U Chicago Rejectction?!?!?!

[O-Dog]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I got a rejection via snail mail with the following stats:

3.8, 3.8, 38

What gives? Not even put on hold? Anyone else get this?

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Stats too high, you shoulda been lazier.

 

[i61164]

I got a rejection via snail mail with the following stats:

3.8, 3.8, 38

What gives? Not even put on hold? Anyone else get this?

What the hell?

 

[MabdulD]

I got a rejection via snail mail with the following stats:

3.8, 3.8, 38

What gives? Not even put on hold? Anyone else get this?

Is this post-secondary? Cause that would make a little more sense, though not all that much still.

 

[O-Dog]

This was post secondary. Also Uchicago is top 25, this ain't GW or something, I cant see them rejecting on too high stats.

 

[cooldreams]

seriously... if the school thinks you are not serious about going there, then they will reject you anyways...

if you really want to go, express some SERIOUS interest. another way of looking at it, is if you are really that high, and express some real interest, then maybe you could get a cool scholarship out of it.

was the rejection post or pre interview?? your personal skills or criminal record could have played a role as well

 

[Dr. Chiquita]

Hey, O-Dog,

sorry bout that rejection. but you will get in somewhere better with those stats. 🙂 Do you mind telling me though when you got the completion email and how long did it take them to make the decision? Thanks.

 

[MabdulD]

I really hate the idea that schools might reject people because their stats are too high.

Who's going to just throw $100+ away to apply somewhere they don't want to go?

 

[Dr. Chiquita]

I really hate the idea that schools might reject people because their stats are too high.

Who's going to just throw $100+ away to apply somewhere they don't want to go?

Yo, Mabdul, your stats are sick. Are you a re-applicant? 😱

 

[javandane]

Yo, Mabdul, your stats are sick. Are you a re-applicant? 😱

really. near perfect gpa with near perfect mcat, and solid ec's. how is it that you didn't get any acceptances?

 

[hyphencracy]

Shocking to say the least. I'm also curious, was this rejection post-secondary? 😕

 

[Dr Turninkoff]

can you subpoena your LORs? something smells fishy.

 

[constructor]

mabdul and o-dog, i feel your pain. i can't believe both of you have had hard luck with schools one would think you'd have no trouble getting accepted at. i don't think there's any such thing as "too high stats" and i'm sorry it worked out that way. maybe you should call and inquire about the details of your rejection. one day, when i have my own medical school, i promise i will give you both auto-interviews with your sweet stats. too high stats-- **** em.

 

[Darko]

I got a rejection via snail mail with the following stats:

3.8, 3.8, 38

What gives? Not even put on hold? Anyone else get this?

Maybe your essays or LORs sucked. What kind of challenging experiences or clinical experience do you have?

Stats aren't everything in the Med School Admissions Game.

 

[Haybrant]

was this post-interview or post-sec? and how long before you turned in your secondary after the date they sent you notification of the secondary?

 

[calstudent]

Stats aren't everything in the Med School Admissions Game.

It couldn't have been said better. I was looking for that statement in the whole thread.

That said, I feel your pain, and any rejection is tough for anyone. You will have good offers at other places, don't worry.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Post secondary makes sense, I don't expect a 38/3.8 to get interviews everywhere, but I do expect it to get secondaries everywhere.

 

[45408]

really. near perfect gpa with near perfect mcat, and solid ec's. how is it that you didn't get any acceptances?

No kidding! I feel stupid in comparison, and it's frightening that he didn't get in anywhere. Unless he's completely socially inept (doesn't sound like it from his little "diary"), I don't see how that could happen.....

 

[Futurepedplease]

Kind of sucks for a person with such stats. If Pritzker is one of your favorites, you might want to call them and ask them if they can explain what in your application was a red herring to them.

I'm sure you will get into a medical school as top as University of Chicago.

I am also applying to U. of Chicago, and I don't have close to your stats. I have not submitted my secondary yet though. (I am kinda of scared now)

Like another poster said, sometimes a perfect grade, perfect MCAT does not always translate to a great doctor.

Don't stress over it though. You will get into some medical school.

 

[premedgeek]

I am not even going to bother submitting secondary to Chicago........not worth spending a week writing those essays. Not with my stats anyway.

 

[JDAWG07]

I got rejected from University of Chicago too. I have a 3.94 GPA (bioengineering), 39O MCAT, solid EC's (volunteering/fraternity/tutoring), good LORs (from what I'm told), and good research. Honestly, what hurts is not the rejection, but the fact that I took a lot of time on their secondary essays. I really think that my essays for Pritzker were better than any other essays I wrote for other schools. Oh well.

 

[wends]

I got rejected from University of Chicago too. I have a 3.94 GPA (bioengineering), 39O MCAT, solid EC's (volunteering/fraternity/tutoring), good LORs (from what I'm told), and good research. Honestly, what hurts is not the rejection, but the fact that I took a lot of time on their secondary essays. I really think that my essays for Pritzker were better than any other essays I wrote for other schools. Oh well.

thats just not right! you should ask why you were shafted this early in the game.....i think its ******ed to have high scores hurt you..... 👎 👎

 

[An Yong]

I got rejected from University of Chicago too. I have a 3.94 GPA (bioengineering), 39O MCAT, solid EC's (volunteering/fraternity/tutoring), good LORs (from what I'm told), and good research. Honestly, what hurts is not the rejection, but the fact that I took a lot of time on their secondary essays. I really think that my essays for Pritzker were better than any other essays I wrote for other schools. Oh well.

😱 😱 Wow, I guess my rejection letter is in the mail then

 

[IndyZX]

I got rejected from University of Chicago too. I have a 3.94 GPA (bioengineering), 39O MCAT, solid EC's (volunteering/fraternity/tutoring), good LORs (from what I'm told), and good research. Honestly, what hurts is not the rejection, but the fact that I took a lot of time on their secondary essays. I really think that my essays for Pritzker were better than any other essays I wrote for other schools. Oh well.

Man, that sucks. Sorry to hear it.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Even a 3.9/39 with EC's doesn't guarantee interviews at every school, you guys oughta chill out.

 

[wends]

Even a 3.9/39 with EC's doesn't guarantee interviews at every school, you guys oughta chill out.

🙄

 

[ambrosia]

I got the rejection too...and so did a few other people I know with good stats. Screw Chicago 🙄

 

[derf]

chicago is big on research accomplishments. actually its an unwritten rule.

 

[wends]

oh. that being said, my rejection will be swift

 

[bostonabe]

question for O-Dog...how good were your secondary essays? Of all the schools I applied to, Chicago asked for the most detailed responses to their essay questions. I bet they take those secondary essays pretty seriously, perhaps yours weren't up to par?? Or they made a mistake, who knows.

 

[DrThom]

chicago is big on research accomplishments. actually its an unwritten rule.

now, i have done my fair share of research, i just haven't published yet...


rejection-ville, here I come,

population:ME

 

[Pinkertinkle]

🙄

Hrm, is that agreement or disdain?

 

[wends]

Hrm, is that agreement or disdain?

we were just trying to comfort the guy about his rejection...sometimes a good dose of logic is not needed....i just thought i was kinda lame for you to tell us to chill....

 

[derf]

now, i have done my fair share of research, i just haven't published yet...


rejection-ville, here I come,

population:ME

they're actually looking for much more than research, they're looking for significant impact as a result of your research. that's the kind of school they are.

 

[leverp2000]

they're actually looking for much more than research, they're looking for significant impact as a result of your research. that's the kind of school they are.

What does that mean? Publications?

 

[constructor]

are you trying to tell me everyone who gets in is overqualified in research? i don't know about that, because there are many better research schools than pritzker.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Apparently, all the undergrads who have made world changing discoveries are just itching to get into Pritz, that's why they can be so selective, right?

 

[liverotcod]

I discovered a piece of lint buried deep in my navel. Does that count?

 

[wends]

I discovered a piece of lint buried deep in my navel. Does that count?

LMAO, ROTF hahahahaha..... 😎

 

[constructor]

at a prestigious institution like pritzker, it just might... and it just might also be the kind of life-saving research effort they're looking for that the 4.0/42 applicants were missing in their application.

 

[calstudent]

yah, i want to say this again: it is NOT all the numbers. that is why we all apply to more than 1 school, because we will not get in everywhere. yes, i know it is painful waiting and especially getting the boot, (and i would say this process is, in some ways, a crapshoot)

and, there is no way that ALL pritzker takes is people who have amazing research, as pinkertinkle implies. come on, that is not possible. they probably want people who have some research experience, but i know on SDN (i don't know what threads), peeps who got interviews or acceptances last cycle at pritzker were not all research buffs.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

I'm not sure how realistic some of this discussion has been. The reality is, there are around 2,500 people a year who score a 35 or up on the MCAT per year. I think, based on the fairly high MCAT/GPA correlation, it's safe to figure half of them have a good gpa as well. That means 1,250 applicants whose stats are in the 3.7/35 or higher range. The average school interviews 600 or so people. Guess what that means? Lots of people with great stats don't get interviewed at any particular school. The idea is, you apply to the 15-20 schools that the average applicant does, and you get multiple acceptances, but not 15-20 acceptances.

Issues of range are imporant too. If Drexel gets a 38/3.8 applicant, they're not going to burn an interview slot on him when they can figure they are 99% likely a back-up school with a miniscule chance of actually getting said applicant to matriculate.

 

[btowngirl]

My friend had no research experience when she applied to chicago and got in, so don't give up hope if you dont have much/any research.

 

[O-Dog]

I did two independant research projects as an undergrad and have spent the past 2 years doing research for a pharmaceutical company. If anything, my resume is little too research heavy. My EC's are good, not Excellent, but certainly not poor. My LOR's are pretty good as well. I thought my essays were quite good, beter than I wrote for many other schools. I don't want people to feel bad for me, I do have interview offers, I was just surprised I got a rejection, not put on hold or something less harsh.

 

[dnelsen]

Guess what that means?

that you are ******ed?

Do you really think all 600 of the applicants you mentioned apply to every school. For example, I'm applying to the U of M and I doubt that more than 25-50 of the 600 stellar applicants will bother applying (Harvard may be another story)

 

[WatchingWaiting]

that you are ******ed?

Do you really think all 600 of the applicants you mentioned apply to every school. For example, I'm applying to the U of M and I doubt that more than 25-50 of the 600 stellar applicants will bother applying (Harvard may be another story)

Perhaps you're looking at the ****** in the mirror?

Does the University of Minnesota even accept out of state applicants? Chicago, as a top-25 school that many top applicants would consider to be a good back-up to the super-elite schools, probably gets a third to a half of the 1200 stellar applicants to apply to it. Given that there are also 5,000 or so people in the 30-34 MCAT range with good gpas and activities who are also competing for these slots, I think my point is valid.

Also, it's not like there are a ton of people with 39/3.9 gpas getting rejected all around. If there were, you wouldn't respond with shock each time one posts on these boards. For every one high stats/many rejections person, you see a bunch of "Should I go to Columbia or Yale" and "UCSF Class of 2007" type threads, especially around April-May. Also, just the fact that top schools have a 3.82/35 matriculant average tells you that the overwhelming bulk of the top people are, in fact, at top schools. I think the admissions process occassionally gives a good applicant a massive screw-job, but, overall, works as intended.

 

[dnelsen]

Perhaps you're looking at the ****** in the mirror?

Does the University of Minnesota even accept out of state applicants? Chicago, as a top-25 school that many top applicants would consider to be a good back-up to the super-elite schools, probably gets a third to a half of the 1200 stellar applicants to apply to it. Given that there are also 5,000 or so people in the 30-34 MCAT range with good gpas and activities who are also competing for these slots, I think my point is valid.

Also, it's not like there are a ton of people with 39/3.9 gpas getting rejected all around. If there were, you wouldn't respond with shock each time one posts on these boards. For every one high stats/many rejections person, you see a bunch of "Should I go to Columbia or Yale" and "UCSF Class of 2007" type threads, especially around April-May. Also, just the fact that top schools have a 3.82/35 matriculant average tells you that the overwhelming bulk of the top people are, in fact, at top schools. I think the admissions process occassionally gives a good applicant a massive screw-job, but, overall, works as intended.

I agree with you on people with great stats getting rejected from a top school, but we are talking the U of Chicago here...not exactly a top school (I'm interested where you got the top 25 from...US News research ranking?). I don't have my MSAR in front of me, but I HIGHLY doubt that the average matriculant at U of Chicago is near the 3.82/35 mark.

Basically, my point is I hate when people make up statistics...

 

[WatchingWaiting]

I agree with you on people with great stats getting rejected from a top school, but we are talking the U of Chicago here...not exactly a top school (I'm interested where you got the top 25 from...US News research ranking?). I don't have my MSAR in front of me, but I HIGHLY doubt that the average matriculant at U of Chicago is near the 3.82/35 mark.

Basically, my point is I hate when people make up statistics...

All right. People do make up statistics. On the other hand, I find it more annoying when people use random, rare anecdotes to refute statistics-- the 26 MCAT who got a 260 USMLE Step I is the anecdote I keep reading that is lately causing me annoyance.

The MCAT numbers are based on the AAMC percentiles for MCAT scores. I, of course, have no way to know for certain what percentage of top applicants apply to Chicago, so I tried to make a reasonable estimate. You're quite right though that Chicago's MCAT/gpa average is not anywhere near 3.8/34-- that is reserved for top-10 schools. Chicago is a 3.63/31 school.

I think the system is distorted by the gratuitous number of schools to which students apply. Because the average applicant applies to 15-20 schools, non-top-10 schools do have to look to who is likely to actually attend their school in allocating interview slots if they actually want to fill their class without giving out a huge number of acceptances. And, top schools do have their pick of that 1200 35/3.7+ crowd, which can lead to some top applicants getting the screw. This is, however, the exception and not the rule.

 

[dnelsen]

I think the system is distorted by the gratuitous number of schools to which students apply. Because the average applicant applies to 15-20 schools, non-top-10 schools do have to look to who is likely to actually attend their school in allocating interview slots if they actually want to fill their class without giving out a huge number of acceptances. And, top schools do have their pick of that 1200 35/3.7+ crowd, which can lead to some top applicants getting the screw. This is, however, the exception and not the rule.

I agree with this...

People look at the MSAR and they see that thousands applied and only a fraction were accepted, well yeah, but those thousands that applied also applied to 15-20 other schools (as you mentioned), and they can only ultimately attend one school.

Also, as everyone knows, schools accept X number of students to fill Y spots and for all schools except the top 10 (or top whatever) X is greater than Y (to a fairly large degree, depending on the school). So those individuals with 5-10 acceptances can also ultimately only attend one school.

I'm sick of the usnews rankings and NIH rankings! People seem to latch onto the "research" rankings for some reason, when in fact the vast majority of us will be clinical physicians (vs. academic or researchers). I saw people post some correlation between the research rankings and "peer assessment" and "assessment score by residency director" but I think these are biased based on usnews itself (these people read usnews and thus keep the rankings fairly consistent from year to year).

 

[echinoderm]

.