Top ten programs...what does it take?

[GeddyLee]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

So I'm just wondering, for those of you who have received interview offers at top 10 programs, what does it take? Of those top 10 quoted by ophthalmology times, I applied to Wilmer, Bascom Palmer, Wills, Duke, and Emory. I haven't heard a word from any of them. Do you think they only invite AOA's?

Also, do you think being rejected from very good programs, which are not top 10, such as Baylor, Southwestern, Vanderbilt, is a bad omen for my chances at interviews at top 10 programs?

What do you guys think about the competetiveness this year? I thought my application was pretty strong, minus the AOA, but it has met resistance at the more competetive places. Anyway, I'll sure be glad when this process is done....waiting sure is becoming painful!

I just wonder how they make decisions....are all you Baylor, U-Wisconsin, and Duke interviewees AOA? Md/PhD? I'm dying to know who is getting interviews at these places.

 

[Redhawk]

Nobody has heard from the programs you have mentioned, except apparently Duke which just offered in the last few days.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by GeddyLee
So I'm just wondering, for those of you who have received interview offers at top 10 programs, what does it take? Of those top 10 quoted by ophthalmology times, I applied to Wilmer, Bascom Palmer, Wills, Duke, and Emory. I haven't heard a word from any of them. Do you think they only invite AOA's?

Also, do you think being rejected from very good programs, which are not top 10, such as Baylor, Southwestern, Vanderbilt, is a bad omen for my chances at interviews at top 10 programs?

What do you guys think about the competetiveness this year? I thought my application was pretty strong, minus the AOA, but it has met resistance at the more competetive places. Anyway, I'll sure be glad when this process is done....waiting sure is becoming painful!

I just wonder how they make decisions....are all you Baylor, U-Wisconsin, and Duke interviewees AOA? Md/PhD? I'm dying to know who is getting interviews at these places.

GeddyLee,

I think AOA helps alot. I also think MD-PhD helps greatly when applying for a top ten spot (minus certain programs like Wills who favor the individuals with less of a research goal).

It also helps to have done something that makes you unique from the pack, i.e. starting a successful business, nationally accomplished musician, unqiue experiences with international medicine, etc... At Iowa last year, the admissions team reviewed over 60 applications with 250+ Step I scores. Clearly, Iowa didn't interview only people with 250+ scores. However, there was only 60 spots for interview. At the most competitive programs, it takes more than just perfect grades and board scores to get an interview. I think it requires something on your application that helps to make you stand out. This "something" could even be a letter of recommendation from a well-known and respected ophthalmologist who states: "This applicant is the best student that I have ever worked with".
This is what Wilmer states about their applicants:

1. Outstanding college and medical school academic records.
2. Board scores above the 90th percentile.
3. Evidence of academic potential as indicated by authorship (especially first-authored) of at least one scientific article (ideally, concerning an ophthalmologic subject) in a peer-reviewed journal.
4. Evidence of commitment to ophthalmology as indicated by involvement (research, electives, etc.) in the ophthalmology department at their medical school.
5. For foreign medical graduates, at least the 90th percentile on the ECFMG examinations.

For Wilmer, the program is looking for academic potential. Very few people have first-authored publications and they've listed this as one of five criteria.

It's a tough process, and seems somewhat random at times.

Good luck!

 

[nystagmus]

Maybe I can lend some insight to this topic.

The better offers I have received so far are--

1. U Penn (Scheie)
2. Wash U.
3. Stanford
4. Baylor - did away rotation here
5. UT-Southwestern

However, rejected from U Chicago and Northwestern.

I can tell you that what Ophtho_Mudphud said is most likely correct. Top programs probably look for something that makes an applicant "stand out."

As far as my credentials go, grades are actually my weak spot. I made only 2 honors and 3 high pass grades in basic sciences. Clinical grades were half H, half HP. So obviously I am not AOA. I made 240's on Step 1.

But, I do have one first authored and one second authored publication in a basic science journal (J Biol Chem). Plus I presented a poster at ARVO last year. I am not MD/PhD, nor do I have a masters.

My letters (from respected but not big names) emphasize my potential as a physician-scientist.

I have no weird hobbies, nor am I a virtuoso in a "normal" hobby.

So you can use that as your measuring stick. Of course, all programs will look for slightly different things.

To quote an admissions faculty at my school, applicants with good grades, boards, and even AOA are "a dime a dozen." Ophtho_Mudphud has made this apparent. So I guess it must take something else to set you apart. From this you could probably say, having a little icing on your cake can take you a long way.

 

[nyeyes]

to add some light: I have yet to hear from top 10 schools i applied 2, and have yet to be rejected from a program. I am AOA at my school and have gotten mostly H's through med school, scored 245 on step I. no MD/PHD or research in med school, but recently submitted a paper as 1st author to the journal Biochem from some undergrad resaerch i did. not sure where this places me as far as competitiveness as an applicant, but just for comparison purposes. I think the bottom line is who picks up ur application, and in what kind of mood they r in that day.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by nyeyes
I think the bottom line is who picks up ur application, and in what kind of mood they r in that day.

In part, this process is very subjective. However, there are a few things that help applicants to be noticed when compared to the rest.

Getting an interview is all about increasing your probability of being noticed. It's analogous to the probability of having a particular disease or syndrome. For instance, if you have A, B, C, D, and E then you have a 95% of having the disease. It's never 100% but it's definitely better than 0%.

Similarly, if you have qualities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 then you're 90% likely to get an interview, but because the process is subjective, there's the 10% chance the person reviewing your application will say no for one reason or another. On the flip side, if you only have qualities 1 and 2, then you're only 10% likely to get an interview. Not zero but a far cry from 90%.

Even for the most competitive candidate, there is never a 100% guarantee that a particular candidate will receive an interview. A real life example is my friend (the almost "perfect" applicant) who was a better applicant than me (not the most competitive applicant). I received an invite to MEEI and he did not. He received an invite to Wills and I did not.

I never wanted to go to Wills anyhow! 🙂

The positive side to all this is that once you receive the interview, then it's a completely different ball game. Your interview performance and impression will be the greatest factor to matching. Charisma, enthusiasm, and personality will go a long ways during the interview process!

Good luck!

 

[JSEI]

Speaking as a resident from Jules Stein, while board scores, AOA, top grades at a major medical school are key ingredient for success it is also important to have the support of faculty. Most of my colleagues, but not all, worked with faculty at the Jules Stein in some form as student. Many have done research electives, advance clinical electives or subspecialty electives such as Neurophthalmology or Ophthalmic Pathology. It seems that it is very important for the selection committee to be sure that student is well known to some member of the faculty. However, there are many residents who did not work with any faculty.

 

[DOCTORSAIB]

Speaking as a resident from Jules Stein, while board scores, AOA, top grades at a major medical school are key ingredient for success it is also important to have the support of faculty. Most of my colleagues, but not all, worked with faculty at the Jules Stein in some form as student. Many have done research electives, advance clinical electives or subspecialty electives such as Neurophthalmology or Ophthalmic Pathology. It seems that it is very important for the selection committee to be sure that student is well known to some member of the faculty. However, there are many residents who did not work with any faculty.

Do you ever get any DO applicants at Jules Stein? What about other top 10 programs? If so, are they evaluated differently (aka discriminated against) assuming they're strong in every category (Step 1, grades, LOR's, research, personality, interesting talent, etc)?

Most of the competitive kids in my class want to do ortho, derm, or rads and most of them are sticking to osteopathic residencies only. I'm the only gung-ho ophtho freak that's likely to venture out into the allopathic residencies...depending on my USMLE Step 1, of course.

 

[Visioncam]

Do you ever get any DO applicants at Jules Stein? What about other top 10 programs? .

When I interviewed there, I was one of only 2 from not so famous medical schools.

They probably made a mistake and accidentally threw my file into the "to interview" file instead of the "idiot circular file" which was placed nearby. 😀

 

[PDT4CNV]

Focus on strong programs, good training, not "top ten" status. Those rankings are not that reliable. Some highly ranked programs offer low surgical numbers, poor clinical training.

 

[babyblue_39]

To be honest, I've been shocked and surprised to get the interview opportunities that I've gotten. I'm non-AOA w/ a solid but not stellar academic record from an unranked school w/ a solid Ophtho department who didn't know I was interested in Ophtho till March/April of this year. Thankfully, I got some research published during med school, but otherwise that was the only thing going for me. I had done no aways.

While I haven't swept the interviews at the top-ranked institutions, I know others from my school in prior classes who had essentially the same numbers as me (if not better) and had actual research in Ophtho (w/ some big name guys) who didn't get a single interview from the west coast. Knowing that, I decided not to "waste my money" applying to most of the west coast and California programs except my favorites and was shocked to receive them all (in addition to Iowa, Michigan, Scheie, Emory, Baylor, blah blah blah 😴 ).

I can only credit this to 2 things:
1. LORs which were apparently EXTREMELY strong (from the feedback I'm hearing during my interviews) including a LOR from a well known/well respected Opthalmologist (probably the most important).
2. Strong record of service and leadership (something to make me unique)

I don't think I'm an applicant that appeals to the MEEIs and Wilmers out there. My application reads like a strong "clinical" applicant. I applied to 44 programs, received 31 interview offers, and am doing 14. And I hope that the interviews really do mean as much as Dr. Doan is saying because I definitely need my "charisma and personality" to bridge the gap between my solid academic record and the phenomenal academic record of those superstars out there who are doing the Ophthalmology Times Top Residency Programs Tour. I am humbled and honored by every invitation I've received.

For future applicants, I think another important thing is to stop focusing on all that you lack and start selling everything you've got. I'm finding that you never know whose interested in buying.

 

[xaelia]

...entertaining to see that we're still the same neurotic "what are my chances?" fools that we all thought we'd left so far behind in the Pre-Allopathic forum. If MDapplicants.com has shown me everything, its that numbers are, of course, part of the story, but personal attributes and the simple entropy and chaos of the universe represent a significant portion of the equation. Clearly, that does not agree with our undeniable control-freak natures.... 😉