UCSF Rejection Letter and Appeal

[Jiantkwazi]

No. CA does not discriminate. Prop 209 forbids discrimination by race.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. All the med schools in California give preference to underrepresented minorities, especially UCSF.
It is illegal acording to prop 209, but they all still do it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pagemmapants]

First, it makes me mad that people are gleaning a sense of entitlement/ego from this guy's post. There's nothing in there but a) his scores and b) the fact that he wants to appeal a rejection that might even suggest such a personality. Second, I don't think his disappointment in being rejected from UCSF pre-interview is at all unfounded. If you've lived in a state for a long time, stuck with that state's public university system, and you've done well enough therein to be in the highest ranks of students anywhere I don't think it's at all unfounded to expect due consideration at what is considered the top medical university within that public system. Am I off base in thinking so?
I mean, it really is useless for me to post here since I am (one of the many) scorned ex-UC kids (Hell, I didn't even get interviewed at my alma mater) and have no idea how to go about any sort of appeal, but I think that the knee-jerk "HISS! EGOIST!" reaction to his scores/appeal request says more about the insecurities of the commentors rather than the OP.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. All the med schools in California give preference to underrepresented minorities, especially UCSF.
It is illegal acording to prop 209, but they all still do it.

Yes, I am well aware of "comprehensive review".

 

[Law2Doc]

First, it makes me mad that people are gleaning a sense of entitlement/ego from this guy's post. There's nothing in there but a) his scores and b) the fact that he wants to appeal a rejection that might even suggest such a personality. Second, I don't think his disappointment in being rejected from UCSF pre-interview is at all unfounded. If you've lived in a state for a long time, stuck with that state's public university system, and you've done well enough therein to be in the highest ranks of students anywhere I don't think it's at all unfounded to expect due consideration at what is considered the top medical university within that public system. Am I off base in thinking so?
I mean, it really is useless for me to post here since I am (one of the many) scorned ex-UC kids (Hell, I didn't even get interviewed at my alma mater) and have no idea how to go about any sort of appeal, but I think that the knee-jerk "HISS! EGOIST!" reaction to his scores/appeal request says more about the insecurities of the commentors rather than the OP.

Nah. As said above, the notion that someone wants a "do over" because he doesn't like the result is the very definition of entitlement.

While some would certainly feel it justice if high scores automatically equalled interviews, the system does not necessarilly work that way. A ton of subjective and non-numerical critieria are built into the system. The OP should have a solid shot at getting interviews with his/her numbers. But not necessarilly at every school.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Nah. As said above, the notion that someone wants a "do over" because he doesn't like the result is the very definition of entitlement.

While some would certainly feel it justice if high scores automatically equalled interviews, the system does not necessarilly work that way. A ton of subjective and non-numerical critieria are built into the system. The OP should have a solid shot at getting interviews with his/her numbers. But not necessarilly at every school.

Why offer the appeals process if using it makes you "arrogant"? Yes, she entitled to a "do over" by the very fact that an appeal is offered by that school as a course of action.

This applicant deserves to know what "subjective and non-numerical" criteria was so horrible that it offset a very strong objective application.

 

[Law2Doc]

Why offer the appeals process if using it makes you "arrogant"? Yes, she entitled to a "do over" by the very fact that an appeal is offered by that school as a course of action.

This applicant deserves to know what "subjective and non-numerical" criteria was so horrible that it offset a very strong objective application.

The appeal is used for mistakes made in the process. It is not impossible for schools to have lost or misfiled documents, never received info from AMCAA, for LORs to get sent back to the sender "return to sender", for other things to go awry outside of the applicant's control.
Appeals are not really supposed to be used just because you don't like the decision. Think about it -- if every person who was unhappy with a rejection (and most people are) appealed, it would gum up the works, the process would go on forever, and cost schools countless man hours. For this reason, the appeals process is not anticipated to be used as a normal course of action.

FWIW, Even with an appeal, I doubt the school will explain themselves, so the applicant still won't know the "subjective and non-numerical" criteria that came into play. They will in most cases send the appellant a letter indicating that they reviewed the file again and that the appeal of rejection is denied.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

The appeal is used for mistakes made in the process. It is not impossible for schools to have lost or misfiled documents, never received info from AMCAA, for LORs to get sent back to the sender "return to sender", for other things to go awry outside of the applicant's control.
Appeals are not really supposed to be used just because you don't like the decision. Think about it -- if every person who was unhappy with a rejection (and most people are) appealed, it would gum up the works, the process would go on forever, and cost schools countless man hours. For this reason, the appeals process is not anticipated to be used as a normal course of action.

FWIW, Even with an appeal, I doubt the school will explain themselves, so the applicant still won't know the "subjective and non-numerical" criteria that came into play. They will in most cases send the appellant a letter indicating that they reviewed the file again and that the appeal of rejection is denied.

If their "appeals" are only for typographical type mistakes, then it is the school's responsibility make it clear that they really don't have a true appeals process. Of course, they may be accused of being arrogant for not offering appeals of judgments.

Maybe gumming up the process will force them to make admissions more transparent and open. Accountability is a painful thing.

 

[Law2Doc]

Maybe gumming up the process will force them to make admissions more transparent and open. Accountability is a painful thing.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

No kidding. They're an arrogant lot, aren't they?

 

[Towelie]

Nah. As said above, the notion that someone wants a "do over" because he doesn't like the result is the very definition of entitlement.

While some would certainly feel it justice if high scores automatically equalled interviews, the system does not necessarilly work that way. A ton of subjective and non-numerical critieria are built into the system. The OP should have a solid shot at getting interviews with his/her numbers. But not necessarilly at every school.

You're being a little harsh. Maybe he has fantastic LORs, great ECs, and a great personal statement to go with his good stats. Then would he have the right to think that he deserves an interview? Or would there just be other strange "non-numerical factors" that led to his rejection?

 

[Law2Doc]

You're being a little harsh. Maybe he has fantastic LORs, great ECs, and a great personal statement to go with his good stats. Then would he have the right to think that he deserves an interview? Or would there just be other strange "non-numerical factors" that led to his rejection?

I think I'm having trouble with your whole "right to think he deserves an interview" concept. To me that is the definition of entitlement.
There is no "you have X stats, you get an interview" system in place. Schools pick and choose people to interview based on a multitude of objective and subjective criteria. They are not number bound.
Grounds for appeal, to me suggest something identifiable that the person appealing can point to that went wrong in the process. Something lost, delayed etc. Not just an undesirable result.

 

[Dookter]

I think he should appeal. Why not?! How does he know if something weird did not happen in the process? Maybe there IS a mistake somewhere that the school did not realize and the applicant would have no idea about. I remember this kid at Baylor telling me how he went to undergrad at this one school. He apparently had SUUUUPER stats for residency, and applied to his alma mater for residency. He heard NOTHING back. So finally he called them to ask what was up, and it turns out they used some formula to punch in stats, and they punched in his Step 1 score wrong. It turned out he got his interview after all.

So this applicant has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Who knows, maybe his file says somewhere that he got a 24 on the MCAT....

 

[MercuryX]

Even if you had a 4.0 and 40 mcat, they could have simply said that you may not have added much to their class. Not to say you're not interesting, but they may want something else. They don't just want robots with great scores. I have 3 friends in different adcoms, just fyi.

 

[Shake_yabooties]

Even if you had a 4.0 and 40 mcat, they could have simply said that you may not have added much to their class. Not to say you're not interesting, but they may want something else. They don't just want robots with great scores. I have 3 friends in different adcoms, just fyi.

robots with great scores are also rare and would add to the diversity of the class

 

[dt84]

I am not sure how much history is viewed during the medical school process but maybe UCSF has had previous students with similar stats as the OP with similar major and similar undergrad and that student did not fit well and did poorly...I am not saying that the OP would do poorly but with so many applications they might not want to take a chance...sounds very unfair...just my opinion but anyone have an opinion on historical trends as a basis for admission?

This is not true. We are part of first few graduating classes of biomedical engineering at UCI. If our GPA in non BME classes and MCATS cannot validate us, what can?

 

[45408]

Appeals rarely work. They rejected you for a reason (sorry ), and it's not likely that they would reconsider. If they considered appeals, they'd probably get thousands of them.

 

[melissainsd]

This is why I wait until after an interview to become emotionally attached to a school. It limits the number of potential heartbreaks.

 

[MedvacMoney]

I have no idea, this is just a guess. I do think that some medical schools prefer applicants with a broad liberal arts background with lots of course work in the humanities, arts, and social sciences, as well as hard science. Someone from engineering is less likely to have the broad liberal arts background that some med schools prefer. Perhaps UCSF prefers applicants from the liberal arts...I could be wrong, this is just speculation.

Question to the OP; did you do much course work in english, literature, history, philosophy, political science, psychology, those kinds of courses?

BIngo.....i majored in a humanity, have lower mcat, but higher gpa and got invited!

 

[MedvacMoney]

TO OP: Perhaps if you went to a better uc such as UCLA or Berkeley your grades wouldnt be looked at with such questioning and would have been given more weight. Just a thought

 

[Hednej]

OP: just appeal the damn decision. I honestly don't see how it can hurt. I got rejected pre-interview too but then again I'm OOS and wasn't even expecting the secondary. If you really wanna go there, do IT!

 

[dopaminesurge]

Hi, I am new to SDN, but I joined because it looked like a friendly community of people who support each other.

So very quickly here's my profile:
CA resident
4th year senior at UC Irvine
Major: Biomedical Engineering Pre-med
MCAT 42P
GPA 3.931
Volunteer at Hospital: 1.5 years
Research:1.5 years
Letters of Rec: 5 (all of them knew me and we had talked)

I received a letter of rejection for an interview at UCSF and I was wondering if anyone else had received one as well with a similar profile as me. I was also wondering if anyone has any advice on appealing a rejection letter.

Thanks for any feedback I can get.

Damn... I can't believe they didn't interview you. That's shocking. And ignore everybody telling you that you're arrogant. On SDN, arrogant means "having a high MCAT score and not apologizing publicly." I don't know what to tell you about sending an appeal. I doubt it will do any good if it's not an out-and-out mistake. But with your application, it may well be. Unless your AMCAS personal statement is about killing babies.

You're the first girl I met with an MCAT score that high.

 

[dopaminesurge]

You're the first girl I met with an MCAT score that high.

Heh... Not sure where I got that you're a girl. Apparently not, eh?

Aw, hell. I stand behind it. Girl power...

 

[Towelie]

I think I'm having trouble with your whole "right to think he deserves an interview" concept. To me that is the definition of entitlement.
There is no "you have X stats, you get an interview" system in place. Schools pick and choose people to interview based on a multitude of objective and subjective criteria. They are not number bound.
Grounds for appeal, to me suggest something identifiable that the person appealing can point to that went wrong in the process. Something lost, delayed etc. Not just an undesirable result.

What's wrong with entitlement, if he has an excellent application? If he has excellent LORs, ECs, and a good PS to go with his stats, why shouldn't he feel entitled to an interview?

 

[SeventhSon]

Law2Doc I think you are one of the best and helpful members on this forum, but I completely disagree with everything you have siad in this thread. I agree with Dopamine surge and towelie.

Arrogant on SDN means having a high MCAT score and not apoligizing. Why can't you give the OP the benefit of the doubt? Put yourself in his shoes... maybe he REALLY was interested in knowing whether people with his hard stats were rejected by UCSF?

There is nothing wrong with feeling entitled to an interview if you have a strong application. Everyone KNOWS that numbers are not everything, but at the same time, GPA and MCAT are by far the two most important factors as to your success in the application process.

Oh and for all those people spewing about engineering majors being a dime-a-dozen... i think engineering is definitely a positive boost, much in the same way humanities is. It's general bio majors that make up 80% of the application pool or so (I remember seein this number sometime but i have no real data to back it up).

 

[dopaminesurge]

And since, I've been preempted by Matt and Towelie, but here it is anyway:

I think I'm having trouble with your whole "right to think he deserves an interview" concept. To me that is the definition of entitlement.
There is no "you have X stats, you get an interview" system in place. Schools pick and choose people to interview based on a multitude of objective and subjective criteria. They are not number bound.
Grounds for appeal, to me suggest something identifiable that the person appealing can point to that went wrong in the process. Something lost, delayed etc. Not just an undesirable result.

You know, L2D, I think I'm having trouble with your whole "objection to entitlement" concept. If a guy works and achieves exceptional scores, fosters relationships with people who have great things to say about him, publishes a few scientific papers and performs meaningful and long-term clinical volunteering, I think he deserves a shot at UCSF. I don't know that it's the case with this guy, but if it is, it would suggest to me that some snot-faced adcomm member didn't like his application for a reason that is trivial and probably unjustified. I think at a certain level of objective achievement (and don't get all relativist on me and say no such thing exists), you are entitled to a second look. Again, I don't know this guy's full situation, so I'm speaking in generalizations. Maybe 1.5 years of research and volunteering each boils down to three years of meaningless dilly-dallying with not even a rec letter to show for it; maybe he's been in legal trouble; maybe he talked about how personally satisfying it is to be involved with the KKK - who knows? But if you honestly believe there is no conceivable candidate who is entitled to an interview at UCSF, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Cirrus83]

You know, I think I recall seeing on my own school's (undergrad) statistics page that a lot of people with really high GPAs and MCATs actually got rejected by a fair # of schools that you think wouldn't reject them.

I just kinda assumed that the students were so insanely into just studying that they didn't really have much else going for them. To be fair OP does seem to have some ECs, which is probably why he has interviews at many other great schools.

It just might not be quite enough for UCSF is what I would guess.

Oh, and the OP should just get over it to be honest, your efforts are better used in preparing for your other interviews and batting those out of the park. Wasting time writing some appeal letter and worrying about it is really going to be counterproductive.

 

[notdeadyet]

But if you honestly believe there is no conceivable candidate who is entitled to an interview at UCSF, I respectfully disagree.

Here's a problem I have with some of the arguments here (not picking on you, dopaminesurge):

I've used private counsellors, science professors and asked adcoms at medical schools about admissions and they all say the same thing:

This is not a numbers game. We look at the whole applicant. We want a diverse class.

Premeds nod and acknowledge this, then usually reply, "yeah, right, whatever." But then as soon as someone with lower GPA and MCAT gets in and they don't they keep calling the process (I love this) "random".

I'm suprised the OP did not get an interview. But maybe this candidate isn't what UCSF was looking for. Maybe they already had a slew of folks with exactly the same background who have already been interviewed. Maybe something came across in the personal statement or letters of reference that just rubbed them wrong. I don't know. No one here does.

Many premeds come from extremely quantitative backgrounds where things are black and white and everything can be reduced to numbers. Med school acceptances, by medical schools own admission, are not like this. In my experience, very little of life is like this.

 

[notdeadyet]

But if you honestly believe there is no conceivable candidate who is entitled to an interview at UCSF, I respectfully disagree.

1. Just because I'm captain of the football team, I'm not entitled to a cheerleader girlfriend.
2. Just because I'm a better employee at my company, it doesn't mean I'm entitled to a promotion sooner.
3. Just because I'm a good person, it doesn't mean I'm entitled to a life of leisure and good fortune.
4. Just because I have a great GPA and MCAT, it doesn't mean I'm entitled to interviews at every med school of my choosing.

In high school, I don't remember folks "appealing" when they were turned down from colleges and I don't remember folks saying, "with my GPA and SAT, I'm entitled to admission to Amherst."

Why is that? Either I hung out with the underachievers (very possible) or during college and four years of studying science and preparing specifically for medical school, what someone feels they are owed changes. It's interesting.

 

[Dookter]

Many premeds come from extremely quantitative backgrounds where things are black and white and everything can be reduced to numbers. Med school acceptances, by medical schools own admission, are not like this. In my experience, very little of life is like this.

I understand the point of your post, but medical school admissions is mostly a numbers game, especially before the interview. Then they take all the people with satisfactory numbers and decide based on other factors. The heart of the whole process is numbers. Same thing for residency. And a LOT of life is like this, especially up until the point where you are a board-certified, practicing physician. That does not mean numbers will get you whatever you want. Usually they won't. But it certainly means that not having the numbers can destroy your chances. And usually getting a 42 on the MCAT will get you an interview at just about any medical school. So this kid has every right to appeal the decision, but first I would talk to the school to see the reason for the rejection.

And as for people saying the process is random: It IS random. But it is random b/c there are so many people with satisfactory numbers. People just get a little confused about what satisfactory numbers are...obviously most medical schools do not require a 40 MCAT since the averages are lower than 40.

 

[dopaminesurge]

Here's a problem I have with some of the arguments here (not picking on you, dopaminesurge):

I've used private counsellors, science professors and asked adcoms at medical schools about admissions and they all say the same thing:

This is not a numbers game. We look at the whole applicant. We want a diverse class.

Premeds nod and acknowledge this, then usually reply, "yeah, right, whatever." But then as soon as someone with lower GPA and MCAT gets in and they don't they keep calling the process (I love this) "random".

I'm suprised the OP did not get an interview. But maybe this candidate isn't what UCSF was looking for. Maybe they already had a slew of folks with exactly the same background who have already been interviewed. Maybe something came across in the personal statement or letters of reference that just rubbed them wrong. I don't know. No one here does.

Many premeds come from extremely quantitative backgrounds where things are black and white and everything can be reduced to numbers. Med school acceptances, by medical schools own admission, are not like this. In my experience, very little of life is like this.

I'm not picking on you either, ndy, but my post was about the whole candidate: someone with great LORs, research and clinical experience, too. I'm saying, if you can't conceive of someone who's so succesful and excellent he is entitled to an interview, I disagree. If he contributed significantly to an academy of science quality study and founded a student run free clinic in his undergrad years, plus had a 45 MCAT and a 4.0, would you not say he is entitled to an interview at UCSF? I'm not talking about this guy, but about the concept that no one should ever expect that they deserve at interview. Personally, I think this guy deserves an interview, but that's not the contention I had with L2D's comments.

 

[MedvacMoney]

I'm not picking on you either, ndy, but my post was about the whole candidate: someone with great LORs, research and clinical experience, too. I'm saying, if you can't conceive of someone who's so succesful and excellent he is entitled to an interview, I disagree. If he contributed significantly to an academy of science quality study and founded a student run free clinic in his undergrad years, plus had a 45 MCAT and a 4.0, would you not say he is entitled to an interview at UCSF? I'm not talking about this guy, but about the concept that no one should ever expect that they deserve at interview. Personally, I think this guy deserves an interview, but that's not the contention I had with L2D's comments.

He is only entitled to have his file looked at (if he paid the secondary fee) nothing more! Thinking you deserve something shows your arrogance. No one is guaranteed an interview, and you shouldnt expect one regardless of your numbers.

TO OP: You just arent what UCSF is looking for! Accept it and move on, stop crying like a little baby. I am sure you applied to other top schools, focus on those and just grow up.

 

[notdeadyet]

I understand the point of your post, but medical school admissions is mostly a numbers game, especially before the interview.

I agree. Boston U gets over 11,000 primaries. I doubt very much that they opened mine and said, "let me try to get an idea of what kind of man notdeadyet really is."

The heart of the whole process is numbers. Same thing for residency. And a LOT of life is like this, especially up until the point where you are a board-certified, practicing physician.

Sorry, when I said "life", I wasn't speaking about medicine. I was talking about a broader canvas. In almost every industry out there (maybe not to include medicine), the promotion/success does not necessarily go to the person who looks best on paper.

And usually getting a 42 on the MCAT will get you an interview at just about any medical school. So this kid has every right to appeal the decision, but first I would talk to the school to see the reason for the rejection.

A 42 is fantastic, but there is no magic number on the MCAT that is a golden key unlocking the med school process. I agree that the OP has the right to appeal the decision. But he has that right because he is unhappy with the decision and feels that a mistake has been made. He doesn't have the right to expect to get a different answer the second time. But he can certainly ask.

And as for people saying the process is random: It IS random. But it is random b/c there are so many people with satisfactory numbers.

Ah, thank you, you may be clearing up my confusion here. Maybe premeds keep referring to the process as "random" because there are so many folks with similar numbers and some are accepted and some are not. Maybe premeds are so data-driven that they equate "subjective" with "random".

To me, "random" means that they take a stack of similar folks and draw them out by luck. I have a hunch that instead they look at this stack and try to find, subjectively, who they feel is the best candidate. I don't personally consider this random.

 

[dopaminesurge]

He is only entitled to have his file looked at (if he paid the secondary fee) nothing more! Thinking you deserve something shows your arrogance. No one is guaranteed an interview, and you shouldnt expect one regardless of your numbers.

TO OP: You just arent what UCSF is looking for! Accept it and move on, stop crying like a little baby. I am sure you applied to other top schools, focus on those and just grow up.

Once again. Not your numbers. Let's not talk about your numbers. Is there nothing you think should guarantee someone an interview? What if this 3.9, 42 formed and ran a mobile tuberculosis clinic in China for the year before their application then published a major paper based on their experience in a respected public health journal, for christ's sake? You don't think anyone should ever be entitled to an interview? There shouldn't be a level of excellence that can secure your future? (I'm not asking if there is. Clearly there isn't. I'm asking if there shouldn't be.)

 

[dopaminesurge]

I like posting double. It makes my toes curl.

 

[Towelie]

This thread is hilarious. So many SDNers have nothing but animosity for those applicants with ultra-high GPAs and MCAT scores. These SDNers love seeing rejections of these high achieving candidates, like what happened to the OP, because it feeds into their delusion that all people with high GPAs and MCAT scores are shallow robots with nothing other than good numbers.

The fact is, candidates with great GPAs and MCAT scores also tend to have the best LORs (they are the best students and researchers), ECs, and personal statements. They tend to be the best interviewers. In general, these "over-achievers" are the most well-rounded candidates.

To those of you that are celebrating the OP's rejection, know this: having a lower GPA and a lower MCAT score does not mean that you a more well-rounded, diverse candidate. It means that you are not as smart, and didn't work as hard.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm not picking on you either, ndy, but my post was about the whole candidate: someone with great LORs, research and clinical experience, too. I'm saying, if you can't conceive of someone who's so succesful and excellent he is entitled to an interview, I disagree.

I see what you're getting at, dopaminesurge and it makes a lot of sense. If someone is, by a particular school's yardstick, the absatively/posilutely perfect candidate for said school, are they entitled to an interview? You say yes, I'd say no.

I think it's probably more semantics than a true disagreement. Replace "entitle" with "deserve" in your argument and I'd wholeheartedly agree. That candidate certainly deserves an interview. Heck, I think the kid with a 3.3/30 who had to work at a factory through college to pay his families rent deserves an interview.

But neither is entitled. You can only be entitled to something if you meet the requirements, and there are no objective requirements that need to be met to get an interview.

Some schools have a policy in which if students hit a certain GPA/MCAT combination, they are given an interview. In this case they are entitled to it. In the case of UCSF, which has no stated requirements, people may deserve it, but they are not entitled to it.

I'm hoping I'm explaining myself well here. I'm not sure if Law2Doc is on the same page as me, but I personally think you and I are closer on this issue than you might think.

 

[dopaminesurge]

This thread is hilarious. So many SDNers have nothing but animosity for those applicants with ultra-high GPAs and MCAT scores. These SDNers love seeing rejections of these high achieving candidates, like what happened to the OP, because it feeds into their delusion that all people with high GPAs and MCAT scores are shallow robots with nothing other than good numbers.

The fact is, candidates with great GPAs and MCAT scores also tend to have the best LORs (they are the best students and researchers), ECs, and personal statements. They tend to be the best interviewers. In general, these "over-achievers" are the most well-rounded candidates.

To those of you that are celebrating the OP's rejection, know this: having a lower GPA and a lower MCAT score does not mean that you a more well-rounded, diverse candidate. It means that you are not as smart, and didn't work as hard.

I less than three you, in the words of Beatrix the great troll.

 

[dopaminesurge]

But neither is entitled. You can only be entitled to something if you meet the requirements, and there are no objective requirements that need to be met to get an interview.

Salient.

 

[Towelie]

I less than three you, in the words of Beatrix the great troll.

I have no clue what that means.

 

[notdeadyet]

TO OP: You just arent what UCSF is looking for! Accept it and move on, stop crying like a little baby. I am sure you applied to other top schools, focus on those and just grow up.

The OP has made one post. He didn't cry or complain. He raised a valid enough question to keep folks discussing it for two pages. He wasn't overly emotive or immature. You're projecting here.

 

[dopaminesurge]

I have no clue what that means.

I <3 you

 

[notdeadyet]

The fact is, candidates with great GPAs and MCAT scores also tend to have the best LORs (they are the best students and researchers), ECs, and personal statements. They tend to be the best interviewers. In general, these "over-achievers" are the most well-rounded candidates.

Boy, you haven't done much interviewing, have you?

I agree there can be trends of folks that assume that anyone with high grades and MCAT must get this at the expense of their being a well-rounded student. This is a bad assumption to make. There's a bit of sour grapes there.

But to assume that those with great scores are also the most well-rounded and best interviewers is just plain wrong. I've worked in business for a while and have conducted lots of interviews. Folks who do great in school and are very bright are not naturally articulate and gifted in interview situations.

There is a trend amongst a distrubing number of truly bright people that the intellect that gave them a great GPA/MCAT equates to all things. These folks tend to assume they do other things equally well too (like interview).

This is called arrogance. This is the #1 interview killer at med schools. Ask around.

 

[chh81]

[QUOTE
To those of you that are celebrating the OP's rejection, know this: having a lower GPA and a lower MCAT score does not mean that you a more well-rounded, diverse candidate. It means that you are not as smart, and didn't work as hard.[/QUOTE]

I find this statement of yours about what it means to have a lower mcat or gpa both obnoxious and far too sweeping.

 

[Towelie]

Boy, you haven't done much interviewing, have you?

I agree there can be trends of folks that assume that anyone with high grades and MCAT must get this at the expense of their being a well-rounded student. This is a bad assumption to make. There's a bit of sour grapes there.

But to assume that those with great scores are also the most well-rounded and best interviewers is just plain wrong. I've worked in business for a while and have conducted lots of interviews. Folks who do great in school and are very bright are not naturally articulate and gifted in interview situations.

There is a trend amongst a distrubing number of truly bright people that the intellect that gave them a great GPA/MCAT equates to all things. These folks tend to assume they do other things equally well too (like interview).

This is called arrogance. This is the #1 interview killer at med schools. Ask around.

So, what you're saying is this:

lower intelligence + less hard work in college = better interviewing skills

That makes a ton of sense.


This isn't arrogance. Arrogance is thinking that, even though you're not as smart and didn't work as hard as others, that you're better than people who did because you consider yourself more "well-rounded." Arrogance is celebrating when someone else is rejected because you are jealous of them. Arrogance is thinking that you are a better interviewer because you're the "frat boy" type instead of the "book smart" type.

You would be surprised at how modest most of the "over-achieving" types are. Most of these people have the "academic" complex--they are incredibly smart, but think that they're not smart enough. Most professors that you will meet are like this.

I'm not saying that GPA and MCAT equates to all things. I'm saying that people with higher GPAs and MCAT scores TEND to have better ECs, LORs, and personal statements.

To answer your first question, I've been on 15 interviews. I haven't been an interviewer. I look forward to it, though (if I get the chance).

 

[Towelie]

[QUOTE
To those of you that are celebrating the OP's rejection, know this: having a lower GPA and a lower MCAT score does not mean that you a more well-rounded, diverse candidate. It means that you are not as smart, and didn't work as hard.

I find this statement of yours about what it means to have a lower mcat or gpa both obnoxious and far too sweeping.[/QUOTE]

I'm speaking to those who are celebrating because someone with better stats than them got rejected, not to everyone with a lower MCAT or GPA.

 

[DrMidlife]

I'm sure I'm going too far with this, but med school admissions have a lot in common with American Idol. I've only seen one episode, who has time for TV, but the majority of the bazillion auditioners think they really have a shot, that they're terrific credentialed singers, that they're telegenic, that they'll be voted for. And then there are these judges who have to pick 25 phenomenal representatives out of 100,000 who are going to be interesting and entertaining and look great on TV. There are at least 1000 candidates who would be phenomenal, so it gets ugly. And the ugliness of rejections is apparently as entertaining as the success for those who make the show.

It's SUBJECTIVE. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective We are in a beauty pageant. There's a committee, there's a standard, and there's a huge pile of paper. The committee divides up into small groups, and divides the huge paper pile into slightly-less-huge piles, and they go away and look at us. And based on any given committee member's life experience and biases, that member is going to get excited about the paper version of us, or not. We have to be exciting enough that our excited adcom is willing to fight for us over the bazillion other phenomenal candidates for whom the other adcoms are excited and willing to fight. So Miss Montana might actually be prettiest, but Miss Kentucky makes you want to write poetry. Kentucky wins.

We're not ENTITLED to be loved by an adcom. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entitle
The reality here is that you can do everything right your whole life, and the school of your dreams might not put somebody who will love you in front of your file. You have no control over who is going to read your file, and you have no control over the fact that the applicant before you went to the same summer camp as their newly-excited adcom. Or plays ultimate frisbee like their adcom. I totally agree with the poster who said that a 3.7 is the same as a 4.0, and a 37 is the same as a 42. You're both gorgeous, can sing, and look great in a bikini. Which of you will help make the show more outrageously popular? Which of two applicants will contribute the most to the incoming class? All but one of us are NOT going to be Tyler Hicks this year, even though our singing makes our grandma cry.

Which means that we have to have humility. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humility We are dumba**es if we overestimate our worth to a random stranger who is looking at our app. We are arrogant a**holes if we think we've earned a random stranger's good opinion of us.

I say go ahead and appeal UCSF, if you truly believe you look best in a bikini, and you want another subjective viewer to vote on you. It would be amazing if you could make this appeal without sounding like, ahem, an arrogant, entitled sore loser momma's baby. Let me repeat: it would be AMAZING, I'm not saying it would be impossible. UCSF doesn't care if you love UCSF because everybody loves UCSF. UCSF doesn't have to be humble: they're the ones giving away recording contracts and tiaras.

Lecture over. What an old fart I am. With a math degree. So I know a little bit about probability, and that being in love with one particular medical school is less advantageous than being really quite slutty.

Best of luck to you.

 

[chh81]

I understand who you're addressing but you're making a general statement about the work ethic and intelligence of a group of other people.

 

[Towelie]

People with higher GPAs, on average, worked harder in college than people with lower GPAs. People with higher MCAT scores, in general, are smarter than people with lower MCAT scores. Are those statements really that upsetting to you? They seem pretty obvious.

 

[notdeadyet]

So, what you're saying is this:

lower intelligence + less hard work in college = better interviewing skills

That makes a ton of sense.

When I say big brain's do not equate to great interview skillls, I'm not saying the inverse is true. You're reaching here.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm not saying that GPA and MCAT equates to all things. I'm saying that people with higher GPAs and MCAT scores TEND to have better ECs, LORs, and personal statements.

You said that they tend to be better interviewers. This I objected to.

I agree with the better LORs part. I don't think intelligence necessarily equates to better ECs. And because someone is incredibly bright doesn't necessarily make them articulate, so I'd doubt the personal statement.

To answer your first question, I've been on 15 interviews. I haven't been an interviewer.

When you interview folks a while, you'll find that there isn't much correlation between how "book smart" someone is/isn't and how well they interview.