Top tier schools: unattainable?

[LINK1290]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I posted this in my WAMC thread, but I thought I'd post it here as well since it's more of a general post and doesn't necessarily pertain to asking about my own chances:

Tonight I found out that browsing mdapplicants.com is a pretty good way to depress yourself. 🙁

I find it increasingly hard to believe that there are so many instances where people with

-3.97 GPA
-39 MCAT
-all the extracurriculars and research in the world

...get rejected consistently from the majority of top tier schools they apply to. I'm beginning to wonder why the average stats of matriculants at those schools aren't 4.0 GPA and 43 MCAT. How is it that the averages, instead, are 3.8-3.9 GPA and 35-36 MCAT? Is luck really THAT big of a factor in getting admitted? I mean, I know that there are more to applicants than numbers, but you'd think that an applicant with godly stats well above the purported averages would know how to conduct himself or herself in a bloody interview.

Meh. I know nobody gets in EVERYWHERE, but I get more discouraged every day--especially with only my 3.89 GPA, 36 MCAT, and two measly semesters of relatively humble research.

 

[UnfeatyOblation]

Is luck really THAT big of a factor in getting admitted?

Yup.

 

[dw2158]

also mdapps is not a 100% reliable source of info. trust the msar.

 

[not so calm now]

I posted this in my WAMC thread, but I thought I'd post it here as well since it's more of a general post and doesn't necessarily pertain to asking about my own chances:

Tonight I found out that browsing mdapplicants.com is a pretty good way to depress yourself. 🙁

I find it increasingly hard to believe that there are so many instances where people with

-3.97 GPA
-39 MCAT
-all the extracurriculars and research in the world

...get rejected consistently from the majority of top tier schools they apply to. I'm beginning to wonder why the average stats of matriculants at those schools aren't 4.0 GPA and 43 MCAT. How is it that the averages, instead, are 3.8-3.9 GPA and 35-36 MCAT? Is luck really THAT big of a factor in getting admitted? I mean, I know that there are more to applicants than numbers, but you'd think that an applicant with godly stats well above the purported averages would know how to conduct himself or herself in a bloody interview.

Meh. I know nobody gets in EVERYWHERE, but I get more discouraged every day--especially with only my 3.89 GPA, 36 MCAT, and two measly semesters of relatively humble research.

I would conclude that mdapps is not a representative sample.

 

[afugazzi]

I think it really is luck. The top-tier schools are used to seeing 39 MCAT, 3.97, all the extracurriculars in the world. Those students aren't anything special to them. They're probably all looking for their own special "it" factor, and that translates into luck on the student's end. I imagine they treat GPA and MCAT more like a cutoff: unless you cured cancer, you need at least a 35 and 3.8 to be considered, and then numbers don't matter as much after that. But that's just my guess from my own experience. I really have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[movax]

Maybe the 3.9/39 people 1) confused adcoms with very similar numbers in GPA and MCAT, 2) went streaking, or dropped trou or something at their interview, 3) bit the head of a dove in front of the adcom, Ozzy style.

Interview's a big part of it too...and a lot of mdapps don't include how the person felt about their interview (just includes the fact that they got an interview somewhere).

 

[SirGecko]

Interview's a big part of it too

+1

There is some luck involved but I think some people blame luck a little too much when sometimes it is the interview that actually determined who got in.

 

[Naijaba]

I'm beginning to wonder why the average stats of matriculants at those schools aren't 4.0 GPA and 43 MCAT. How is it that the averages, instead, are 3.8-3.9 GPA and 35-36 MCAT?

Meh. I know nobody gets in EVERYWHERE, but I get more discouraged every day--especially with only my 3.89 GPA, 36 MCAT, and two measly semesters of relatively humble research.

First off you have an excellent GPA and a great MCAT score. Those two alone put you in the top 1-3% of applicants (despite what SDN may make you believe). In terms of your average GPA question, I don't know if you're aware but there just aren't that many applicants with 4.0 GPAs and 43 MCATs. According to the new AMCAS grid...

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgpa-grid-3yrs-app-accpt.htm

...about 304 applicants per year had both a 3.8+ GPA and a 39+ MCAT. Now if the top ten schools have about 80-150 matriculants, that means 800-1500 spaces. Granted there are many applicants with sub 3.6 GPAs and 39+ MCATs, and vice-versa...but if you want a high matriculant average GPA and high average MCAT, then there just aren't enough applicants to choose from.

 

[LizzyM]

Not every excellent applicant is going to get an interview everywhere and sometimes it is due to being misinformed about admissions. I know one such applicant: admitted to Harvard and Hopkins but didn't get an interview at U Washington (OOS).

What you don't see on med apps is the essays, LORs and the interviews. Some of the essays seem obscessed with academic achievement (some when asked about something of which they are most proud will detail how they studied for the MCAT rather than take the opportunity to write more about a research project or a community service project or a family situation). I've also seen some who seem drawn to medicine because they crave the adulation that they see patients lavish on their doctors or the respect that physicians get in the hospital. We get LORs that tell us that the student is grade-grubbing and disinterested in the material, half-hearted about responsibilities in the lab, quiet in the classroom and absent at office hours, etc. Among those interviewed I've seen one who sat slumped over with his chin in his hands, a few who had the same answer for every question (usually tied to an hobby or advocation in an attempt to appear interested in more than medicine but it begins to sound like a broken record when the answer to every question is "mountain biking"), and some who made no eye contact and who seem a little scary/anitsocial. And I won't even get into the rare instance of someone who is good on paper but has a black mark for cheating on an exam or other serious academic misconduct.

Long answer but true... applicants are more than numbers and some that look good quantitatively are not admissible for other reasons.

 

[vin5cent0]

Why does everyone let everything come down to luck on here? I know it's hard to believe, but often times people with 4.0's/40+ MCATs aren't the best interviewers and whatnot. Two of my good friends who go to Ivy league schools are probably two of the dumbest in our group of friends when it comes to common sense and conversational skills. It's not that unusual... I'd much rather have a balanced 3.6/33 MCAT applicant who was well rounded and a good speaker when I interviewed him than a 4.0/42 who had trouble looking me in the eye, speaking easily around me, etc etc.

 

[dw2158]

Why does everyone let everything come down to luck on here? I know it's hard to believe, but often times people with 4.0's/40+ MCATs aren't the best interviewers and whatnot. Two of my good friends who go to Ivy league schools are probably two of the dumbest in our group of friends when it comes to common sense and conversational skills. It's not that unusual... I'd much rather have a balanced 3.6/33 MCAT applicant who was well rounded and a good speaker when I interviewed him than a 4.0/42 who had trouble looking me in the eye, speaking easily around me, etc etc.

because there are quite simply too many qualified people to admit into any given medical school.

also i kind of resent your implication that people with very high GPAs and MCAT scores are socially inept tools, and people with slightly lower scores are wonderful, well-rounded, caring people. there are socially inept tools in both categories and wonderful people in both categories. plus, even the socially inept tools deserve a chance.

 

[NickNaylor]

First, MDApps is far from accurate. As someone else said previously, use the MSAR for more accurate data. MDApps is not representative of the entire applicant pool. It's a somewhat useful tool, but it shouldn't be the only basis for gauging whether or not you think you can get into a particular school.

About the luck thing, I think there's probably a very small amount of luck involved in the process. The application process simply has so many random variables involved that there's no way to tell whether or not you "should" be accepted. The luck aspect - for example, how your interviewer is feeling, the particular person that looks at your primary/secondary, etc. - you can't do anything about. But MDApps or the MSAR doesn't include information about more subjective qualities, which, I would hope, are more important. If you were interviewing applicants, wouldn't you place more value in attributes than can't necessarily be measured over hard test numbers? I know I would.

Sure, there's some "luck," but I doubt enough to cause someone who "should" get in not to.

 

[plsletmein]

Sure, there's some "luck," but I doubt enough to cause someone who "should" get in not to.

With thousands of applicants and <200 seats, I'm sure a lot of people who "should" get in unluckily don't

 

[greatnt249]

plus, even the socially inept tools deserve a chance.

That would be the point of the interview...

 

[NickNaylor]

With thousands of applicants and <200 seats, I'm sure a lot of people who "should" get in unluckily don't

This is the reality of the process unfortunately. However, a top tier applicant will get into a top tier school SOMEWHERE. Maybe not the school of their choice, but a top tier school nonetheless.

 

[Kong Bu]

I'm glad this thread was made in all honesty.

I just wonder what kind of students get into top-tier schools as well. I mean, the impression I get is that many of us feel that no matter *what* our stats are, any of the top 10 schools are a far reach and we believe that we won't make it.

Maybe it is just luck. As dw2158 said, there are just too many applicants out there. You'll never know if you're good enough for one school or another.

The mysteriousness of it all is the depressing part 🙁.

 

[Law2Doc]

With thousands of applicants and <200 seats, I'm sure a lot of people who "should" get in unluckily don't

Agreed. THE best applicant numerically will get rejected from at least some places. Nobody gets interviews everywhere and those that get lots of interviews will not turn them all into acceptances. EVERY YEAR there are a number of people with amazing numerical stats who don't get into many (and sometimes any) programs. Why? Because it's not an all about the numbers process. This doesn't mean it's about luck, but rather about forms of skill that have nothing to do with scoring high on the MCAT. It's a lot about good fit, and coming off well at the interview. And the law of diminishing returns making your 3.9/40 not considered better than someone else's 3.8/37. The best schools are getting thousands of applicants, and generally have about 150 seats. There will be 5-6 times as many people as seats that would be considered top applicants. And things like the interview end up weighted more than anything else once you pass the threshold of acceptability. So the dude who has the best grades now has to have the better interview than the people who are numerically at their heels, or otherwise show that s/he is a better fit, or else s/he is SOL. A huge mistake premeds make is thinking this is totally a by the numbers process, or that the interview is merely meant to weed out the crazies. In fact the numbers get you into the final cut, but the non-numeric factors generally are what lets the adcoms choose between the thousand people with impressive numbers. So no, they aren't saying this guy has a 40 MCAT so he gets chosen before this person with a 37. They are saying this group of people has, say, 36 and above (just making up the threshold, each school will have a different one), so from them, which ones are the best fit for the school. And so, no it's not luck, and no it's not by the numbers, it's a very definite methodology, but one you cannot really predict because you don't know what other people in the applicant pool have going for them, and you don't know who wowed the adcoms with their non-academic things and interview. So not random, but you as an applicant don't have adequate data to determine who's going to win or lose, so it might seem that way. Bottom line is you have to apply a bit broadly because there are many factors you won't know how well will be received and would be a fool to figure that numerical stats are the end of the inquiry.

And I agree MDApplicants.com is not the place to get valid data -- there is little to prevent fake profiles and fibbing.

 

[DRIN]

also mdapps is not a 100% reliable source of info. trust the msar.

An even better source is usnews.com which has the actual stats from those that make up the first year class as opposed to the stats of all that were accepted at a given school.

 

[LINK1290]

Thanks for all the responses so far. Keep them coming.

To those above who say that mdapps isn't really the most reliable resource, I certainly understand. It just seems baffling that students would falsify grades, scores, and activities, only to tell the truth about getting rejected and waitlisted by almost every top tier school they applied to.

Then again, some mdapps users may be telling the truth, and the rejections may have resulted from factors like essays, LORs, and interviews. Like I said before, however, it just seems that students who have put so much effort in studying and researching would also perfect their essays and prepare for interviews with the same effort.

Maybe I'm assuming too much.

 

[Narmerguy]

An even better source is usnews.com which has the actual stats from those that make up the first year class as opposed to the stats of all that were accepted at a given school.

I would say the latter is more useful. The former simply tells you who chose to attend the school but not whom the school was willing to accept.

I would say that people fail to realize that there's a lot of different strengths different applicants have. Once you've got high numbers, that puts you at a certain threshold with the other applicants. At that point, numbers aren't that useful but it's the "wow" factors that you possess: unique life experiences, unique research experiences, unique extra curriculars.

High stats are always nice but you won't elicit a "wow" from anyone. It's the (relatively) unique attributes of the applicants that all have great numbers that distinguish each other. I'm skeptical that luck is as prevalent as people would have you believe on this thread.

 

[greatnt249]

Thanks for all the responses so far. Keep them coming.

To those above who say that mdapps isn't really the most reliable resource, I certainly understand. It just seems baffling that students would falsify grades, scores, and activities, only to tell the truth about getting rejected and waitlisted by almost every top tier school they applied to.

Then again, some mdapps users may be telling the truth, and the rejections may have resulted from factors like essays, LORs, and interviews. Like I said before, however, it just seems that students who have put so much effort in studying and researching would also perfect their essays and prepare for interviews with the same effort.

Maybe I'm assuming too much.

I don't know if there's a lot who fake their scores on MDApps; rather, MDApps is more likely to draw in those with higher numbers who feel comfortable posting them for the public to see.

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't know if there's a lot who fake their scores on MDApps; rather, MDApps is more likely to draw in those with higher numbers who feel comfortable posting them for the public to see.

I definitely think this is true. I don't think there are a lot of faked profiles, but if you look at some of them with any sort of detail, you can definitely tell they're not real.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't know if there's a lot who fake their scores on MDApps; rather, MDApps is more likely to draw in those with higher numbers who feel comfortable posting them for the public to see.

Well, you have both of these things on MDApps -- (1) fake profiles, generally created by folks who for whatever reason find it funny to create an applicant with amazingly poor stats who gets in everywhere or someone with amazingly great stats who gets in no-where. It's the same mindset as the folks who create troll personas on SDN, and there are many. (2) self selecting group -- only people proud of their stats will create a profile, so you never get to see how the "real" applicants fare. Finally, there is (3) the folks who augment certain aspects of their profile, or leave out some of the obvious blemishes. So the dude with the high stats who gets in no-where might leave out the fact that he was caught cheating, or arrested etc., or the dude with a 3.2 GPA might adjust it to what he "plans" it to be once the next set of grades are in -- something that may never happen.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

i'll be honest, I have the same feeling as the OP. I feel like getting into Hopkins and Harvard are almost deemed "impossible", but the more you look at other peoples stats/ EC's you can't help but feel intimidated.

 

[Law2Doc]

i'll be honest, I have the same feeling as the OP. I feel like getting into Hopkins and Harvard are almost deemed "impossible", but the more you look at other peoples stats/ EC's you can't help but feel intimidated.

Well sure, the top name places get their pick of the litter, and that generally means people who not only have super stats, but also are a "good fit" in terms of the non-academic stuff. But you'd better believe that they are passing over many people who are one dimensional or otherwise not the whole package. Meaning the person with 4.0/40 but who has lackluster ECs (a little research, a little volunteering) and a lukewarm interview gets kicked aside for the 3.8/38 who comes off incredibly in person and is a concert pianist/olympic skater/ex-marine, etc. It's not all about the numbers, and there is a law of diminishing returns at work. Meaning there is a point where the numbers are high enough and other things loom larger. And this point is going to be hit frequently at the top places because they get to pick and choose from even more absurdly high stats.

 

[panvard92]

Meaning the person with 4.0/40 but who has lackluster ECs (a little research, a little volunteering) and a lukewarm interview gets kicked aside for the 3.8/38 who comes off incredibly in person and is a concert pianist/olympic skater/ex-marine, etc.

What if you're not a concert pianist/olympic skater/ex-marine....and you're just someone with a "bunch" (I use that term loosely) of EC's that are related to med/science....does everyone end up doing predictable ECs or something? 😕

 

[NickNaylor]

What if you're not a concert pianist/olympic skater/ex-marine....and you're just someone with a "bunch" (I use that term loosely) of EC's that are related to med/science....does everyone end up doing predictable ECs or something? 😕

I think most students do follow a rather uniform set of experiences; it is for this reason that top schools almost require an incredibly unique experience to be seriously considered. Otherwise everyone could get in.

 

[Narmerguy]

I think most students do follow a rather uniform set of experiences; it is for this reason that top schools almost require an incredibly unique experience to be seriously considered. Otherwise everyone could get in.

👍

 

[JJMrK]

Some schools are looking for something really specific. If you don't have it, you're out.

That's why most people apply to more than one school.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

I think most students do follow a rather uniform set of experiences; it is for this reason that top schools almost require an incredibly unique experience to be seriously considered. Otherwise everyone could get in.

perfectly said 👍

 

[MossPoh]

People can be tools. Nothing is unattainable. If I told you my stats then you'd wonder how I even got into an allopathic school, but I did. To screw with your mind even further, our professor charted the outcomes of our exams against our undergrad GPA and MCAT. Lets just say that what you did in undergrad didn't matter much. Different material, different pace, different world.

You just apply to a bunch of schools. Interview and honestly decide which ones you like and then start school. Once you're in the world you will be surprised how little the tier matters for most people.

 

[dw2158]

People can be tools. Nothing is unattainable. If I told you my stats then you'd wonder how I even got into an allopathic school, but I did. To screw with your mind even further, our professor charted the outcomes of our exams against our undergrad GPA and MCAT. Lets just say that what you did in undergrad didn't matter much. Different material, different pace, different world.

You just apply to a bunch of schools. Interview and honestly decide which ones you like and then start school. Once you're in the world you will be surprised how little the tier matters for most people.

that sounds awesome. i'd be curious to see those plots 👍

 

[Longshanks]

Thanks for all the responses so far. Keep them coming.

To those above who say that mdapps isn't really the most reliable resource, I certainly understand. It just seems baffling that students would falsify grades, scores, and activities, only to tell the truth about getting rejected and waitlisted by almost every top tier school they applied to.

Then again, some mdapps users may be telling the truth, and the rejections may have resulted from factors like essays, LORs, and interviews. Like I said before, however, it just seems that students who have put so much effort in studying and researching would also perfect their essays and prepare for interviews with the same effort.

Maybe I'm assuming too much.

Some people fib on their numbers or ECs to remain "anonymous" on MDapps. Others, well since the internet is somewhat anonymous and there is little social reprecussion for lying on MDapps.. people will write what they want to either feel better about themselves to put on whatever coat to fit in with the Type A pre-med crowd. People get crap here on this forum when they "only get a 30". Then you look at MDapps where people have "lowish" numbers (actually more like average but SDN would lead you to believe these people are wasting their time) and posters leave the nastiest comments on their profile, even when they're successful in the admissions process.

 

[Narmerguy]

Some people fib on their numbers or ECs to remain "anonymous" on MDapps. Others, well since the internet is somewhat anonymous and there is little social reprecussion for lying on MDapps.. people will write what they want to either feel better about themselves to put on whatever coat to fit in with the Type A pre-med crowd. People get crap here on this forum when they "only get a 30". Then you look at MDapps where people have "lowish" numbers (actually more like average but SDN would lead you to believe these people are wasting their time) and posters leave the nastiest comments on their profile, even when they're successful in the admissions process.

I haven't found the respondents to be that abrasive 😕

 

[deleted127837]

.

 

[SirGecko]

I haven't found the respondents to be that abrasive 😕

A lot of people might not approve the more abrasive comments but if you find anyone with a low GPA or a low MCAT on MDapps they have probably seen them. Some premeds can be nasty when noone is watching.

 

[TexasFight]

Whenever I see a 4.0/40 get rejected, I think of the guy in the back my chem lab who never talked to anyone and avoided eye contact even with the instructor. It reassures me that the 4.0/40's that are getting rejected are not random - they are people who could never look you in the eye and tell you why they want to be a doctor. (among other things)

 

[Longshanks]

I haven't found the respondents to be that abrasive 😕

I don't have an MDApps profile, so I haven't experienced it first hand, but I have seen plenty of people who were around the average applicant (let's say 3.4-3.6 28-30 for these purposes) where some people have allowed the comments just to show how ridiculous people are, and some are pretty petty and cruel. Especially the comments to people who are applying to DO schools, or one profile I saw where people gave a guy crap for turning down a MD interview after a DO acceptance. No one knows all the factors behind an applicant's decisions or life circumstances, nor do we know everything that goes on from an adcom perspective, so people shouldn't be putting each other down. I understand why people do it, and I think its extremely immature [and these are the people that can't work in a team]. Shouldn't these communities be for education and support though through this stressful process?

 

[Sciamachy]

I've also seen some who seem drawn to medicine because they crave the adulation that they see patients lavish on their doctors or the respect that physicians get in the hospital.

Lol, these people are in for a bit of a shock.....particularly if they work in the ED.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

some who seem drawn to medicine because they crave the adulation that they see patients lavish on their doctors or the respect that physicians get in the hospital.

oh, that's the wrong reason? crap...

 

[talbo]

About the luck thing, I think there's probably a very small amount of luck involved in the process. The application process simply has so many random variables involved that there's no way to tell whether or not you "should" be accepted. The luck aspect - for example, how your interviewer is feeling, the particular person that looks at your primary/secondary, etc. - you can't do anything about.

I agree with this especially when it comes to who reads your apps to get interviews and who your interview is and how s/he is feeling.

The number of applicants make it impossible for the same set of adcoms to grant interviews. B/c the apps are dispersed among different adcoms who have different preferences, I believe that luck plays a role there. Ie. I interviewed at UCI the first time I applied and was told that I was placed on the 'stellar' applicant pile (I got an invite within a week or two). When I reapplied, I didn't even get an interview which in a way didn't make sense but it does make sense when different ppl review your file. My friend got an invite at harvard with a 32, but that was the onli top school the person got an invite at, I believe it was luck. I believe some applicants are so special that they get interview at so many places. As for the rest who have decent stats, I think luck plays a decent role in the interview screening. Who reads your app is a random process, if you get lucky and the person likes you -> interview.

And then there's the interview itself. If you click with your interviewer then that's also fortunate. At some schools, the interviewer presents your file, if they aren't good at making a case for you even though you are awesome, you are out of luck. Who your interviewer is, is also out of our control which I categorize as luck. If you get interviewed for example at UCLA by the chair of the subcommittee, you are in luck, if you get interviewed by someone who's new to the adcom then it might be different. Some interviewers are their interviewee a hard time some are easy to get along with. I think luck plays a decent role in the overall process if you are not super special which is most of us.

 

[diosa428]

Since so many premeds have had similar experiences, part of what is going to make you stand out is how you use these experiences to convey who you are in your personal statement, secondaries and interviews. I would recommend that everyone sit down and seriously think about each of their ECs, research experiences, etc and write down what you did, what you learned, and how that experience may have changed who you are or will affect your choices in the future. Sounds tedious, but can only be helpful. For example:

Interviewer: "Tell me about your shadowing with Dr. X"
Applicant: "Well, Dr. X is a surgeon, so I would see patients with him in the morning and then go see surgeries in the afternoon."
Interviewer: "And what did you learn from this experience?"
Applicant: "Well, I like surgery, and I got to suture a couple of times, and I learned some things about patient care".

Totally acceptable answers, but very concrete. Probably won't stand out much. Versus:

Interviewer: "Tell me about your shadowing experience with Dr. X"
Applicant: "Dr X is a surgeon who specializes in upper GI surgeries. I would come in at 6am everyday and go on rounds with him. We would then go to the OR and I was given the opportunity to scrub in on his cases. I observed a hemangioma resection, a Whipple, and several laparoscopic surgeries, including appendectomies and a Nissen fundoplication. Some days I would also attend afternoon rounds to see how the patients were recovering. I also attended clinic with him on several days to see his preop and postop patients."
Interviewer: "And what did you learn from this experience?"
Applicant: "I learned a lot of the basics of surgery, such as how to scrub in and how to suture. I also learned a lot about talking with patients. We had one patient who ended up with an infection following his surgery and I was fortunate enough to observe Dr. X manage this patient medically and see how he communicated what was going on to the patient and the patient's family in an effective manner which reassured the patient that he was in good hands and everything would be taken care of. In the end, the patient ended up doing very well and I learned a lot about the importance of communicating with your patients, being upfront and truthful, and also being reassuring."

So what happened with applicant #2 probably wasn't that exciting, as postoperative infections are not particularly rare, but s/he was able to turn that average situation into something they could talk about with an interviewer. Even if your experiences are totally bland, come up with SOMETHING that happened in each that stands out in your mind, and then try to think about how that affected you.

 

[Abdullaah]

That advice is golden! Thanks a lot for sharing that with us

 

[LINK1290]

Since so many premeds have had similar experiences, part of what is going to make you stand out is how you use these experiences to convey who you are in your personal statement, secondaries and interviews. I would recommend that everyone sit down and seriously think about each of their ECs, research experiences, etc and write down what you did, what you learned, and how that experience may have changed who you are or will affect your choices in the future. Sounds tedious, but can only be helpful. For example:

Interviewer: "Tell me about your shadowing with Dr. X"
Applicant: "Well, Dr. X is a surgeon, so I would see patients with him in the morning and then go see surgeries in the afternoon."
Interviewer: "And what did you learn from this experience?"
Applicant: "Well, I like surgery, and I got to suture a couple of times, and I learned some things about patient care".

Totally acceptable answers, but very concrete. Probably won't stand out much. Versus:

Interviewer: "Tell me about your shadowing experience with Dr. X"
Applicant: "Dr X is a surgeon who specializes in upper GI surgeries. I would come in at 6am everyday and go on rounds with him. We would then go to the OR and I was given the opportunity to scrub in on his cases. I observed a hemangioma resection, a Whipple, and several laparoscopic surgeries, including appendectomies and a Nissen fundoplication. Some days I would also attend afternoon rounds to see how the patients were recovering. I also attended clinic with him on several days to see his preop and postop patients."
Interviewer: "And what did you learn from this experience?"
Applicant: "I learned a lot of the basics of surgery, such as how to scrub in and how to suture. I also learned a lot about talking with patients. We had one patient who ended up with an infection following his surgery and I was fortunate enough to observe Dr. X manage this patient medically and see how he communicated what was going on to the patient and the patient's family in an effective manner which reassured the patient that he was in good hands and everything would be taken care of. In the end, the patient ended up doing very well and I learned a lot about the importance of communicating with your patients, being upfront and truthful, and also being reassuring."

So what happened with applicant #2 probably wasn't that exciting, as postoperative infections are not particularly rare, but s/he was able to turn that average situation into something they could talk about with an interviewer. Even if your experiences are totally bland, come up with SOMETHING that happened in each that stands out in your mind, and then try to think about how that affected you.

Good advice. It isn't groundbreaking information or anything, but it's very important to remember. Thanks for taking the time to type that up.

 

[Law2Doc]

Since so many premeds have had similar experiences, part of what is going to make you stand out is how you use these experiences to convey who you are in your personal statement, secondaries and interviews. I would recommend that everyone sit down and seriously think about each of their ECs, research experiences, etc and write down what you did, what you learned, and how that experience may have changed who you are or will affect your choices in the future. Sounds tedious, but can only be helpful. For example:

Interviewer: "Tell me about your shadowing with Dr. X"
Applicant: "Well, Dr. X is a surgeon, so I would see patients with him in the morning and then go see surgeries in the afternoon."
Interviewer: "And what did you learn from this experience?"
Applicant: "Well, I like surgery, and I got to suture a couple of times, and I learned some things about patient care".

Totally acceptable answers, but very concrete. Probably won't stand out much. Versus:

Interviewer: "Tell me about your shadowing experience with Dr. X"
Applicant: "Dr X is a surgeon who specializes in upper GI surgeries. I would come in at 6am everyday and go on rounds with him. We would then go to the OR and I was given the opportunity to scrub in on his cases. I observed a hemangioma resection, a Whipple, and several laparoscopic surgeries, including appendectomies and a Nissen fundoplication. Some days I would also attend afternoon rounds to see how the patients were recovering. I also attended clinic with him on several days to see his preop and postop patients."
Interviewer: "And what did you learn from this experience?"
Applicant: "I learned a lot of the basics of surgery, such as how to scrub in and how to suture. I also learned a lot about talking with patients. We had one patient who ended up with an infection following his surgery and I was fortunate enough to observe Dr. X manage this patient medically and see how he communicated what was going on to the patient and the patient's family in an effective manner which reassured the patient that he was in good hands and everything would be taken care of. In the end, the patient ended up doing very well and I learned a lot about the importance of communicating with your patients, being upfront and truthful, and also being reassuring."

So what happened with applicant #2 probably wasn't that exciting, as postoperative infections are not particularly rare, but s/he was able to turn that average situation into something they could talk about with an interviewer. Even if your experiences are totally bland, come up with SOMETHING that happened in each that stands out in your mind, and then try to think about how that affected you.

I agree with this, but neither of these folks stand up to the third person with the same surgery shadowing experience, but who also has a "wow factor" EC on top of that, such as having been in the Olympics, or having done armed service training, or playing violin for a major orchestra, or having been on a reality TV show, or served in local public office, or has multiple advanced degrees, or started a major business, or whose group opened for the Stones, etc etc. The list is endless and the top schools will see any number of truly unique ECs along with the standard "expected" ones. So sure, you sell yourself as best you can, but know that your 4.0 and surgery shadowing isn't going to beat out the kid with the 3.7 plus shadowing plus a wow factor. Keep in mind that it's not all about the numbers, and after a certain threshold, it's not at all about the numbers. The interview is probably the single biggest factor (as suggested by the prior post I'm replying to), and selling yourself effectively can go a long way to showing you are a good fit. Having a good set of ECs you care about and are interesting, that doesn't look like you simply asked "what are the usual ECs of premeds" and did each one for a few months, helps a lot as well.

So it's not really about luck at all. But folks who look at the objective standards, and say this guy has a 4.0/40 and didn't fare well, while that guy has a 3.7/34 and got to choose from some amazing places, so it must be a crapshoot, are misunderstanding how this process worked. In the 80s it was largely a by the numbers system, and the consensus was that this did not turn out the kind of physicians desired. So interviews, essays, ECs became big driving forces in admissions. Premeds like objective standards because it lets them know their chances. But that's only partly how the process works these days.

 

[ash914]

I've met a few people who've gotten into top schools without being in the military or the olympics or a major orchestra. They did have good stats though, and they did commit a lot to their EC's, even if they were the standard ones.

Also, reality tv show? How's that help someone with an adcom?

 

[CUSEguy88]

so whenever I talk about the application process with my friends, I am always told that the socially-awkward applicants get weeded out during the interview process. But at least looking around at those applying from my school, nearly everyone (including the most intense guys) seem pretty pleasant and even if they are kind of strange, they can come off sounding fine in an interview.

I honestly just don't know how interviewers could separate genuine vs. un-genuine applicants in just a 30 minute conversation. What do you guys think?

 

[mmmcdowe]

so whenever I talk about the application process with my friends, I am always told that the socially-awkward applicants get weeded out during the interview process. But at least looking around at those applying from my school, nearly everyone (including the most intense guys) seem pretty pleasant and even if they are kind of strange, they can come off sounding fine in an interview.

I honestly just don't know how interviewers could separate genuine vs. un-genuine applicants in just a 30 minute conversation. What do you guys think?

Experience and examining to see if your application justifies what you are saying. If you are inner city health and sound sincere, but have never set foot into the inner city (as far as your app says), this might raise eyebrows. In contrast, if you had 100000 hours of service in the inner city, but they felt that they way you spoke of the experience suggested that you were just padding your resume, toast.

 

[NickNaylor]

so whenever I talk about the application process with my friends, I am always told that the socially-awkward applicants get weeded out during the interview process. But at least looking around at those applying from my school, nearly everyone (including the most intense guys) seem pretty pleasant and even if they are kind of strange, they can come off sounding fine in an interview.

I honestly just don't know how interviewers could separate genuine vs. un-genuine applicants in just a 30 minute conversation. What do you guys think?

Isn't that part of the game? Sure, you want to portray yourself accurately and not pretend you're someone that you're not. But that's why it's called "selling" yourself, not "talking about" yourself. You highlight your high points, you minimize the low points, and you attempt to explain why you would fit in at that particular school. If schools believe you're being genuine even if you're not, doesn't that mean you finished your job? Does it really matter all that much?

By the way, I definitely don't support this approach. Well, I do to a certain extent - but not to the point of being ridiculously manipulative. Some people, however, are willing to do anything to get into schools they dream about, and I'm sure they took a more extreme version of this outlook.