yet another acceptance of a waitlist that I'm on right now. Numerically screening schools will typically tell you what their automatic cutoffs are for numbers if you ask them. That is if they don't already have them posted on their website. If you don't meet those requirements then you shouldn't waste your time applying to those schools. The essays you write on yoru primary AMCAS may not be looked at before the point that they decide to send you a secondary, but they will most likely be accounted for in the "entire package" when the school is deciding whether to invite you for an interview or not. Then when you do get invited for an interview you can come on SDN, read your applications over, think about reasonable questions they might ask and you'll easily be able to assume what kinds of questions they may ask. If, by past experience, you know that you're also a likable person who knows how to talk/interview well on top of knowing what may be asked of you, then you will probably be able to say you did well on the interview. Save one school, I've been able to predict what will happen to my application at every school I applied to.

I believe we have almost identical stats applied to some of the same schools, and I haven't gotten in anywhere. I had good EC's, did the saving babies in a thrid world country thing, and was told that my LOR's were "excellent." Maybe I came off as an idiot in my interviews, but the 4 waitlists I'm on suggest otherwise. I'd say there's a definite element of crapshootyness.

 

[jochi1543]

it isn't completely a crap shoot, but how on earth are applicants supposed to know beyond the MSAR what the adcomm's are looking for? Ex. how am I supposed to know that I am what Vandy wants, but I am not what Columbia is looking for that year?

Yes, let's not forget that schools are looking for diversity (not just in racial/ethnic terms). They'll pick a few career-changers here and there, pick a few non-science majors, pick a few "crappy GPA but survived being homeless" folks, pick a couple of multicultural people, a mom or two, an English PhD, and a couple of 4.0 bio research powerhouses....so in a way, EVERYONE will stand a chance, but you never know if this year they're gonna stay away from your kind of applicant ("guys, we took too many parents last year, they are having a hard time balancing family with academics") or want you ("guys, we've got too many folks who have no clue how to deal with people of foreign descent, let's take some foreign language/international studies majors and multicultural students to bring in some fresh blood").

 

[glamqueen]

jochi1543 - I agree with that too, and all we can hope is we win out when we apply...how frustrating? Still hoping people know of even abstract trends that they want to share with schools....

 

[GymClassHero]

How do you compare a 3.60 student from MIT to a 3.8 student from UC Irvine, for example? There really is no good way of doing that, because we can't say how one would do in the other's situation.

Call me crazy, but I'd start by comparing their MCAT scores.

 

[cleothecat]

MCAT reflects test taking skills in some individuals, just as it is a reflection of knowledge. in other instituions.

In any institution there will be students with High GPA and average MCATs, as well a students with Average GPA and High MCATS.

With individual students, MCAT scores can vary by 1-2 points per section up or down, despite extra preparation.

If there is significant intra-institutional variation, how can you use MCATS as a means of inter-institutional comparison?

With intra-individual variability so significant in MCATS, we should wonder how relevant it is as a predictor of individual abilities.

 

[Kikaku21]

The process is quasi random.

With a certain GPA/MCAT, you have a certain chance of getting in. All of the subjective stuff (LORs, ECs, PS, etc) weighs in as well, but we don't know how. The subjective stuff makes it appear to be random from the view of the applicant. As Law2Doc said, however, it is not random if you know what the ADCOMs want to "round out" their class. Loosely, its like Roulette. If you KNEW the initial velocity, direction, mass, etc of the marble, you could EXACTLY calculate the final resting place of the marble. Since this information is not obtainable, it is "random" to the observer. I think of medical school apps sort of like this. The nice part is, if we increase our GPA/MCAT, our chance of admission goes up, so the random component is inversely proportional to scores.

 

[45408]

With intra-individual variability so significant in MCATS, we should wonder how relevant it is as a predictor of individual abilities.

What does the S stand for in MCATS?

 

[notdeadyet]

The medical school application process is not random. It's subjective, not a crapshoot.

I guess this notion of a totally objective application process probably comes from when folks were 17 or 18 and applying to undergrad? I don't know.

But the med school admissions process is no more "a crapshoot" than most application processes you're going to hit in life, so it's probably best to get used to it. For folks that are blown away by how "random" med school admissions are, you might get a wake-up call when you apply for jobs. Everything reduced to letter grades (with the exception of credit ratings and the like) pretty much ends with college. It's a pretty subjective world.

 

[postbacker]

There are some random hurdles...for instance, your chances can be affected by which adcom member reads your app, which interviewer you get, etc. A different file reader, or a different interviewer, could yield a different result, all else being equal...

 

[notdeadyet]

There are some random hurdles...for instance, your chances can be affected by which adcom member reads your app, which interviewer you get, etc. A different file reader, or a different interviewer, could yield a different result, all else being equal...

Sure. Just like a job interview. Or an application to a great apartment. Or replying to a singles ad. Pretty much like everything else in life.

 

[xanthomondo]

I would definitely say the application process has crapshoot tendencies.

I have a 3.6 and 33 (balanced), with a whole lot of research (with 10+ presentations, some awards) and a whole bunch of volunteering

and i have no acceptances, didnt even receive an interview from schools that are not that great (nymc, for example)

 

[trichomoniasis]

What does the S stand for in MCATS?

sexytime?

 

[FemalesCANTDriv]

Random process if the applicant is in the MCAT 28-30 range regardless of GPA.

Somewhat predictable if you are in the MCAT 35+ ,GPA3.6+ range

Not true. Check my mdapps for the proof.

 

[doinmybest5840]

Somewhat predictable if you are in the MCAT 35+ ,GPA3.6+ range

From what I've seen on this site and heard from other applicants, I think this depends on where the person applies. If you only apply to the top 10 med schools, your chances of getting in somewhere are lower than if you apply more broadly to say, schools within the top and middle tier.

 

[musiclink213]

I'd say it is a crapshoot. Last year, I applied and didn't get a single interview. My GPA was average, 3.5 and I had a 29 on the MCAT. I wrote a killer PS according to everyone who read it, I ahd some unique ECs that I put a lot of time into, but didn't get one interview. Meanwhile, I knew people with 27's and 28's and around the same GPA getting interviews and getting in. And I can't blame poor interviewing skills, I actually interview quite well, I just didn't have any to show my skills off at. I'd say it's crapshootish.

 

[45408]

I would definitely say the application process has crapshoot tendencies.

I have a 3.6 and 33 (balanced), with a whole lot of research (with 10+ presentations, some awards) and a whole bunch of volunteering

and i have no acceptances, didnt even receive an interview from schools that are not that great (nymc, for example)

For people like yourself, there are a number of possibilities. Perhaps the person who reviewed your application didn't find it interesting/inspiring/convincing, or they found it insulting. Maybe they felt that your career goals are not in line with the school's mission. Perhaps they felt that your application was missing something (clinical experience, leadership activities, non-academic interests, etc), or there was something in one of your LORs that hurt your app.

People who get rejected after an interview usually can't call that a crapshoot, because at that point, they were able to show the school everything they had to offer. At that point, the school either has better candidates than you or they just don't feel that you're a good fit/ready for med school/going to be a good doctor.


If you want to know why you didn't get in, try contacting each school in May/June, when they'll be less busy than the rest of the year. Some schools will tell you.

 

[45408]

I'd say it is a crapshoot. Last year, I applied and didn't get a single interview. My GPA was average, 3.5 and I had a 29 on the MCAT. I wrote a killer PS according to everyone who read it, I ahd some unique ECs that I put a lot of time into, but didn't get one interview. Meanwhile, I knew people with 27's and 28's and around the same GPA getting interviews and getting in. And I can't blame poor interviewing skills, I actually interview quite well, I just didn't have any to show my skills off at. I'd say it's crapshootish.

Maybe you applied to too few schools or the wrong schools, or you applied too late. Maybe one of your LORs was a hinderance.

 

[Jacks Mannequin]

I was just disappointed to find out the origins of the word crapshoot had nothing to do with crap at all.

 

[JohnMadden]

I don't believe the process is a "crapshoot".

From my limited experience on SDN, it seems that most people who refer to the admissions process as a crapshoot have had admissions outcomes different from what they expected or predicted.

I think it is somewhat presumptuous to say: I had a 3.5/30, "amazing" ECs and a "strong" personal statement, but didn't get an interview/acceptance so it MUST be a crapshoot.

Would it be better if all applicants were ranked by MCAT scores and the top 150 get automatic acceptances to Harvard, the next 120 to Hopkins, etc? And the only way you could go to a higher ranked school is if someone who is higher ranked decides to go to a lower ranked school?

 

[Nomemory]

It would make more sense if they said "the whole process is crap."

 

[soulspokn]

Well I do think the process is unpredictable, largely because of the differences in the undergraduate institutions as well as what each student get out of a particular volunteering experience.

How do you compare a 3.60 student from MIT to a 3.8 student from UC Irvine, for example? There really is no good way of doing that, because we can't say how one would do in the other's situation.

Further adcoms do judge the level of maturity of a candidate, which isn't exactly a quantifiable quality.


When it comes down to it, its a crapshoot. In fact, if you look at the schools that track their pre-med students such as UMich, you'll realize that many great applicants do not get in anywhere despite their accomplishments.

go Irvine! 4th year here, applying for 2008 admit. Zot Zot!

 

[StringerBell]

Somoene must have said this once and now there is an epidemic of the use of the term "crapshoot" when describing the med school application procress. Why do people keep saying this. I actually get annoyed for some reason... Its not really that unpredictable

Yeah! Why give craps such a bad name?
Craps has some of the best odds in the casino.

For example, backing up a pass-line bet with an odds bet actually gives you true odds on your money. How many times can you actually say that in a casino? The only percentage the casino has in its favor is the original pass line bet. Find a table that lets you place 10x odds!

Also, never bet the Big 6 and Big 8. Those are sucker bets. They pay even money. A $6 bet on the Big 6 or Big 8 wins you $6. A $6 place bet on the 6 or 8, on the other hand, wins you $7. Now why on earth would you want to place a Big 6/Big 8 bet after knowing that?

The "Field" bet is an attractive bet because you see all those numbers out there, plus the potential of a 2x payout on a 2 (snake eyes) or a 3x payout on a 12 (boxcars.) But even taking into consideration those extra payouts, you're still going to finish just slightly less than "even" in the long run.

Those are just some of the things to guide you through the process of playing craps. However, the medical school admissions process is far less predictable.

 

[Funky]

Yeah! Why give craps such a bad name?
Craps has some of the best odds in the casino.

For example, backing up a pass-line bet with an odds bet actually gives you true odds on your money. How many times can you actually say that in a casino? The only percentage the casino has in its favor is the original pass line bet. Find a table that lets you place 10x odds!

Also, never bet the Big 6 and Big 8. Those are sucker bets. They pay even money. A $6 bet on the Big 6 or Big 8 wins you $6. A $6 place bet on the 6 or 8, on the other hand, wins you $7. Now why on earth would you want to place a Big 6/Big 8 bet after knowing that?

The "Field" bet is an attractive bet because you see all those numbers out there, plus the potential of a 2x payout on a 2 (snake eyes) or a 3x payout on a 12 (boxcars.) But even taking into consideration those extra payouts, you're still going to finish just slightly less than "even" in the long run.

Those are just some of the things to guide you through the process of playing craps. However, the medical school admissions process is far less predictable.

You can lose a lot of money really fast playing craps. On some days every roll is a 7 and your money just goes down the drain.

 

[StringerBell]

You can lose a lot of money really fast playing craps. On some days every roll is a 7 and your money just goes down the drain.

Sounds like you've played craps on some of the days that I have.

 

[musiclink213]

Maybe you applied to too few schools or the wrong schools, or you applied too late. Maybe one of your LORs was a hinderance.

I actually went to speak with the deans of several schools I was interested in but rejected me, just to see what I could do to improve my application. They all told me that I applied a bit late (August MCAT) but that people were still getting in iwth August MCATs. I had everything in, but was just waiting for the scores to come in in October. So it probably is possible that I applied too late, but people with 29's were getting in from the August MCAT>

They were all surprised that I wasn't getting into my state schools. THey all said judging by my application, they thought that Downstate would give me at least an interview, since I'm from the area, and did a lot of work in hospitals around the area, and apparently, my stats were right around their average. Definitly wasn't my LORs. Although Downstate must really hate me, they rejected me really early this time around as well.

 

[rakeon]

sorry for bumping this thread up, but i didn't want to start a new thread when this thread was exactly what i wanted to say.

i don't believe the application is a crapshoot. it's certainly not random, i think better words for it are competitive, subjective, complicated, but certainly not random!

if it was random, that means everyone who applied had an equal chance of getting in, which is not true. maybe to an individual, it appears random when X got in with low stats and Y got rejected with great stats, but if you look at all the applicants, there is a trend, certain cutoffs, volunteer, etc etc.

to sum it up. maybe i just hate the word crapshoot. before coming to this forum, i've never heard the application process being described as a crapshoot, but it seems like that word spreads like a virus from thread to thread.

along with some other stuff i've seen ("if i wanted money, i'd do ibanking!, "omg you're an idiot! are you a doctor? if not than your arguments have no validity", "doctor's don't make any money!" etc)

maybe i'm just tired of reading posts that spread so called "pre-med truths and golden rules", i'd just like to see people think for themselves for once before they decide to adopt words like crapshoot as their opinions

 

[QuantumMechanic]

i don't believe the application is a crapshoot. it's certainly not random, i think better words for it are competitive, subjective, complicated, but certainly not random!

if it was random, that means everyone who applied had an equal chance of getting in, which is not true. maybe to an individual, it appears random when X got in with low stats and Y got rejected with great stats, but if you look at all the applicants, there is a trend, certain cutoffs, volunteer, etc etc.

to sum it up. maybe i just hate the word crapshoot. before coming to this forum, i've never heard the application process being described as a crapshoot, but it seems like that word spreads like a virus from thread to thread.

There are trends for the aggregate applicant pool, but its a crapshoot because it is one to the individaul (just as in a game of craps, there is randomness in one throw of the die as opposed to overall probabilities of certain outcomes).

Its a crapshoot because you don't know who else is applying (e.g. there might be another applicant who is just like you, which makes you lose your allure of 'uniqueness'). The whims of the adcom on a particular day may make your application appealing or make it unattractive.

Its a crapshoot because you cannot say that you will get into X school or won't get into Y school. The process is too subjective to have such certainty. For example, I applied to 8 top tier schools and got into one...if you would've told me that this time last year, I would have had no idea which school it would have been, I would probably only be able to narrow out three of those schools. That is why we refer to this is a crapshoot.

 

[fever106]

If you have a 3.9 and a 35+ on the MCAT, along with some decent ECs, you can be pretty much assured that you will get into one of the high ranked med schools (assuming you apply on time and do ok at the interview). If you have a 2.5 and a 27, you can be pretty certain that you won't be accepted to an MD school (unless you won the nobel prize or something, and even then it's a long shot). The question is, what happens to the people in between? There is some rationale for the whole process, but it is not always clear. The fact of the matter is, most med schools end up with a gigantic pile of applicants with solid numbers, respectable ECs, and stellar letters of rec. How do they choose? Each school has its own set of ideal criteria that they try to match. They all have demographics they want to fill, and specific student "types" that they want to place in their classes. In the end, without fail each school ends up with a few duds...a few people of flunk or drop out, or simply piss off every single one of their fellow classmates the minute they appear on campus. It sucks...the whole process sucks...I have a few things I would change if I could...

1. Only interview a small % more than you are willing to accept. I think that if you have to spend all that money on travel and lodgings, and take all that time off from school or work, you should have something like a 80% chance of acceptance. Lets face it...the interview plays a very small part in the decision making. One interview I flew all the way across country for was conducted by another med student! At another school that I was interviewed at, the professor told me I was the best person he had interviewed all year and that he would make a personal pull for me...waitlisted and later rejected. The interview helps them weed out a few of the really offensive, creepy people that really would be misfits, but otherwise, everyone is on their best behavior.

2. No more rolling admissions. I think there should be one date by which all of your stuff is due. People should not get an advantage for getting their stuff in a few weeks earlier. Some people have to work or travel over the summer and they can't turn over 25 secondaries in 48 hours. Other people have professors who take extra time on letters of rec. All applicants should be compared against one another at the same time, and all decisions should be made by a single date.

3. Do away with secondary essays. I understand they need to collect secondary fees to pay for their new research facilities...but come on! I already told you everything you need to know in my PS...those dumb essays are just redundant. Don't they realize that people just recycle them from multiple schools whenever they can?

just my opinion

 

[Timmythemic22]

This whole process is crap. Trust me.

 

[DianaUT06]

This whole process is crap. Trust me.

Well said.