UCSF Rejection Letter and Appeal

[45408]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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.

Geez, man, what are you missing about the PS? What if the guy wrote "I f*cking HATE UCSF!" would he still deserve an interview? Now back off a little. What if his PS was really weak, and other well-qualified students had much better PSs? Is a guy with a 42 going to really be much different of a surgeon than someone with a 37? (hint: no)

 

[45408]

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.

This never happened.

 

[pyrois]

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

Well, do consider the fact that, amongst the top 10 schools in the nation (according to us news) that it is statistically hardest to get an interview at UCSF and Stanford. They each interview about twice as many people as they accept, so at the interview stage you have about a 50-50 chance of getting in.

Compare this to Harvard, for example, which interviews over 1000 people for 200 something spots. That's about a 1 in 4 chance. Similarly, Yale is less than 1 in 3 to get in from the interview. Wash U is even worse, with something like 1100+ interviewees.

Hence it's very possible that if you got interviews at a lot of big name schools, statistically speaking you may still not be guaranteed a spot at Stanford or UCSF.

 

[45408]

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.

and how many of those schools accepted you?

 

[pyrois]

This never happened.

It might have.

 

[Wannabemed]

Geez, man, what are you missing about the PS? What if the guy wrote "I f*cking HATE UCSF!" would he still deserve an interview? Now back off a little. What if his PS was really weak, and other well-qualified students had much better PSs? Is a guy with a 42 going to really be much different of a surgeon than someone with a 37? (hint: no)

Dude, having a standard personal statement vs. having a tear-jerking personal statement is very different from writing "I f*cking HATE UCSF!" vs. having a tear-jerking personal statement. How many 3.9/40+ actually have a hypothetical "really weak" personal statement? (in other words, how many 3.9/40+ CA residents with great ECs/LOR get no interview invite from UCSF as well as no/few invites from top private schools?) Answer: very little....UCSF seems to be the most unpredictable top school.

 

[Jiantkwazi]

Well, do consider the fact that, amongst the top 10 schools in the nation (according to us news) that it is statistically hardest to get an interview at UCSF and Stanford. They each interview about twice as many people as they accept, so at the interview stage you have about a 50-50 chance of getting in.

Compare this to Harvard, for example, which interviews over 1000 people for 200 something spots. That's about a 1 in 4 chance. Similarly, Yale is less than 1 in 3 to get in from the interview. Wash U is even worse, with something like 1100+ interviewees.

Hence it's very possible that if you got interviews at a lot of big name schools, statistically speaking you may still not be guaranteed a spot at Stanford or UCSF.

Harvard HST only interviews 150 people

 

[Jiantkwazi]

and how many of those schools accepted you?

well i won't know for most of them until March. None have rejected me yet, and i've been accepted at a few.

 

[pyrois]

Harvard HST only interviews 150 people

I was referring to the New Pathways program, but if you want to refer to the HST program, you have to calculate the interview-to-acceptance ratio. I doubt they accept 75 people through HST.

 

[dantt]

It might have.

This was my roommate's older sister who I personally knew. It DID happen.

 

[ExKitty Doctor]

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

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

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

Are you kidding with this? Good interviewing skills have NOTHING to do with how well someone does on the MCAT and their GPA. That seems "pretty obvious". Good interviewers are able to take social cues and they are articulate. How well they sit in a chair and take an exam is in no way related.

Since when is the MCAT an IQ test? It sounds like you are going around with a high MCAT thinking you are smarter than people with a lower MCAT than you! And that you work harder than people with a lower GPA! HA! A lot of people work in college. They work their way through college. A working person may not do as well in school as someone who has a lot more time to study. The conclusion that this person is "not as smart" is ignorant. And infuriating, to say the least.
Maybe IQ and MCAT scores do correlate. Who knows. But there is more than one kind of smart. Again, saying people with better MCATs are "smarter" is narrow minded.

Hopefully you were kidding with this trash in the first place, or wrote it before thinking it through.

 

[pyrois]

This was my roommate's older sister who I personally knew. It DID happen.

Yeah, I know one person who had a similar experience to that personally, which is why I said 'it might have.'

🙂

 

[dantt]

Yeah, I know one person who had a similar experience to that personally, which is why I said 'it might have.'

🙂

Heh, more aimed towards prowler.

 

[45408]

It might have.

The 45 is a lie. No one has gotten one in a long time (if ever).

 

[dantt]

The 45 is a lie. No one has gotten one in a long time (if ever).

Oops, you are correct. I remember there being talk about how the verbal was weird and was scaled so the max was a 13 or so. Regardless, her MCAT was essentially perfect.

 

[Max8]

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.

The reason I bring up Yale and Harvard is because they are schools that are also trying to select the absolute cream of the crop candidates. You stated that UCSF must be crazy to not use a secondary to do this selection. I am simply pointing out that some other schools also trying to select the very best candidates are able to do so without secondaries.

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?

Your statement is contradictory from number 1. How can you concurrently argue that since Yale and Harvard are "private schools" they may be using different or wacko selection methods AND argue that "the fact that a great many private schools would surely interview him" means that UCSF, a public school, should be using those same standards and so, should interview him? That's wack.

 

[Towelie]

Are you kidding with this? Good interviewing skills have NOTHING to do with how well someone does on the MCAT and their GPA. That seems "pretty obvious". Good interviewers are able to take social cues and they are articulate. How well they sit in a chair and take an exam is in no way related.

Since when is the MCAT an IQ test? It sounds like you are going around with a high MCAT thinking you are smarter than people with a lower MCAT than you! And that you work harder than people with a lower GPA! HA! A lot of people work in college. They work their way through college. A working person may not do as well in school as someone who has a lot more time to study. The conclusion that this person is "not as smart" is ignorant. And infuriating, to say the least.
Maybe IQ and MCAT scores do correlate. Who knows. But there is more than one kind of smart. Again, saying people with better MCATs are "smarter" is narrow minded.

Hopefully you were kidding with this trash in the first place, or wrote it before thinking it through.

I was (sort of) kidding when I wrote this--I used hyperbole to make a point. I get sick of hearing people celebrate when someone with high stats fails, only out of their own delusion that lower stats is somehow equal to "well-roundedness."

The truth is this: ON AVERAGE, those with higher GPAs worked harder than those with lower GPAs. Also, ON AVERAGE, those with higher MCAT scores are smarter than those with lower MCAT scores. This is pretty obvious, so long as you include the words "on average." You can't apply these principles to individuals (e.g. Bob is smarter than Bill because Bob has a higher MCAT score), only to the population as a whole. If the MCAT didn't correlate with intelligence, then medical schools wouldn't look at it. If GPAs didn't correlate with hard work (and intelligence) then medical schools wouldn't look at them either. Again, these are concepts that a four-year-old would understand. They are obvious.

As for your first comment about interviewing skills, you are totally wrong. I would guarantee you that MCAT and GPA correlate with interviewing skills. If nothing else, the interviewers will be less harsh on these individuals, because there won't be much in their file to nit pick.

 

[45408]

If the MCAT didn't correlate with intelligence, then medical schools wouldn't look at it.

Actually, it correlates with good test-taking skills, which they value, since you'll be taking the USMLE.

As for your first comment about interviewing skills, you are totally wrong. I would guarantee you that MCAT and GPA correlate with interviewing skills. If nothing else, the interviewers will be less harsh on these individuals, because there won't be much in their file to nit pick.

I very much disagree. I've met people with great stats who are very socially awkward, I've met people with mediocre stats who are very charismatic, and I've met people who are charismatic with great stats. And the poor SOBs who are stupid and awkward. How can you guarantee that high stats go with good interviewing skills? Some people are library rats with no social skills, and some people are social butterflies that should spend more time in the library.

 

[Dookter]

Actually, it correlates with good test-taking skills, which they value, since you'll be taking the USMLE.


I very much disagree. I've met people with great stats who are very socially awkward, I've met people with mediocre stats who are very charismatic, and I've met people who are charismatic with great stats. And the poor SOBs who are stupid and awkward. How can you guarantee that high stats go with good interviewing skills? Some people are library rats with no social skills, and some people are social butterflies that should spend more time in the library.

I'll have to semi-support Towel on this one. He's not saying there aren't exceptions all over the place. He's saying there is a correlation. And he did not say these smart people were social butterflies, etc. He said they interview well. There are tons of socially awkward smart kids, but within the confines of an interview room, many of them have their game face on b/c they know what they are talking about, they have stellar stats, they have great research to discuss, etc. Some might totally flop on a question about college football, but let's face it, most interview questions are over things real nerds should be able to handle.

And the MCAT does correlate with intelligence. You say, "Nay, it correlates with test-taking skills." I hate to break it to you, but test-taking skills correlate with intelligence and IQ. The MCAT makes you think. Smarter people have an edge, and the scores show that.

Towel has made some rather inflammatory remarks on here, but you can't deny that smarter people get higher MCAT scores.

 

[Wannabemed]

The reason I bring up Yale and Harvard is because they are schools that are also trying to select the absolute cream of the crop candidates. You stated that UCSF must be crazy to not use a secondary to do this selection. I am simply pointing out that some other schools also trying to select the very best candidates are able to do so without secondaries.


Your statement is contradictory from number 1. How can you concurrently argue that since Yale and Harvard are "private schools" they may be using different or wacko selection methods AND argue that "the fact that a great many private schools would surely interview him" means that UCSF, a public school, should be using those same standards and so, should interview him? That's wack.

1) I'm saying UCSF should be more objective than private schools. I'm not saying Harvard/Yale use "wacko selection methods"...I'm saying they can if they want to, and I don't care, because they are private schools and could do whatever they want.

2) I'm pointing out that since many of these pre-interview rejection applicants to UCSF have been given interviews at places like Yale/Harvard, the Personal Statement is probably not the UCSF app-killer like many people claim it is.

 

[45408]

I'll have to semi-support Towel on this one. He's not saying there aren't exceptions all over the place. He's saying there is a correlation. And he did not say these smart people were social butterflies, etc. He said they interview well. There are tons of socially awkward smart kids, but within the confines of an interview room, many of them have their game face on b/c they know what they are talking about, they have stellar stats, they have great research to discuss, etc. Some might totally flop on a question about college football, but let's face it, most interview questions are over things real nerds should be able to handle.

You can be a nerd and still be sociable. By my definition of nerds, I'm in a class with 205 of them (including myself). Now that I'm in med school, and I get to meet some of the applicants, I can say that there are some smart people out there who are very oddddddd. Granted, people can put a game face on, but most of my class is not composed of those odd types (I can see a few who slid under the wire ), so I'm guessing that either weird people decide not to go to MCW, or they get rejected.

Towel has made some rather inflammatory remarks on here, but you can't deny that smarter people get higher MCAT scores.

I guess I'm just tentative at labeling who's smart and who's not, because my MCAT score is 5 points over my school's average (my GPA = the average), and I'm not anywhere near "smoking the competition" in my class. These people are tough, and I think it'd be a lie to say that I'm smarter than most of them.

 

[Dookter]

(I can see a few who slid under the wire

Ha ha ha

 

[notdeadyet]

By state medical school STANDARDS, a 3.9/42 in-state applicant is ENTITLED TO AN INTERVIEW.

Cite your source. Again, we've got UW and UPitt. There are probably others. But few have standards by which a particular GPA and MCAT score guarantee an interview.

Can you name 10 schools like this?

 

[Dookter]

I guess I'm just tentative at labeling who's smart and who's not, because my MCAT score is 5 points over my school's average (my GPA = the average), and I'm not anywhere near "smoking the competition" in my class. These people are tough, and I think it'd be a lie to say that I'm smarter than most of them.

I am looking at it more outside the realm of medical students. I am saying that on a continuum of very low scores like 16 up to scores like 42, there will be a correlation between test scores and intelligence. Within a medical school class [since people don't vary as much in scores], the correlation will obviously be much weaker [although still probably present]. Within a class, it is also hard to say [especially when it comes to grades] who is smarter, etc., since some people work like little freaks and would memorize their own fingerprints if they thought they would get one more point on an exam...

 

[notdeadyet]

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).

Woah, woah, woah. This whole thread has been about you feel UCSF unfairly does not interview applicants with high stats. Why are you all of a sudden qualifying your argument here to "outside California"?

Ah, because you did a hunt on mdapplicants.com and found that UCSF is not alone in not interviewing high stat candidates. I did a quick hunt and found some from last year.

In fact here's one that has a 37Q/3.94 that didn't even get an interview at UCLA (accepted to UCSF, though).

So I take it from your change that you're now railing against the UC's entirely, and not just UCSF?

 

[notdeadyet]

I guess I'm just tentative at labeling who's smart and who's not, because my MCAT score is 5 points over my school's average (my GPA = the average), and I'm not anywhere near "smoking the competition" in my class. These people are tough, and I think it'd be a lie to say that I'm smarter than most of them.

Humble, but you have a good point. I think that anyone who feels intelligence is this nice black-and-white thing that can be easily reduced to any number probably has a pretty limited definition of intelligence.

The MCAT truthfully and accurately measures one thing: how well you did on the MCAT.

 

[pyrois]

I am saying that on a continuum of very low scores like 16 up to scores like 42, there will be a correlation between test scores and intelligence.

Well, actually that's what I think he's saying is false😛

The MCAT can be prepared for. In fact, it's probably MORE dependent on the free time you had to study before the test than your actual intelligence (although raw intelligence can probably get you upwards of a 35 without too much studying). The big numbers, 40's and above, require lots of memorization and thus lots of time.

You could take the most ingenius person in the world, and if he hasn't had any time to study for the MCAT's, he'll still probably only get like a 36 (I know, I chose a high number on purpose because we're talking about the most ingenius person in the world😛).

 

[Dookter]

Well, actually that's what I think he's saying is false😛

The MCAT can be prepared for. In fact, it's probably MORE dependent on the free time you had to study before the test than your actual intelligence (although raw intelligence can probably get you upwards of a 35 without too much studying). The big numbers, 40's and above, require lots of memorization and thus lots of time.

You could take the most ingenius person in the world, and if he hasn't had any time to study for the MCAT's, he'll still probably only get like a 36 (I know, I chose a high number on purpose because we're talking about the most ingenius person in the world😛).

Um, yeah, of course. But if you take the most "mentally handicapped" person in the world and have him take it, he will probably miss all the questions except for the ones that he got accidentally. MCAT scores are based [like basically all other tests] on intelligence, amount of work put into it, etc. Intelligence correlates with scores, bottom line. As the T said earlier, you can't apply that to individual cases....we're talking a correlation across all the test takers.

 

[45408]

Humble, but you have a good point. I think that anyone who feels intelligence is this nice black-and-white thing that can be easily reduced to any number probably has a pretty limited definition of intelligence.

The MCAT truthfully and accurately measures one thing: how well you did on the MCAT.

Hehe, I can't give myself too much credit on being humble. I'm just being realistic. I got clobbered on a few exams by a bunch people that I supposedly did much better than on the MCAT.

 

[45408]

The big numbers, 40's and above, require lots of memorization and thus lots of time.

Or you could teach a prep course for quite a few years, and then finally decide to go to med school and get a 43 like our favorite SDN overachiever.

 

[Dookter]

Humble, but you have a good point. I think that anyone who feels intelligence is this nice black-and-white thing that can be easily reduced to any number probably has a pretty limited definition of intelligence.

You're absolutely right. Intelligence is hard to pin down, and there is no way of telling whether someone who gets a 37 on the MCAT is smarter than their friend who gets a 35. It would depend on other factors at that point [study time, luck, etc.]. But test scores do correlate with intelligence.

 

[ExKitty Doctor]

I was (sort of) kidding when I wrote this--I used hyperbole to make a point. I get sick of hearing people celebrate when someone with high stats fails, only out of their own delusion that lower stats is somehow equal to "well-roundedness."

The truth is this: ON AVERAGE, those with higher GPAs worked harder than those with lower GPAs. Also, ON AVERAGE, those with higher MCAT scores are smarter than those with lower MCAT scores. This is pretty obvious, so long as you include the words "on average." You can't apply these principles to individuals (e.g. Bob is smarter than Bill because Bob has a higher MCAT score), only to the population as a whole. If the MCAT didn't correlate with intelligence, then medical schools wouldn't look at it. If GPAs didn't correlate with hard work (and intelligence) then medical schools wouldn't look at them either. Again, these are concepts that a four-year-old would understand. They are obvious.

As for your first comment about interviewing skills, you are totally wrong. I would guarantee you that MCAT and GPA correlate with interviewing skills. If nothing else, the interviewers will be less harsh on these individuals, because there won't be much in their file to nit pick.

I agree with you that people with high stats are not necessarily more or less well rounded than anyone else. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are on average MORE well rounded than lower scoring candidates, but certainly they aren't less. Which is an unfortuneate stereotype and unfair.

You make a good point about averages. I'm not a fan of averages, but in this case they are probably at least fair. The MCAT one I feel really tests only a certain KIND of smart. Sure there is a correlation for this. But there are many kinds of intelligence.

The interviewing skills thing is where I have to really disagree. Being able to talk about one's great research and not fielding questions about past academic failures may make the interview EASIER for someone with great stats. But it doesn't make them a more skilled interviewee.

Two of my interviewers so far have said to me flat out, "Don't worry about that low grade. It's really nothing." They already looked past your applications' problems and still decided to interview you. If they were gonna be harsh on it, they would do it before asking you to come in and interview. Maybe some have experienced interviewers prodding about problems in their application, but on AVERAGE this is probably not common. The interview is all about social prowess and personality. Talking about your research may be impressive, but its in your application already and is not really telling the interviewer about the applicant as a person. Which is the point of the interview.

Just a PS, towelie, if you have great stats which you probably do, good for you. I'm not one of the haters and certainly don't celebrate failures of high stats candidates. In fact, celebrating others' failures generally stems from self-loathing. Don't let it get to you.

 

[Wannabemed]

Cite your source. Again, we've got UW and UPitt. There are probably others. But few have standards by which a particular GPA and MCAT score guarantee an interview.

Can you name 10 schools like this?

Yeah, all non-UC state medical schools with regards to in-state applicants with 3.7+/37+

UWash and Michigan being the top state med schools with auto interview invites.

Just mdapp SUNY schools vs. NY residents with 3.7/37 and find me one applicant that was rejected post-secondary (ie, no interview)

Or choose any state/state school of your choice. Go on, find me a counter-example.

I already did UMich, Penn State, and SUNY Upstate btw in relation to high-achieving MI,PA,and NY applicants, respectively

 

[Wannabemed]

Woah, woah, woah. This whole thread has been about you feel UCSF unfairly does not interview applicants with high stats. Why are you all of a sudden qualifying your argument here to "outside California"?

Ah, because you did a hunt on mdapplicants.com and found that UCSF is not alone in not interviewing high stat candidates. I did a quick hunt and found some from last year.

In fact here's one that has a 37Q/3.94 that didn't even get an interview at UCLA (accepted to UCSF, though).

So I take it from your change that you're now railing against the UC's entirely, and not just UCSF?

I was railing against UCs in general since yesterday afternoon (when I first started posting on this topic). Go look at previous threads. Most posts I only mention UCSF because the OP was not given an interview at UCSF (he didn't mention the other UCs).

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Well, actually that's what I think he's saying is false😛

The MCAT can be prepared for. In fact, it's probably MORE dependent on the free time you had to study before the test than your actual intelligence (although raw intelligence can probably get you upwards of a 35 without too much studying). The big numbers, 40's and above, require lots of memorization and thus lots of time.

You could take the most ingenius person in the world, and if he hasn't had any time to study for the MCAT's, he'll still probably only get like a 36 (I know, I chose a high number on purpose because we're talking about the most ingenius person in the world😛).

WOW. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY TAKEN THE MCAT?????

After studying enough, mostly anyone who scores a 34+ consistently on practices will get all the free-standing questions correct. MEANING, they will get any question that requires MEMORIZATION correct. its the other questions, the ones that require THINKING, that get people ridiculous scores. I can list of scores of people that if they had infinite time to study, would get all the free-standing questions right but still get trumped by those relatively few very difficult passage-based questions. Its an art. The art is intelligence. The difference between doing well and doing really really well on the MCAT is getting a few more questions right that almost nobody gets right. And that is a fact.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Hehe, I can't give myself too much credit on being humble. I'm just being realistic. I got clobbered on a few exams by a bunch people that I supposedly did much better than on the MCAT.

Thats because success on tests in medical school is based a lot more on time spent studying. Almost everyone who takes the MCAT studies their butt off for it. That evens the playing field more. Prowler, im pretty much saying that you have a life =P

 

[szhao]

WOW. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY TAKEN THE MCAT?????

After studying enough, mostly anyone who scores a 34+ consistently on practices will get all the free-standing questions correct. MEANING, they will get any question that requires MEMORIZATION correct. its the other questions, the ones that require THINKING, that get people ridiculous scores. I can list of scores of people that if they had infinite time to study, would get all the free-standing questions right but still get trumped by those relatively few very difficult passage-based questions. Its an art. The art is intelligence. The difference between doing well and doing really really well on the MCAT is getting a few more questions right that almost nobody gets right. And that is a fact.

i don't know i feel mcat is more memorziation, obviously if you can't think you will not do very well. but, assuming two people having the same ability in thinking, the one who studied and memorized more tends to do better, for obvious reasons. additionally, if you compare a person who can think and a person who can't but studied, i think it is highly probable that the person who studied will do better.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

i don't know i feel mcat is more memorziation, obviously if you can't think you will not do very well. but, assuming two people having the same ability in thinking, the one who studied and memorized more tends to do better, for obvious reasons. additionally, if you compare a person who can think and a person who can't but studied, i think it is highly probable that the person who studied will do better.

Memorization can only help you with non-passage based questions (which are few and far-between compared to passage-based for both PS and BS) and cant help you with verbal at all!

 

[szhao]

Memorization can only help you with non-passage based questions (which are few and far-between compared to passage-based for both PS and BS) and cant help you with verbal at all!

i think it is because they memorize similar problems, and hence can solve similar issues. in my opinion all the mcat does is test the same type of question over and over again. if you ask anyone to reproduce on why this is, i doubt many can do as such.

 

[dopaminesurge]

i think it is because they memorize similar problems, and hence can solve similar issues. in my opinion all the mcat does is test the same type of question over and over again. if you ask anyone to reproduce on why this is, i doubt many can do as such.

I beg to differ... I don't really remember doing any memorization in the month before the MCAT in which I nutbolted my butt to my desk chair.

 

[notdeadyet]

I was railing against UCs in general since yesterday afternoon (when I first started posting on this topic). Go look at previous threads. Most posts I only mention UCSF because the OP was not given an interview at UCSF (he didn't mention the other UCs).

Ah, I didn't catch the difference. My bad...

 

[szhao]

I beg to differ... I don't really remember doing any memorization in the month before the MCAT in which I nutbolted my butt to my desk chair.

i am just saying this is my experience with people around me. chill hehe, not trying to point out anything. i didn't really study for the mcat haha, i just read the harry potter series to improve my reading skills at least a little.

 

[notdeadyet]

Yeah, all non-UC state medical schools with regards to in-state applicants with 3.7+/37+

Again, nothing personal, but you're making assumptions here.

UWash and Michigan both have a stated policy that interviews students with certain stats. You're claiming that all non-UC state medical schools do for in-state applicants with 3.7+/37+?

Where is this stated policy? A WA resident with a 3.7/37 is entitled to an interview. If your school does not have a stated policy, then you don't.

Very few schools have this policy that entitles applicants with a certain score to get an interview.

UCs, like many, do not have this policy. UCs, unlike many, choose to excersize that fact.

 

[jbonebob2000]

Excersize?

You are quite possibly the worst speller ever. Seriously.

 

[Wannabemed]

Again, nothing personal, but you're making assumptions here.

UWash and Michigan both have a stated policy that interviews students with certain stats. You're claiming that all non-UC state medical schools do for in-state applicants with 3.7+/37+?

Where is this stated policy? A WA resident with a 3.7/37 is entitled to an interview. If your school does not have a stated policy, then you don't.

Very few schools have this policy that entitles applicants with a certain score to get an interview.

UCs, like many, do not have this policy. UCs, unlike many, choose to excersize that fact.

And hence I believe UC should have an admissions policy that strongly emphasizes objective measures of aptitude (like all other state schools do). I've had this EXACT same conversation with some other dude earlier in the thread. Please read what I already wrote before responding 🙂

 

[45408]

Its an art. The art is intelligence. The difference between doing well and doing really really well on the MCAT is getting a few more questions right that almost nobody gets right. And that is a fact.

The art is actually simply the art of taking the MCAT. Intelligence is far too multifaceted to be boiled down to simply how high your MCAT score is. I think a lot of you guys are bouncing around giddily since you did well on the MCAT, thinking you're the top of the world.

 

[45408]

Excersize?

You are quite possibly the worst speller ever. Seriously.

it's the mark of every good doctor.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

The art is actually simply the art of taking the MCAT. Intelligence is far too multifaceted to be boiled down to simply how high your MCAT score is. I think a lot of you guys are bouncing around giddily since you did well on the MCAT, thinking you're the top of the world.

As opposed to judging intelligence based on interviews and an essay?

Everyone has a basement MCAT based on no studying. Some are higher than others. This is the intelligence component.

If you study harder, you will get a higher MCAT score. That is the achievement component.

 

[45408]

As opposed to judging intelligence based on interviews and an essay?

Everyone has a basement MCAT based on no studying. Some are higher than others. This is the intelligence component.

If you study harder, you will get a higher MCAT score. That is the achievement component.

I'm not arguing that the MCAT doesn't have a place. It is the great equalizer. Everyone across the country takes the same test to show how they match up, but it only measures one portion of your intelligence, not all of it. Your baseline MCAT also has a lot to do with your recall. You guys can claim that there's no much memory involved, but there is. I got a 13 on PS when I took it, and there's no way I could do that now, but I'd probably kill the BS on my way out.

 

[Law2Doc]

As opposed to judging intelligence based on interviews and an essay?

Everyone has a basement MCAT based on no studying. Some are higher than others. This is the intelligence component.

If you study harder, you will get a higher MCAT score. That is the achievement component.

If only life were that simple. There will be insanely smart people who do pretty modestly on that test, and pretty dense people who test well. You will likely have classmates in both groups. And there are always folks who study as hard as they can and can't make that score budge. It is not an IQ test.