UCSF Rejection Letter and Appeal

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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.

Members don't see this ad.
 
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.
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.
 
Doubtful. This "I've heard from an adcom" stuff is all crap.
Yeah, I was suprised too. I wouldn't make any big thing of it. There are many adcoms with many different ideas.

But what's the difference between 13 and 15 on verbal? Isn't it only three questions or some madness?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.


1. A 42 on the MCAT is one giant accomplishment, and it is 6 points higher than a 36.

2. The personal statement is meant to illustrate the applicant's path to wanting to attend medical school. Who is to say one applicant's unique PS is more sincere or more indicative of a great future doc than another's. The PS is the most subjective aspect of the application, by far.

3. I totally believe in meritocracy. I tolerate affirmative action at this point in history because I envision a day when meritocracy can become a universal standard. With all other things being more or less equal, a 3.9/42 should be chosen over a 3.8/35.
 
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.
\




nah, screw ucsf admissions.
 
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.



I'm arguing that there should be such a policy at the UC schools.
 
UCSF is to say, for one.:rolleyes:

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?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm arguing that there should be such a policy at the UC schools.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

lol this is what i want to think hehe. yes med school pick me pick me because i can dance around and sing happy birthday to everyone hehe. let me in let me in, despite my low mcat score, j/m
 
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 after reading the personal statement to guage an applicant's potential.
 
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.

The whole applicant includes both objective and subjective criteria. No one is arguing to get rid of the objective part. But such schools just don't consider it the sine qua non you do.
 
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.

Yep. You do have to have the numbers, but beyond an acceptable range they sort of fade into the background. Before that acceptable point, numbers are huge though.
 
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.
 
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.

Write to your congressmen then. As of now, the school uses a different approach than you are advocating, and seems happy with it and unlikely to change. And FWIW, I disagree with your definition of "fairness". Subjective standards can be fair. You just don't like them.
 
I, for one, wish they would bring back subjective criteria such as "manliness" and "non-jewishness". How many of you acolytes would still find excuses for your adcom gods?
 
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?
 
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?



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.
 
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.

I got an interview, and I certainly hadn't excelled in any particular area related to medicine. At the time, I had 2.5 years of research, but not a single paper to show for it.
 
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.
 
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.

The higher number means that that applicant either worked harder, is more intelligent or both.

If the last dozen accepted people can make good doctors, then why would you not want a clone of them? Don't you want good doctors?
 
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.


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.
 
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.


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.
 
The higher number means that that applicant either worked harder, is more intelligent or both.

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.
 
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.



...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.
 
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.


True, we are talking about UCSF here......but we are also talking about an applicant with a 3.9+/42 !!!!!!!!!!
 
...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.
 
You say should, others disagree. This is futile.


So we are back to 6:29pm 12/07/06:

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?

Furthermore, 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


I've already pointed out that every non-UC state school emphasizes objectivity and would grant an interview to an applicant with 3.7/37, all other aspects of the app being decent.....and that UC is an anomaly in the sense that it regards admissions in the same way private schools do...and you see nothing wrong with that. Law2Doc, I'm sorry dude, but maximizing objectivity should be mandatory for state school admissions. Period.
 
Frankly, the tone and theme of entitlement coming from some of these "high achievers" is disturbing. Life is not fair. There are many times where the amount of work you put into something is not commensurate with the return you receive.

Rather than assuming that the UC's public status should mandate that they choose by numbers, I would say that as a public school they have a duty to interview the candidates that they feel will make the best physicians. While a private school may accept a student because Dad or Mom donated a new wing of the hospital, I believe the public status means the UC's should not do this. I do not believe that being public dictates how the school's must go about this. Put it this way, UCSF is one of the finest medical institutions around because they churn out amazing physicians and researchers. They seem to have a good handle of consistently selecting these students. If they are truly "screwing over" candidates, why have they been able to maintain their incredible reputation and achievements?

When someone moans about what they didn't get, who did get it, and how they deserve it, it means that they are too busy about worrying about themselves versus moving on and making the best of what they do have. These are the same doc's who will feel wronged when they don't get into Derm and have to slum it in Peds even though they really deserved it! (Not knocking Peds, I want to end up doing pediatric medicine myself)
 
Law2Doc, I'm sorry dude, but maximizing objectivity should be mandatory for state school admissions. Period.

Neither of us has budged in a couple of dozen posts now. Really no point continuing this. I'm sorry you don't like the policies of your state schools. They are not alone in their policies, nor are schools likely to move to the objective criteria you suggest. Take that up with them, or your governing officials if you feel so strongly about it, not me. Good luck with that. But this is the way of the world at present, like it or not.
 

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.
 
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.



First you bet $4.73 then you bet another $7.34...impressive. And I'll accept the second of your bet for sure: 33,300 people took the MCAT in April of 2006. For simplicity, let's say they are all applying now (ie, the ones saving their score for applying later are covered by those who are applying with pre-April 2006 scores). A score of 39 was 99th percentile overall. That means out of the 33,000 April 2006 test-takers, roughly 330 had scores of 39 or higher. If only 300 or so applicants had scores of 39 or greater, how the hell can you make the claim that there are 1000 ("maybe 2000?") applicants with a score of 42, let alone a score of 42 AND a 3.9GPA. Furthermore, justify that there are 1000 (maybe 2000) applicants with 3.9/42 applying to UCSF. A better approximation would be less than 10 applicants to UCSF with a score of 42......and perhaps only one or two who are in-state, have a 3.9 GPA, AND have a 42 MCAT.

Instead of $7.34 cash, I'll take it all in ass-kissing, thank you very much

And regarding your first point about the sacrifice of interviewing, you make it seem like it's a tremendous financial burden. It's probably not, and UCSF is DEFINITELY not a poor school, despite being a state school.
 
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 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 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 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.


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.

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.
 
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.

Good lord, man. A 42 MCAT is in the 99.9% percentile. It's closer to 50 applicants.

That is a good idea, though. Dumb down the MCAT and use the resulting ceiling effect it as an excuse to use unjustifiable and indefensible subjective criteria.
 
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.

Yes, stellar and “compassionate” dermatologists.
 
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.

1) 71 exams scored in the 42 ballpark this year, not 2000. There's no need for speculation on that. I think that's more than most years.

2) state school = poor funding = lost applications (also not speculation, except as to the causality of this)

3) I don't know if this character has tried an appeal or not, but here is what s/he should do:

recognize that they prolly just lost the app.
don't let them know that, because they get all defensive about it
pull some NEW information together, and write a very nice letter directly to the dean of admissions explaining how, in light of this new information, they may want to give you another chance.
 
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.


1) I don't care about Yale or Harvard...they are private schools. They can guage applicants based on hemoglobin concentration in applicants' blood if they want to- I don't care. I'm talking about a 3.9/42 CALIFORNIA RESIDENT not getting an interview to his STATE SCHOOL.

2) That's why I believe in change. State schools should emphasize objective criteria.

3) And UCSF shafted a 3.9/42 resident from an interview because they thought he wouldn't make a stellar doctor? Despite the fact that many great private schools would surely interview him?
 
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.

Come on, babe. I don't think we need a study like that. While no one's suggesting that there's a direct formula between IQ and MCAT scores, I think it's fairly ridiculous to assume thre's no direct correlation.


And thank you to everyone else who did the math for the fella who suggested 1000-2000 42, 3.9s apply to UCSF every year. I didn't want to do it myself.
 
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. :rolleyes: hey he got a 42, call out the wolves.

I totally agree. He mentioned his stats and asked a question without any sense of entitlement or conceit. Just b/c his stats are great, everyone is assuming he is arrogant; I really don't see it. Come on guys, let's not jump all over him; he is entitled to an honest assessment for his question without being attacked. That being said, I have no clue about UCSF.
 
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.

well he is suggesting his stats are above the median and they are, so again it's a legitimate question without sounding arrogant.
 
I am in a similar situation with you. I agree, screw UCSF. But at the same time, SF is a great city and there are no other schools in that area. At the same time, UCSF is a public school and that on average means cheaper tuition that you aren't as likely to achieve at HMS, Hopkins, Penn, etc. I don't want to have to fly across the country to see my parents on Christmas. I know a lot of people do it but it's not something I want to do.

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.

Speaking of how messed up UCSF can be . . . I'm reminded of my roommate's sister who graduated from UCI. She had a 4.0 45 MCAT. I am seriously not kidding or exaggerating at all. She was amazing, 4 years of research, first author publication (though small journal), everything. Schools were literally flying her out for free to visit their school. She was invited for an interview and was waiting until the end but was eventually rejected. It was an incredible heart break. She's now at Johns Hopkins.
 
Perhaps the OP can verify, but I doubt he wrote a trite and generic personal statement.
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.
 
Top