UCLA's "holistic" review - how did these students do?

[TheBiologist]

Anyone who has seen the 2018 MSAR for UCLA knows they clearly took "holistic" to the extreme; the top 10 school had an average accepted MCAT of a 508, with an average matriculant MCAT of 505.

Does anyone know if they will release data on how these students did their first year? I'd also be curious about their STEP 1 scores next year.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MagicBanana]

They will likely not release any data on how these students did, at least in the sense you might be thinking. Attrition rate, if anything - but I wouldn't try to read too much into it. I'd be interested in getting a couple first hand accounts from current students/faculty just to hear if they have anything to say.

 

[MTRN406]

Anyone who has seen the 2018 MSAR for UCLA knows they clearly took "holistic" to the extreme; the top 10 school had an average accepted MCAT of a 508, with an average matriculant MCAT of 505.

Does anyone know if they will release data on how these students did their first year? I'd also be curious about their STEP 1 scores next year.

I would expect their performance to be along the same lines as the WWAMI kids at UW. They are a top-15-sometimes-top-10 medical school that employees a similar holistic review process and typically have a 50X MCAT average. In other words, they'll probably be fine.

 

[Goro]

Anyone who has seen the 2018 MSAR for UCLA knows they clearly took "holistic" to the extreme; the top 10 school had an average accepted MCAT of a 508, with an average matriculant MCAT of 505.

Does anyone know if they will release data on how these students did their first year? I'd also be curious about their STEP 1 scores next year.

Perhaps the wise @gyngyn can add his thoughts?

 

[Geo16]

They upgraded their interface for MSAR! This is so nice!
Perhaps getting into Geffen is possible. D R E A M

Edit: I tried to see it myself, but I could only see the Median data. How do you look at Average?
505 is below their 10th percentile..
Or am I just looking at the wrong year?

 

[cactusman]

@efle made a graph at some point of average STEP 1 as a function of median MCAT. There was some correlation but a number of schools were well above or below their predicted STEP. That might give some hint as to the scores UCLA will be pulling in four years.

 

[TheBiologist]

They upgraded their interface for MSAR! This is so nice!
Perhaps getting into Geffen is possible. D R E A M

Edit: I tried to see it myself, but I could only see the Median data. How do you look at Average?
505 is below their 10th percentile..
Or am I just looking at the wrong year?

I actually meant median, and you must be looking at wrong year

 

[Geo16]

I actually meant median, and you must be looking at wrong year

I see it now!
HOLY POO YOU ARE RIGHT
Are you going to apply to Geffen? I hope you get in!

Edit: somehow I thought I clicked UCLA but clicked Irvine by mistake. That explains it!

 

[Geo16]

UCLA Median MCAT 505
UC Riverside: Median MCAT 505
UC Davis: Median MCAT 506
These are the the UCs with 505-506 Median MCAT.. what happened this year?

 

[lpp06]

A slightly restricting consideration - these figures only represent those who applied with the new MCAT. I believe the 2016 matriculating class was about a 50/50 mix of those with the new and old scores. So, the sample size of the data presented in the new MSAR may be a bit smaller and subject to possible variance because of it.

 

[efle]

It will take us 2-3 years to see the step scores (or rather, to see what step scores get reported by US News, which people have said are slightly different than internally reported values before).

And while the most recent accepted/matric numbers are especially low, UCLA has always had a huge range, something like mid/upper 20s up to 39-40 in the old MSAR iirc. Looking at the average step probably isn't that informative. There will be a group of people aiming for the very competitive ortho/derm/etc stuff that crush it, but the average UCLA student I think tends to be a lot less interested in things that require a high number. Their average step might come back a 230 and that doesn't necessarily mean anything bad, everyone might still be totally able to access the residencies they want with their score.

 

[mwsapphire]

They upgraded their interface for MSAR! This is so nice!
Perhaps getting into Geffen is possible. D R E A M

Edit: I tried to see it myself, but I could only see the Median data. How do you look at Average?
505 is below their 10th percentile..
Or am I just looking at the wrong year?

The people who get in with MCAT's that low generally have some other "hook" on their application that we wouldn't have- something even harder to attain than a high MCAT. Most of us SDN nerds are better off just making sure we kill the MCAT and keep up with our EC's.

 

[mariposas905]

The people who get in with MCAT's that low generally have some other "hook" on their application that we wouldn't have- something even harder to attain than a high MCAT. Most of us SDN nerds are better off just making sure we kill the MCAT and keep up with our EC's.

But if the average is 508 with median of 505, doesn't that mean that half of the applicants had a lower MCAT score? Would all of them really have some fabulous EC or "hook"?

 

[Iwannaknow]

But if the average is 508 with median of 505, doesn't that mean that half of the applicants had a lower MCAT score? Would all of them really have some fabulous EC or "hook"?

Yes. There are 40,000 med school applications (if I recall correctly). If they have a class of 200, 100 is half. If they accept double the number of matriculants, then that's again 200. There are 200 people with below averahe ECs with a hook in that pool.

 

[efle]

Would all of them really have some fabulous EC or "hook"?

They only interview ~5% and then reject most of those. They absolutely can be picky about fabulous apps beyond the numbers.

 

[mwsapphire]

They only interview ~5% and then reject most of those. They absolutely can be picky about fabulous apps beyond the numbers.

UCLA is kind of like getting into Harvard/Stanford. You can dream about it, but it likely won't happen so you may as well set your sights on something else ( By all means, apply, just don't get hopes up)
( Those examples specifically b/c of how hollistic their process is, w/o high stats being the only important factor. That being said, Harvard's tenth percentiles go all the way down to ~3.6, even tho the median is 3.9. That means you need " special stuff" to get in). Just b/c the numbers are lower , in this case, doth not make it more achievable.

 

[Geo16]

They only interview ~5% and then reject most of those. They absolutely can be picky about fabulous apps beyond the numbers.

@Princeton Medical Student

 

[mariposas905]

Yes. There are 40,000 med school applications (if I recall correctly). If they have a class of 200, 100 is half. If they accept double the number of matriculants, then that's again 200. There are 200 people with below averahe ECs with a hook in that pool.

They only interview ~5% and then reject most of those. They absolutely can be picky about fabulous apps beyond the numbers.

UCLA is kind of like getting into Harvard/Stanford. You can dream about it, but it likely won't happen so you may as well set your sights on something else ( By all means, apply, just don't get hopes up)
( Those examples specifically b/c of how hollistic their process is, w/o high stats being the only important factor. That being said, Harvard's tenth percentiles go all the way down to ~3.6, even tho the median is 3.9. That means you need " special stuff" to get in). Just b/c the numbers are lower , in this case, doth not make it more achievable.

That makes sense now that I think about it. When you put it in terms of all 40,000 applicants applying to medical school, UCLA will most definitely have the opportunity to selectively interview people with "hooks." I hadn't thought about that before...looks like UCLA is back to being a super reach school for me :/

 

[Geo16]

They absolutely can be picky about fabulous apps beyond the numbers.

"Picky" might be the right word for UCLA.
UCLA gets tons of applications from all around the world.
Applicant pool/admitted:
Freshmen applicants (2016)- 97,121 / 17474
Transfer applicants (2016)- 22,287 / 5708
Graduate (on avg. approximate)- ~22,000 / 6000
Med school (2018)- 12,081 / 175
153,000 approx. people just flush UCLA with their applications each year..

 

[efle]

UCLA is back to being a super reach school for me :/

These types of schools are super reaches for anyone. I've seen multiple cases IRL of people getting a full ride merit package to one top 20, yet not even getting interviewed by schools ranked around it. You need to have a good app and some luck with who happens to read it.

 

[mwsapphire]

^ Most people who apply to top schools apply to at least about 10 to have any success at all. All top schools are reaches for everyone, b/c you're evaluated on nuanced criteria.

 

[BombsAway]

Here's an interpretation sure to ruffle some feathers.

If
1) UW and UCLA (good schools!) can pick the exact 2ish percent of applicants they want.
and
2) Their median candidate has a 75th %ile MCAT.
then
3) They must be using a much more holistic process than their peer institutions who select a 90+%ile MCAT.

Now, for the causality.
Are candidates with lower mcat scores more desirable when given a fair review? Or are top scorers less desirable candidates for other reasons?

I submit the following for consideration as a new SDN rumor: If you score too high on the MCAT, schools will be less interested in your application.

/sarcasm font

 

[mwsapphire]

Well ruffled, tuffled, and fluffled.

 

[Toutie]

"Picky" might be the right word for UCLA.
UCLA gets tons of applications from all around the world.
Applicant pool/admitted:
Freshmen applicants (2016)- 97,121 / 17474
Transfer applicants (2016)- 22,287 / 5708
Graduate (on avg. approximate)- ~22,000 / 6000
Med school (2018)- 12,081 / 175
153,000 approx. people just flush UCLA with their applications each year..

Your numbers are a little bit off. You are using accepted students in some catagories and matriculated in others.

 

[Geo16]

Your numbers are a little bit off. You are using accepted students in some catagories and matriculated in others.

Yeah, noticed later on after editing it. Should've fixed it when it came to my mind..
I've put admitted for UG (Freshmen/Transfer) and Matriculant for Graduate and Med school.

 

[mariposas905]

These types of schools are super reaches for anyone. I've seen multiple cases IRL of people getting a full ride merit package to one top 20, yet not even getting interviewed by schools ranked around it. You need to have a good app and some luck with who happens to read it.

Hmm...I guess that's reassuring to hear that it's not a simple task to get into top schools even with amazing stats. But does this mean that those with higher stats might sometimes have a harder time making it to medical school? For example, a person with 3.9, 522 with normal ECs (no real hook) would be yield protected at the lower tier schools and may not make it into the very top schools. If they don't get in anywhere and reapply next year, then all those schools would be wondering why they didn't get in. What does the applicant do in such a case? I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often lol but I'm just curious

 

[MagicBanana]

Hmm...I guess that's reassuring to hear that it's not a simple task to get into top schools even with amazing stats. But does this mean that those with higher stats might sometimes have a harder time making it to medical school? For example, a person with 3.9, 522 with normal ECs (no real hook) would be yield protected at the lower tier schools and may not make it into the very top schools. If they don't get in anywhere and reapply next year, then all those schools would be wondering why they didn't get in. What does the applicant do in such a case? I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often lol but I'm just curious

This is why you make a broad school list - most of the list should be where your MCAT falls around the median. Some schools will value the "hook" more than others. Others will be perfectly happy to take someone with those stats, even if you don't have some killer hook or backstory. With a good school list, a 3.9/522 should get in just fine.
When a 3.9/522 doesn't get in, it is usually either a poor school list, lack of quality ECs, bombed the interview, or has some other red flag that might have gotten past the screen. Most of these situations can be remedied with a gap year and different game plan.

 

[Goro]

Harvard gets around 8000 apps a year. They interview 842, and matriculate 165. Do the math as to how hard it is to get a seat there.

BTW, ALL medical schools are hard to get into. My DO school, with ~100 seats, got ~5-6000 apps this year. We interviewed ~500, accepted 300.

There have been multiple threads in these fora as to why super stat candidates fail to get a single interview. But to your question, if such candidates are actually smart (as opposed ot being intelligent), they'll fix their deficits and apply not the following year, but when they're ready.

Hmm...I guess that's reassuring to hear that it's not a simple task to get into top schools even with amazing stats. But does this mean that those with higher stats might sometimes have a harder time making it to medical school? For example, a person with 3.9, 522 with normal ECs (no real hook) would be yield protected at the lower tier schools and may not make it into the very top schools. If they don't get in anywhere and reapply next year, then all those schools would be wondering why they didn't get in. What does the applicant do in such a case? I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often lol but I'm just curious

 

[Radiata20]

Let me just say that I, my classmates, and upperclassmen have been quite amused by how many inquiries we've gotten about this from friends and strangers alike, along with how many threads (at least 3 now I think?) have been started about this.

As one of the MS3s has said before, I believe that ours is an admissions process that does an excellent job at reviewing the entirety of applications and values much more than just a good test-taking record. This also makes it a more time-consuming process by necessity, which is why we may take more time before making admissions decisions.

If you're seriously interested in UCLA, just go ahead and apply, regardless of what you or others think your "chances" are. We only send secondaries to those we are interested in inviting to join our class, so we are considerate about your time and money before asking for it in the form of another application. There are students here who received the full-ride David Geffen Medical Scholarship, but say they received only a handful of acceptances elsewhere, if any. There's little reason not to throw your name in our hat if you like our program.

 

[efle]

There are students here who received the full-ride David Geffen Medical Scholarship, but say they received only a handful of acceptances elsewhere, if any.

This always blows my mind, I also met someone at a top 5 that said they had zero other admits. This process is not predictable at all on a school-by-school basis, you never know what might stand out to one particular adcom!

 

[Radiata20]

This always blows my mind, I also met someone at a top 5 that said they had zero other admits. This process is not predictable at all on a school-by-school basis, you never know what might stand out to one particular adcom!

It's not that different than undergrad admissions. Any admissions system that isn't solely based on a sterile algorithm (e.g., every med school in the US) is going to have a healthy dose of unpredictability, with those few extraordinary results every year that leave observers scratching their heads in disbelief. Psychology even tells us that how favorably a reader views your app can be affected by whether they're holding a cup of iced tea or freshly-brewed coffee, and sitting on a hardwood chair or comfy couch. (Cue storm of applicants PMing me right after they submit their apps or interview, asking me to reupholster all the admissions office chairs and serve cappuccinos at committee meetings)

 

[BombsAway]

It's not that different than undergrad admissions. Any admissions system that isn't solely based on a sterile algorithm (e.g., every med school in the US) is going to have a healthy dose of unpredictability, with those few extraordinary results every year that leave observers scratching their heads in disbelief. Psychology even tells us that how favorably a reader views your app can be affected by whether they're holding a cup of iced tea or freshly-brewed coffee, and sitting on a hardwood chair or comfy couch. (Cue storm of applicants PMing me right after they submit their apps or interview, asking me to reupholster all the admissions office chairs and serve cappuccinos at committee meetings)

New SDNer personal statement:
Reader, I want to be a physician. Please take the time you would have used reading a full PS to grab yourself a coffee in your favorite chair.