UCSF Rejection Letter and Appeal

[chh81]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I think there are a lot of issues that factor into gpa, including work ethic- your school, your major, your health. I'm not suggesting that work ethic doesn't matter, but I think your comments' content and tone are offensive and overconfident at times.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm sure I'm going too far with this, but med school admissions have a lot in common with American Idol.

Well done, DrMidlife. Love the analogy...

 

[Towelie]

Notdeadyet--how do you interview people if you're not in med school yet? Just curious.

 

[Towelie]

I think there are a lot of issues that factor into gpa, including work ethic- your school, your major, your health. I'm not suggesting that work ethic doesn't matter, but I think your comments' content and tone are offensive and overconfident at times.

Sorry if I offended you.

 

[notdeadyet]

Notdeadyet--how do you interview people if you're not in med school yet? Just curious.

In business. I mentioned that in the post, sorry if it was buried.

 

[Cirrus83]

You know what's odd, Harvard didn't take a single person from my undergrad from 2000-2005, while UCSF took 3, as did Johns Hopkins and Yale.

Wonder what's with Harvard hating us lol. Not that I even bothered to apply there, but it's just annoying since it looks a lot like a blacklist. Apparently we're good enough for the other top tier med schools, just not Harvard..wtf

 

[45408]

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.

I disagree. Just because you're hung like a moose doesn't mean you have to do porn. Some of these applicants may have been pushed into this by their parents, and their essays show it. This isn't their true passion (even if they did really well), and the adcoms aren't interested in admitting someone who doesn't really want to do this. Either that, or the essays show that the student is one or more of the following (a. immature (b. interested in things the school doesn't pursue (c. boring (d. arrogant (e. just not a good fit for the school. Or maybe an LOR hints that the applicant isn't quite ready for medical school.

 

[45408]

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.

What are you basing this on?

 

[njrpeter]

I agree with Towelie - there is way too much hating on high MCAT scores and high GPA's. And to those who say you can 'fill a class' with people who have MCAT scores like the OP - getting a 42 puts you in the 99.9th percentile most of the time. That means, even if you assume that nobody repeats the MCAT in a year (so ~60,000 unique test takers), that less than 60 people get that score. So in a given year, there are only 60 ppl with a 42 - not even enough to fill an avg med school class, much less every top 5 or 10 school.

Getting a 42 means, in all likelyhood, that you're wicked smart. If I got rejected pre-interview with stats like the OP, I'd wonder what they didn't like about my app. And that's the bottom line - nobody can say the OP was unqualified for med school, so since he was rejected it must have been a subjective 'dislike' of something in his app by someone in admissions at UCSF. I think it's perfectly fair for him to have them look over his app again to make certain that they want to reject someone who's so obviously smart, driven, and successful (based on what we know atm).

It's like nobody wants to admit that it's perfectly possible for one applicant to be, in every way, BETTER than another. Contrary to what some may WANT to believe, there are people out there with 40+, ~4.0, who are super nice, modest, empathetic, have great EC's, write very well, and are effortlessly brilliant. So yea, we can celebrate our diversity and differences and say how everyone has their own unique skills and whatever. But let's also celebrate people's excellence, too, without getting all bitter about it!

 

[pyrois]

Why? Given his GPA and major, he probably worked harder than most students that UCSF accepts. Given his MCAT, he is almost certainly smarter than the average UCSF student. If his essay and LORs were as good as his stats, why shouldn't he get an interview? What other factors could they have to consider? He earned it.

Certainly he's worked hard, but so long as there are more than ~150 people in the world (or whatever UCSF's class size is) who have equal or better stats than that, even if stats alone were the sole decision-making point, it's no guarantee.

I think many people underestimate how many ridiculously amazing people there are out there.

 

[pyrois]

Getting a 42 means, in all likelyhood, that you're wicked smart.

Or that you have sufficient time to prepare.

One of my friends from high school is now applying for a second time to medical school. When he first took the MCATs he was dealing with a bunch of midterms/homework etc. all in the same week, and had relatively little time to study.

He got a 29.

This time around, he took a Kaplan course, studied over the summer and didn't do anything else, and he got a 39.

I'd say the MCAT is not as good an indicator of raw intelligence as most people claim it is.

 

[pyrois]

Contrary to what some may WANT to believe, there are people out there with 40+, ~4.0, who are super nice, modest, empathetic, have great EC's, write very well, and are effortlessly brilliant.

Yeah, and if you take a quick tour of the top med schools in the country, you'll probably meet most of them.

 

[Law2Doc]

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.

I agree with what you've said - we're on the same page.

To dopaminesurge, sure, there are certainly EC which, when combined with high stats, would make you think someone would likely get an interview. Not entitled, but likely. However we have no evidence of some of the hypotheticals you suggested and they run pretty far afield from the 1.5 years of XYZ the OP listed. Had the OP run a TB clinic in china or been a first author in a groundbreaking Nature article, i'm sure s/he would have listed that. We also are assuming there wasn't something in the PS or app that made the school lose interest, which, I think based on the result, is not totally inconceivable.

 

[chaldobruin]

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 see the point you are trying to make towelie, but why demean others by saying that low MCAT and GPA= being "not as smart" and "not working hard."? although that is true the majority of the time, it is an assertion that can be proven false and can offend people.

Definition of arrogance according to MSN Encarta dictionary:

arrogance: proudly contemptuous, feeling or showing self-importance and contempt or disregard for others.

By your statement you are disregarding/showing contempt for people with lower GPAs and MCATs.

Keep in mind that not everyone enters college knowing they want to do medicine. Unless you plan on graduate school, there is hardly any incentive to keep high grades and master every class.. People with scores/GPA that high probably knew they wanted to be a doctor from day one, and did an excellent job of using their talent to achieve, as the OP did with his tremendous GPA and MCAT. However I still think it is silly to say the OP is entitled to an interview based on his scores and GPA, or even his ECs. Schools can choose people based on whatever minute criteria they feel like, and none of us can do anything about it. There are still LOR's, PS, the language/writing he used to enter his ECs, secondaries, etc. and you are assuming that given this guy's GPA/scores that everything else is stellar. However there is no way of proving that, once again it is an assertion that can be proven wrong many times.

Towelie, I'll bet that you have amazing scores/GPA/EC's/PS because you seem to be defending the "overachieving" type students, and you've had 15 interviews which is a testament to how strong your app is. I've met many people with stats like the OP that are the most articulate, warm, humble people I know. And they did awesome in the med school application process. But many of them got rejections too. Its part of the game, especially for schools as selective as UCSF... if may be merely an acknowledgement of how strong the applicant pool is this year rather than any of the OP's shortcomings. There could be Olympic medalists, newspaper writers, entrepreneurs, people who unique life experiences, etc. that also have good #"s, and maybe UCSF wants a class with a diverse array of experiences. Nobody is "applauding" this guy's rejection. We're merely trying to tell him that there are no guarantees in this process, no matter what your stats, scores, ECs, etc. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder in regards to people making generalizations about "over-achieving" students, yet you are fighting back by making generalizations about those with lower GPA/MCATs, basically doing the exact same thing. I understand your position and it must be tough when people judge what kind of person you are from your GPA and MCAT. It would probably be more effective, however, to make people aware of their stereotypes rather than perpetuating more of them. Just my .02

 

[45408]

It means that you ... didn't work as hard.

Not necessarily. I know people who worked harder than me and had a lower GPA.

 

[notdeadyet]

Not necessarily. I know people who worked harder than me and had a lower GPA.

Agreed. Good grades can be an indication of lots of hard work or lots of intelligence. It doesn't always need to be both.

 

[dopaminesurge]

Once again. Not your numbers. Let's not talk about your numbers. Is there nothing you think should guarantee someone an interview? You don't think anyone should ever be entitled to an interview?

I'm not talking about this guy, but about the concept that no one should ever expect that they deserve at interview.

I don't know that it's the case with this guy...Again, I don't know this guy's full situation, so I'm speaking in generalizations.

To dopaminesurge, sure, there are certainly EC which, when combined with high stats, would make you think someone would likely get an interview. Not entitled, but likely. However we have no evidence of some of the hypotheticals you suggested and they run pretty far afield from the 1.5 years of XYZ the OP listed. Had the OP run a TB clinic in china or been a first author in a groundbreaking Nature article, i'm sure s/he would have listed that. We also are assuming there wasn't something in the PS or app that made the school lose interest, which, I think based on the result, is not totally inconceivable.

I disagree. Just because you're hung like a moose doesn't mean you have to do porn. Some of these applicants may have been pushed into this by their parents, and their essays show it. This isn't their true passion (even if they did really well), and the adcoms aren't interested in admitting someone who doesn't really want to do this. Either that, or the essays show that the student is one or more of the following (a. immature (b. interested in things the school doesn't pursue (c. boring (d. arrogant (e. just not a good fit for the school. Or maybe an LOR hints that the applicant isn't quite ready for medical school.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I state that I don't know this guy's situation and am speaking about the hypothetical idel candidate - people keep letting me know that I may not know the whole story about the OP.

I'm glad we're communicating.

 

[Law2Doc]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I state that I don't know this guy's situation - people keep letting me know that I may not know the whole story about the OP.

Good communication, guys.

We agree you don't know. Our point is that, given that, the inference really goes the other way. (ie you can't assume that there is amazing stuff we don't know about, you need to assume that what was put is all there is, and that rejections usually happen for a reason. Maybe not a great reason, but some reason nonetheless).

 

[notdeadyet]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I state that I don't know this guy's situation and am speaking about the hypothetical idel candidate - people keep letting me know that I may not know the whole story about the OP.

Yeah, this thread has so much recent traffic that I think folks are arguing different points without knowing the other knowing it.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah, this thread has so much recent traffic that I think folks are arguing different points without knowing the other knowing it.

I may not know what anyone else's points are, but can honestly say that in this thread I have been remarkably consistant.

 

[dopaminesurge]

We agree you don't know. Our point is that, given that, the inference really goes the other way. (ie you can't assume that there is amazing stuff we don't know about, you need to assume that what was put is all there is, and that rejections usually happen for a reason. Maybe not a great reason, but some reason nonetheless).

You're completely right. But what set me off was the contention that no one should ever feel that they deserve an interview. I can conceive of cases who deserve to feel entitled.

 

[notdeadyet]

You're completely right. But what set me off was the contention that no one should ever feel that they deserve an interview. I can conceive of cases who deserve to feel entitled.

I had such high hopes when I read the first part of your post. Then you had to go and slip an "entitled" in there... ;-)

 

[dopaminesurge]

I had such high hopes when I read the first part of your post. Then you had to go and slip an "entitled" in there... ;-)

What was the word you prefered?

Siiiiigh. I lose again.

 

[notdeadyet]

Siiiiigh. I lose again.

Nah, no losers. It's all good...

 

[Law2Doc]

What was the word you prefered?

Siiiiigh. I lose again.

You didn't capitulate. That means a draw.

 

[Magnum]

In my opinion, the current state of the medical school admissions process should be very frightening for society as a whole, considering the students that are being passed up in place of less qualified students. Here are my stats: Florida resident, graduated from FAU in Florida with Bachelor of Science in Biology, final gpa=3.95, MCAT=32, years of clinical med experience, volunteer work in hospital, five recommendations (all good) and a preprofessional committee recommendation, and a good essay (at least two former PhD professors though so). Last year I applied to Univ. of Florida and Stonybrook and wasn't even granted interviews (I had all of their accepted students average stats surpassed, also, three years ago I was granted an interview with UF's veterinary school, which is supposedly harder to get into, go figure!). This year, I have been rejected from Dartmouth without interview, and I have been placed on University of Miami's alternate list (again, all of their stats I had beat).
I don't understand these decisions, and no one (not medical doctors, PhDs, advisors, etc) has been able to explain these decisions to me. It is quite obvious that extremely little consideration is given to academic merit (and hence intelligence) in this day in age, and that is scary. As far as community service goes, anyone can do community service (criminals do it), and just because you do a lot of community service doesn't mean you will be a good doctor. Concerning medical experience, isn't that the whole idea of going to medical school? If you have to have all of this medical experience, why have medical schools? Why don't they just replace them with apprenticeships? And, I will be the one to say this, but we all know that cultural background and trying circumstances are taken into account, and that is ridiculous. We don't have any control over our cultural background (yet many of us are punished for it. I am a strong proponent of equality, but that equality has to be across the board for everyone). As far as difficult circumstances are concerned, am I supposed to wish that I was brought up in foster care, or that my parents were killed when I was younger just to get into med school? Should I become a drug addict and then go through the road to recovery just to boost my application? That is b.s.
When you go to the doctor, do you care how much community service he/she did, or what ethnicity he/she is, or what that person's childhood was like? No, all you care about is that they are extremely intelligent and did awesome throughout their education.
The fact that very academically qualified students (and hence really those who are most qualified for medical school) are being passed up for others based on some ridiculous criteria (and they are, otherwise these schools stats would be higher) is astonishing and scary, especially considering how the modern healthcare system is plagued with malpractice and mistakes. I seriously think that this needs to be brought to the attention of the general public and the government (although the government wouldn't do anything).
There, I have said my peace (at least for now). And one more thing, if I don't get into any of the med schools I applied to this year (including Univ. of S. Florida and Florida state, which really aren't very good schools; not even close to the University of Miami's status), I give up. The system is flawed, and you can't play the system if it operates on some completely illogical paradigm. Finally, if I don't get in, I will NEVER go to a medical doctor for the rest of my life.

 

[Law2Doc]

The fact that very academically qualified students (and hence really those who are most qualified for medical school) are being passed up for others based on some ridiculous criteria (and they are, otherwise these schools stats would be higher) is astonishing and scary, especially considering how the modern healthcare system is plagued with malpractice and mistakes.

I'm not sure that the system is as plagued as you suggest, and there is certainly no data supporting the suggestion that malpractice rates and mistakes have gone up since admissions started putting more weight on subjective factors. Actually one small part of the reason for selecting a different mold of doctors than those with just the highest stats (which at one time was the main criteria) was because doctors better able to relate to their patients get sued less.

 

[estairella]

And one more thing, if I don't get into any of the med schools I applied to this year (including Univ. of S. Florida and Florida state, which really aren't very good schools; not even close to the University of Miami's status), I give up. The system is flawed, and you can't play the system if it operates on some completely illogical paradigm. Finally, if I don't get in, I will NEVER go to a medical doctor for the rest of my life.

I think you've found what makes you different from many applicants "less deserving" of medical school.

They actually want to become a doctor.

 

[Magnum]

You must either be a doctor, in med school, or already gained acceptance. Relating to patients doesn't get you sued, screwing up and making mistakes does.

 

[Magnum]

I really want to be a doctor, but I am not going to spend years of my life trying to get in. I could see myself doing many things (there is nothing wrong with that), and there comes a point where you have to pursue other avenues (especially considering financial circumstances).

 

[Law2Doc]

You must either be a doctor, in med school, or already gained acceptance. Relating to patients doesn't get you sued, screwing up and making mistakes does.

Everyone in medicine gets sued, whether they screw up or not. The key in relating to patients is doing things to lessen the chance of getting sued.

 

[pyrois]

When you go to the doctor, do you care how much community service he/she did, or what ethnicity he/she is, or what that person's childhood was like? No, all you care about is that they are extremely intelligent and did awesome throughout their education.

There are subtleties to a profession that people realize are important despite the fact that those aspects may not be immediately seen as important.

It's not just the medical field where a sincere love of the work involved is demanded. If you want to become a car mechanic, they want to know that you love cars. If you want to work at Gamestop they want you to have a passion for games.

You have to understand that medical schools aren't looking for people who have done a lot of community service. They are looking for people who enjoy and appreciate doing the work involved in community service, and thus seek it out.

Certainly, it's difficult to determine whether or not someone actually enjoys doing the community service activities he listed down, but that's why the personal statement and interview are such important parts of the application process.

In truth, if you've proven that you have a certain level of intelligence, and that you're good enough to learn everything you need to know to become a doctor, that's when the need for sheer brilliance ends.

After all, what use is absolute and unparalleled genius when 95% of your patients have run of the mill problems, many of which common sense could cure.

Certainly every medical school looks for a few top notch academics, but they know they aren't going to be putting out 100% researchers.

In the end, I'd much rather my doctor be a really nice guy with proficient knowledge of medicine, than someone "doing it for the money/prestige/etc." even if he has a ridiculous mastery of medical knowledge.

Then again, if I'm going in for surgery, I don't care if he's mean or not. After all, that's why we have anesthesiologists😛

 

[notdeadyet]

Finally, if I don't get in, I will NEVER go to a medical doctor for the rest of my life.

Well, the rest of your life may not take that long then....

btw, if a fraction of the rage, indignation, and (I'm gonna say it) entitlement that I get from your post comes through on your personal statement, secondaries, or interview, we may have found the source of your problem.

 

[pyrois]

You must either be a doctor, in med school, or already gained acceptance. Relating to patients doesn't get you sued, screwing up and making mistakes does.

You speak as if a medical doctor who got a 32 on his MCATs and a 3.5 GPA has a higher chance of getting sued than one who got a 43 on his MCATs and a 4.0 GPA.

If they're both going into a non-surgical field, they are both more than qualified to become fully proficient in medicine. Neither has a greater or lesser chance of being sued because both know how to do their job. They wouldn't have graduated medical school otherwise.

What will be different between them is their individual personalities. If the 32 MCAT guy is really mean, so what if he can get the job done as well as the 43 MCAT guy. I'd rather see the 43 MCAT guy. Conversely, if the 43 MCAT guy is mean, I don't care if he can do the job as well as the 32 MCAT guy. They're both qualified physicians, and I'd rather see the nicer doctor.

 

[MercuryX]

I disagree. Just because you're hung like a moose doesn't mean you have to do porn. Some of these applicants may have been pushed into this by their parents, and their essays show it. This isn't their true passion (even if they did really well), and the adcoms aren't interested in admitting someone who doesn't really want to do this. Either that, or the essays show that the student is one or more of the following (a. immature (b. interested in things the school doesn't pursue (c. boring (d. arrogant (e. just not a good fit for the school. Or maybe an LOR hints that the applicant isn't quite ready for medical school.

I agree.

 

[45408]

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I state that I don't know this guy's situation and am speaking about the hypothetical idel candidate - people keep letting me know that I may not know the whole story about the OP.

I'm glad we're communicating.

Your ideal candidate may still have terrible essays. Getting good ECs is just about putting in the time.

 

[45408]

what ethnicity he/she is, or what that person's childhood was like? No, all you care about is that they are extremely intelligent and did awesome throughout their education.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A lot of patients can't completely open up to someone who is completely different from them, and when I picked my primary care doc, I wasn't looking for Mr. Harvard, I was looking for a guy (not a woman) that looked laid-back, easy to talk to, and obviously still qualified (he graduated from the school I'm at now). Now, if I had a critical heart operation, I'd look for the most qualified doc, but that's different. A lot of minorities want a doctor who is the same race, and I don't blame them.

 

[45408]

btw, if a fraction of the rage, indignation, and (I'm gonna say it) entitlement that I get from your post comes through on your personal statement, secondaries, or interview, we may have found the source of your problem.

I'm quite sure of it. If I had a student come into my office for an interview putting off the vibe "If you don't accept me, you're making a big mistake," then we're looking at a big fat rejection. And I do think I'll be doing student interviews in two years, so heads up....

 

[Wannabemed]

Yeah, it's a well known fact that UCSF has a really random admissions policy. How they choose who to interview w/o reading any secondary essays, I will never know. Apparently, the combination of a well-written personal statement, stellar MCAT score, almost perfect GPA, extensive research/volunteer experience, and superb recommendations that garners interview invites from other top medical schools is not sufficient for UCSF. My theory is that they place abnormally great emphasis on special circumstances/talent and extensive leadership activities.

I really feel for the OP, and personally, I believe that he is entitled to an interview at UCSF. Just like the 3.9/42P Michigan-resident applicant is entitled to (and will get) an automatic interview invite from U of Michigan. Acceptance is a different matter, though.

I can't help but remember my friend telling me about one of his housemates: a guy with a 3.9/35 from Berkeley who smoked weed, snorted cocaine, and played video-games excessively and almost daily for 4 years, and is now at UCSF med. Although this is definitely an isolated case of unfairness, it goes to show how random and unfair the admissions process can be. One can only speculate what impressive accomplishments this guy did for his 3.9/35 to win the interview/acceptance the 4.0/40 didn't.

Although med school admissions obviously cannot be perfectly objective, at the very least, UCSF should interview the rare California resident with 3.9/42 as long as he is not too deficient in other aspects of his application (volunteerism, research, etc). In other words, I don't think the OP had to have a 1st author publication in Nature or have started a giant charity organization to become one of the 500 or so applicants that UCSF interviews annually. I know quite a few applicants with interviews at UCSF, and none have accomplished the above. And none of them have 3.9/42P.

 

[Law2Doc]

In other words, I don't think the OP had to have a 1st author publication in Nature or have started a giant charity organization to become one of the 500 or so applicants that UCSF interviews annually. I know quite a few applicants with interviews at UCSF, and none have accomplished the above. And none of them have 3.9/42P.

If they got the interview, they had some hook that you are dismissing. Or else the PS of the OP suggested a bad fit for the school. Or an LOR wasn't as complimentary as the OP hoped. So many possibilities. We can debate all we want but only UCSF knows for sure. They have been at this game for a while and so they do what works for them. I've seen no suggestion that doctors coming out of that program are subpar.

 

[notdeadyet]

Yeah, it's a well known fact that UCSF has a really random admissions policy.

Hmmm. I'm not going to belabor the point, but I wonder if it's really all that "random" versus their making a lot of subjective judgement calls.

Maybe it is a total crapshoot that some would have you believe. But I don't buy it.

UCSF has one of the best reputations in medicine. I find it hard to believe that they've held on to that for so long with "random" admissions.

 

[Law2Doc]

I find it hard to believe that they've held on to that for so long with "random" admissions.

Well, it's better to be lucky than good.😀

 

[Wannabemed]

If they got the interview, they had some hook that you are dismissing. Or else the PS of the OP suggested a bad fit for the school. Or an LOR wasn't as complimentary as the OP hoped. So many possibilities. We can debate all we want but only UCSF knows for sure. They have been at this game for a while and so they do what works for them. I've seen no suggestion that doctors coming out of that program are subpar.

1) They may have had some hook, but out of the many UCSF interviewees I know from this year and the last, no "hook" I have heard of was as impressive, valid, or unique as a 3.9/42P.

2) I don't see how a personal statement can suggest a bad fit for a particular school if the applicant gets many other interviews from top schools. It's not like UCSF is looking to fill its class full of future dermatologists who likes kittens, enjoys playing IM soccer, and saving Pigmy Indians during summer breaks right? They are looking for (and expecting) diversity. Perhaps the OP can verify, but I doubt he wrote a trite and generic personal statement.

3) The LOR speculation doesn't answer why there are so many instances of in-state applicants getting interviews from other top schools but being shafted out of UCSF. A simple mdapplicants search will verify.

4) True, there is no evidence that UCSF grads are sub-par...but there is no evidence that 4.0/40+ CA residents who were shafted out of UCSF are subpar. They had the right to at least get an interview from their state's top state school, being the highest-achieving applicants from the state.

 

[Law2Doc]

1) They may have had some hook, but out of the many UCSF interviewees I know from this year and the last, no "hook" I have heard of was as impressive, valid, or unique as a 3.9/42P.

You aren't the judge. Impressive, valid and unique are all subjective terms dependant on the eye of the beholder. UCSF simply may put more value in certain attributes and activities than you do.

 

[DrMidlife]

...but there is no evidence that 4.0/40+ CA residents who were shafted out of UCSF are subpar. They had the right to at least get an interview from their state's top state school, being the highest-achieving applicants from the state.

If UCSF has no such policy, then there is no such right. The E word, yet again.

By contrast, University of Washington has an automatic interview policy, therefore WWAMI students with adequate numbers have a right to an interview.

 

[notdeadyet]

1) They may have had some hook, but out of the many UCSF interviewees I know from this year and the last, no "hook" I have heard of was as impressive, valid, or unique as a 3.9/42P.

I've heard from an adcom more than once you're over 36 or so on the MCAT, it is all sort of judged the same. I think premeds probably obsess over the minutia more than adcoms.

2) I don't see how a personal statement can suggest a bad fit for a particular school if the applicant gets many other interviews from top schools.

If your personal statement focuses on your passion for tuba and starting a bird-watching nonprof, and they have three others just like you, they may not interview all three, great stats or no. In the interest of diversity.

4) True, there is no evidence that UCSF grads are sub-par...but there is no evidence that 4.0/40+ CA residents who were shafted out of UCSF are subpar. They had the right to at least get an interview from their state's top state school, being the highest-achieving applicants from the state.

Where is it written by any med school that their seats are reserved for teh "highest-achieving applicants" (your words for those with the highest GPA and MCAT)? Again, this is a premed conception that is repeatedly denied by med schools who are after the Whole Applicant. It ain't all a numbers game.

 

[Wannabemed]

Hmmm. I'm not going to belabor the point, but I wonder if it's really all that "random" versus their making a lot of subjective judgement calls.

Maybe it is a total crapshoot that some would have you believe. But I don't buy it.

UCSF has one of the best reputations in medicine. I find it hard to believe that they've held on to that for so long with "random" admissions.

Of course I don't mean random in the sense that admissions personnel draw cards to determine who to interview.......but when an applicant with stellar LORs, ECs, personal statement, and a 4.0/42 cannot expect even to get interviewed from his/her top state medical school, that is certainly one manifestation of random. The OP should have been able to know for certain that he was going to get an interview from UCSF, just like his hypothetical clone in Michigan would have been certain that he was going to get an interview from U of Michigan.

 

[notdeadyet]

Again, this discussion is in no way criticizing or judging the OP. Being denied an interview anywhere hurts. Moreso if you were expecting one.

 

[notdeadyet]

The OP should have been able to know for certain that he was going to get an interview from UCSF, just like his hypothetical clone in Michigan would have been certain that he was going to get an interview from U of Michigan.

The only way anyone should be certain that they are entitled to an interview from any medical school is if there is a criteria that they have met. UW has such a criteria. I believe UPitt has one. UCSF does not.

 

[szhao]

i kind of agree, lets be nice to the OP, i mean because i have low expectations i don't really feel hurt, but if i did hope for something i can understand that it would really hurt if it wasn't met.