- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
Doubtful. This "I've heard from an adcom" stuff is all crap.
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.
Agreed. This conversation has been about whether or not the quantitiatively ideal candidate should ever be entitled to an interview for some time now. Slamming this entitlement is not slamming the OP.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.
Yeah, I was suprised too. I wouldn't make any big thing of it. There are many adcoms with many different ideas.Doubtful. This "I've heard from an adcom" stuff is all crap.
I'm CA in state with a good application (stats and otherwise). I assume my app. must be alright since I have had interviews at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, UPenn, WashU, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, all the other UC's, etc.
I was granted an interview at every school I applied to, except for UCSF.
As an in-state who got interviews at every other school, I DO think i was entitled to a UCSF interview, and the fact that I know people who are getting them with much lower GPA, MCAT, less research, etc. etc. proves to me that ucsf admissions are whack.
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.
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.
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.
Doubtful. This "I've heard from an adcom" stuff is all crap.
\lol now you just need to stop criticizing others, i am sure they must have their own reasons. saying some one is whack because you didn't get it your way, demonstrates your willingness to pass off blame. if i was in the situation i would have said, o shoot, maybe i did something wrong and try to find out what that is. i am sure your no doubt an excellent applicant, one much better than i, but i feel calling adcoms whack is kind of immature.
Who is to say one applicant's unique PS is more sincere or more indicative of a great future doc than another's.
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.
Beat me to it.UCSF is to say, for one.
UCSF is to say, for one.
And you'd have a lot of support.I'm arguing that there should be such a policy at the UC schools.
So you're saying that the PS, being the most subjective aspect of the application, should be enough to trump an extremely high MCAT score (the most objective aspect of the application) and consequently deny an extremely accomplished in-state applicant an interview (note: NOT acceptance) from the top state school?
Sure. Schools can consider any part of your application they want, and weigh them however they want. They are seeking to put together a certain kind of class, and get to set the criteria. It apparently isn't the same criteria you would use. That's life.
And you'd have a lot of support.
Personally, I think med schools are already too MCAT/GPA driven. I wish there were more schools that took the Whole Applicant argument and put their money where their mouth is.
Then why have a numerical MCAT score at all....just make it "thumb up" or "thumb down" depending on a cut-off score. Who cares about GPA? Who cares about objective measures of aptitude all together. Adcoms should just count how many tears tumble out of the dean of admission's cheek into a cup to guage an applicant's potential.
I think it's pretty clear from the range of stats at top schools that "by the numbers" acceptance is not really done at most places. Once people get above a certain point, other factors loom large.
Sure. Schools can consider any part of your application they want, and weigh them however they want. They are seeking to put together a certain kind of class, and get to set the criteria. It apparently isn't the same criteria you would use. That's life.
I'd totally agree with you if you were talking about a private school...they should consider applications however they want.
But UCSF is a state school, and being a public school should mean that fairness is the golden rule. Fairness means holding objective measures of aptitude to a greater importance than blatantly subjective ones. A 3.9/42 with great LORs/ECs, and a PS that garners interview invites from top private schools should definitely result in a UCSF interview invite for a CA resident.
Sure. Schools can consider any part of your application they want, and weigh them however they want. They are seeking to put together a certain kind of class, and get to set the criteria. It apparently isn't the same criteria you would use. That's life.
So when UC Riverside opens its medical school and decides that MCAT scores are weighed equally to how many tear drops a personal statement can cause to drop out of the dean's eyes in 3.5 minutes and equally to the square-root of the number of puppies an applicant saved in the last 3 months (isn't that a valid measure of compassion?), you'd see nothing wrong with that? If you were a California resident applying to UC Riverside, wouldn't you expect a public school to be as objective as possible in its admissions policy?
Ok so at my UCSF interview, I got to meet the Dean of Admissions....
and it seems like they screen way beyond the numbers. They evaluate holistically in this sense. It seems like they want people who excel in a particular area related to medicine. For example, he said that there isn't a "checklist" of requirements to get interviewed/accepted, so it isn't necessary to have any clinical experience (contrary to popular belief) if you are very strong in research, and vice versa.
So they have a pretty specific idea of who they are looking for, which is evident in their screening processes.
Some applicant with stellar LORs and ECs, a sincere personal statement, and a 3.9+ GPA as a BioEngineering major and a mind-blowing 42P on his MCATs is going to get rejected because he only saved 5 puppies in the last 3 months, his personal statement only caused 4 tears to drop from the assistant dean's eyes (the dean was sick the day the personal statement was passed around), and he could only juggle 2 chainsaws while riding a unicycle blind-folded...........and LAW2DOC SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT?
Outstanding.
I don't get what all this "tear drop" talk is about. If there are two applicants with "adequate" numbers as far as the school is concerned, but the one whose numbers are higher does not impress the committee in his PS that he has the same compelling interest in medicine or perhaps comes off as one dimensional, or simply seems to be a clone of the last dozen people the school already chose to accept, then no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with deciding that the other student is a better fit. Schools do this regularly. I get that you don't like it. But most of the admissions world seems to.
I don't get what all this "tear drop" talk is about. If there are two applicants with "adequate" numbers as far as the school is concerned, but the one whose numbers are higher does not impress the committee in his PS that he has the same compelling interest in medicine or perhaps comes off as one dimensional, or simply seems to be a clone of the last dozen people the school already chose to accept, then no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with deciding that the other student is a better fit. Schools do this regularly. I get that you don't like it. But most of the admissions world seems to.
Okay, find me ONE state school outside California that consistenly denies interviews to in-state applicants with at least 3.8/38 (notice how I lowered the standards for you because 3.9+/42 is so damn rare). Come on, use mdapplicants or something. U of Arizona? U of North Carolina? Definitely not U of Michigan or U of Washington...I already mdapp'd those with 3.7/37. You could use 3.7/37 too if you want. Come on, dude, find ONE state school outside of California.
"Schools do this regularly. I get that you don't like it. But most of the admissions worlds seems to"......you must be talking about private schools plus the UCs. I'm making the argument that the UCs should have policies similar to that of the other public med schools (ie, shift the emphasis to objective measures when determining which in-state applicants to interview).
By state medical school STANDARDS, a 3.9/42 in-state applicant is ENTITLED TO AN INTERVIEW. Case closed, my lawyer friend.
Okay, find me ONE state school outside California that consistenly denies interviews to in-state applicants with at least 3.8/38 (notice how I lowered the standards for you because 3.9+/42 is so damn rare). Come on, use mdapplicants or something. U of Arizona? U of North Carolina? Definitely not U of Michigan or U of Washington...I already mdapp'd those with 3.7/37. You could use 3.7/37 too if you want. Come on, dude, find ONE state school outside of California.
"Schools do this regularly. I get that you don't like it. But most of the admissions worlds seems to"......you must be talking about private schools plus the UCs. I'm making the argument that the UCs should have policies similar to that of the other public med schools (ie, shift the emphasis to objective measures when determining which in-state applicants to interview).
By state medical school STANDARDS, a 3.9/42 in-state applicant is ENTITLED TO AN INTERVIEW. Case closed, my lawyer friend.
The higher number means that that applicant either worked harder, is more intelligent or both.
Guess what - you live in California. What other states may do is irrelevant. What other schools in California do is irrelevant. Each school evaluates applicants based on what they feel works for them. To argue about this is silly. It is what it is.
I think the kid should have received an interview as well. But I do think you have to remember you're talking about UCSF. Comparing it to other state schools is not really fair since it is [IMO] the best state school in the country.
...and hence the whole point of this thread: UCSF, being a state school, should look at in-state applicants in a more objective way (like ALL non-UC state medical schools actually do) and hence outstanding in-state applicants with mind-blowing accomplishments and numbers should be entitled to an interview.
You say should, others disagree. This is futile.
Law2Doc, I'm sorry dude, but maximizing objectivity should be mandatory for state school admissions. Period.
That's exactly what I want in my doctor: a hardnosed dedication to how things SHOULD be instead of doing his/her best given all situational aspects. It's admirable to want a better world. It's also currently required to live in this one while you work for that better world.
I bet $4.73 that UCSF is funded to interview 500 applicants. It costs money, approved by California voters, to interview candidates. It takes coercion of faculty to take the time to interview candidates. It's a complete pain in the a** to administer this process. It's WAY easier to just set a numeric bar and whoever jumps over it gets an interview, and spend a bunch of money interviewing whoever is above the bar. Washington state can do this because it has one med school (serving 5 states, so they pitch in too). California can't do it because it has 6? 7? state med schools and they all need to be funded without regard to which school has the most prestige. So UCSF probably made the decision to do more hardcore pre-interview screening. And I bet another $4.37 that the UCSF admissions committee is reading this thread and rolling their eyes at how dogmatic all these premeds are about a tiny little itty bitty piece of the process.
UCSF interviewed 538 out of 5298 in the last application cycle for which they post numbers. That means that app reviewers fought for and won 38 more interviews than they had money for, based on my speculation of funding 500 interviews. That's at least another week of interviews to be administered across maybe 200 people. It matters, actually.
Every hotshot premed applies to UCSF. I bet another $7.34 that there are 1000 - let me repeat - 1000 applicants in the 3.9/42 ballpark. Maybe it's more like 2000. If you're the dean of admissions at a stellar state med school, and you have to argue like Webster for every penny you spend trying to stay stellar, you get creative. You come up with screening standards that save your people interview time. And you continue to get stellar M1s who get stellar residency placements. So you keep doing it.
Should it be this way? No. Should it be a high priority for California to pay for more interviews at its top med school? I doubt it. You have 36 million residents, increasing at 7% a year.
Ah whatever. Tag, Law2Doc, you're it.
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.
Every hotshot premed applies to UCSF. I bet another $7.34 that there are 1000 - let me repeat - 1000 applicants in the 3.9/42 ballpark. Maybe it's more like 2000. If you're the dean of admissions at a stellar state med school, and you have to argue like Webster for every penny you spend trying to stay stellar, you get creative. You come up with screening standards that save your people interview time. And you continue to get stellar M1s who get stellar residency placements. So you keep doing it.
So what? Maybe this guy was smart and qualified and smoked weed, did coke and played video games. Maybe he discovered that combining weed, coke and video games cures skin cancer. A 3.9/35 is pretty similar to a 4.0/40 in the long run. And I do think UCSF knows what they are doing while looking at the factors that differentiate the two---as many others have said, they've been at this a long time and they are still producing stellar doctors.
That's exactly what I want in my doctor: a hardnosed dedication to how things SHOULD be instead of doing his/her best given all situational aspects. It's admirable to want a better world. It's also currently required to live in this one while you work for that better world.
I bet $4.73 that UCSF is funded to interview 500 applicants. It costs money, approved by California voters, to interview candidates. It takes coercion of faculty to take the time to interview candidates. It's a complete pain in the a** to administer this process. It's WAY easier to just set a numeric bar and whoever jumps over it gets an interview, and spend a bunch of money interviewing whoever is above the bar. Washington state can do this because it has one med school (serving 5 states, so they pitch in too). California can't do it because it has 6? 7? state med schools and they all need to be funded without regard to which school has the most prestige. So UCSF probably made the decision to do more hardcore pre-interview screening. And I bet another $4.37 that the UCSF admissions committee is reading this thread and rolling their eyes at how dogmatic all these premeds are about a tiny little itty bitty piece of the process.
UCSF interviewed 538 out of 5298 in the last application cycle for which they post numbers. That means that app reviewers fought for and won 38 more interviews than they had money for, based on my speculation of funding 500 interviews. That's at least another week of interviews to be administered across maybe 200 people. It matters, actually.
Every hotshot premed applies to UCSF. I bet another $7.34 that there are 1000 - let me repeat - 1000 applicants in the 3.9/42 ballpark. Maybe it's more like 2000. If you're the dean of admissions at a stellar state med school, and you have to argue like Webster for every penny you spend trying to stay stellar, you get creative. You come up with screening standards that save your people interview time. And you continue to get stellar M1s who get stellar residency placements. So you keep doing it.
Should it be this way? No. Should it be a high priority for California to pay for more interviews at its top med school? I doubt it. You have 36 million residents, increasing at 7% a year.
Ah whatever. Tag, Law2Doc, you're it.
I really don't think secondary essays at many of the top schools tell much more about a person besides whether they are sincere enough about applying to that school to do extra work. Havard NP also doesn't have any secondaries, and nobody is critisizing their application process. Yale's secondary is just about why you want to go to Yale, maybe UCSF didn't feel like reading 1500 essays that were all basically the same. Additionally, I don't think UCSF places great emphasis on either special circumstances/talent or leadership things based on both myself and the backgrounds of the others who interviewed there with me.
I agree with several other posters that nobody, state resident or not, is entitled to anything in this process unless the school initially makes a promise based on certain objective criteria. Especially not in a state where there are 5 or 6 other perfectly great state schools.
So what? Maybe this guy was smart and qualified and smoked weed, did coke and played video games. Maybe he discovered that combining weed, coke and video games cures skin cancer. A 3.9/35 is pretty similar to a 4.0/40 in the long run. And I do think UCSF knows what they are doing while looking at the factors that differentiate the two---as many others have said, they've been at this a long time and they are still producing stellar doctors.
There is no study that suggests that one's intelligence is directly correlated with his MCAT score. And we all know people who work extremely hard and come up short. Do not think that these numbers mean more than they do -- but one of many criteria used by schools to decide who will thrive in med school. I think some people get too hung up on their success in this test and miss the big picture -- this is but one leg of the journey toward med school.
im reading his post over and over again and no where does it say anything about a sense of entitlement. you guys inferred that from his scores. hey he got a 42, call out the wolves.
The post itself suggests it. He's giving his stats and asking if anyone else similar got rejected and how he can appeal. People don't appeal (challenge) something without evidence of a wrong, uless they believe they are entitled to something. Nor are his stats relevant unless the OP was suggesting that he shouldn't have been rejected. Anyhow that's how I read it.
I'm CA in state with a good application (stats and otherwise). I assume my app. must be alright since I have had interviews at Harvard HST, Johns Hopkins, UPenn, WashU, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, all the other UC's, etc.
I was granted an interview at every school I applied to, except for UCSF.
As an in-state who got interviews at every other school, I DO think i was entitled to a UCSF interview, and the fact that I know people who are getting them with much lower GPA, MCAT, less research, etc. etc. proves to me that ucsf admissions are whack.
I could understand not being accepted to UCSF, but I can't believe I didn't at least get an interview considering they interview 500 people.
How many have you read? After reading 40+ from SDNers who wanted a review, I can tell you that most of them are trite and generic. I can only think of TWO that stick out in my mind. One was a businesswoman (I think it was jackieMD2007), and the other was a guy who was a sports coach.Perhaps the OP can verify, but I doubt he wrote a trite and generic personal statement.