University of Washington

[Gregor Wiesmann]

---

Members do not see this ad.

For those who are currently attending MD school there (or who have in the past), could you please tell me your admission stats? I'm a Washington State resident and I know that UW is almost impossible for out of state people to get into but I was wondering what it's like for WA residents. Thanks!

 

[Oso]

Good info in the MSAR:

https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/requirements/msar/

 

[Gregor Wiesmann]

Oh darn, it says I have to upgrade in order to view the admission stats. Thank you though!

 

[Oso]

Oh darn, it says I have to upgrade in order to view the admission stats. Thank you though!

You have to purchase it for one year of access ($20 I think). It will give you a lot of good info for each medical school, including median, 10th percentile, and 90th percentile GPA, sGPA, and MCAT subsections for accepted students. It will also tell you how many in-state and out of state people matriculate. It's very helpful for making a good list of schools to apply to.

 

[darkjedi]

To echo what oso said, the MSAR is really indispensable and absolutely critical for your applications. It will give you a good gauge as to what schools you have the best shots at. Nothing worse than throwing money at schools that would have never interviewed you in the first place, or selling yourself short and not applying to the right schools.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

For those who are currently attending MD school there (or who have in the past), could you please tell me your admission stats? I'm a Washington State resident and I know that UW is almost impossible for out of state people to get into but I was wondering what it's like for WA residents. Thanks!

http://www.uwmedicine.org/education/md-program/admissions/faqs#mcat

 

[Gregor Wiesmann]

Okay, thanks for the help guys! I will certainly purchase a subscription when looking for schools to apply to!

 

[Gregor Wiesmann]

http://www.uwmedicine.org/education/md-program/admissions/faqs#mcat

Oh yeah, I've seen that chart before. It doesn't tell you how many of the applicants were in state or out of state though! I saw somewhere else that the acceptance rate for in state was a lot higher than for out of state. I think that out of the 220 accepted only like 20 were out of state!

 

[turayza]

Oh yeah, I've seen that chart before. It doesn't tell you how many of the applicants were in state or out of state though! I saw somewhere else that the acceptance rate for in state was a lot higher than for out of state. I think that out of the 220 accepted only like 20 were out of state!

UWSOM admissions hosts a couple application workshops every year on campus, you should be on the lookout for those.
Last year at one of the workshops they said of their approx. 220 seats, the admissions breakdown:
100 WA residents
100 non-WA WWAMI
20 OOS

 

[ChemNerd07]

Theres a UW board under the 'school specific' tab. Some applicants will even post their stats.

 

[kairos18]

See above. Or you can PM me. I know a lot of people at UWSOM 🙂 Good luck!

 

[Elewynne]

.

 

[JLC]

Generally of the top schools Udub has the lowest stats for their applicants, I think when I was applying their avg mcat was 33 vs avg of 35 or 36 at other peer institutions. I think this is due to their instate or the regional bias.

 

[alpinism]

Their average is generally around 3.7/31

UW is one of the more holistic schools out there. In addition, they use a weighted GPA instead of the actual AMCAS GPA.

Both of those factors help to bring down their stats (in addition to having a huge regional bias).

At the same time, if they wanted to they could easily fill their seats with only 3.8+/32+ applicants from the WWAMI states.

 

[thesauce]

UW is one of the more holistic schools out there.

What do you base this on? Comparing "holistic" approaches between schools doesn't seem very feasible, but I'd love to hear your reasoning.

At the same time, if they wanted to they could easily fill their seats with only 3.8+/32+ applicants from the WWAMI states.

The same could be said of absolutely ANY non-DO school.

 

[alpinism]

What do you base this on? Comparing "holistic" approaches between schools doesn't seem very feasible, but I'd love to hear your reasoning.

They usually only take OOS students with a demonstrated interest in serving rural or underserved populations instead of high stats applicants like other schools with a significant IS bias.

With regards to their overall "holistic" approach, I know a few UW faculty, and the way they evaluate applications isn't as stats/research/school prestige based as most other top research schools. For instance they tend to place more emphasis on community service and medical experience as well as take into account hrs worked during undergrad or caring for family members. They also don't have any school preference (not even for UW undergrads) and have multiple people reviewing each application.

 

[thesauce]

They usually only take OOS students with a demonstrated interest in serving rural or underserved populations instead of high stats applicants like other schools with a significant IS bias..

Is this information posted somewhere or are you just speculating?

With regards to their overall "holistic" approach, I know a few UW faculty, and the way they evaluate applications isn't as stats/research/school prestige based as most other top research schools. For instance they tend to place more emphasis on community service and medical experience as well as take into account hrs worked during undergrad or caring for family members. They also don't have any school preference (not even for UW undergrads) and have multiple people reviewing each application.

What you've described are the same factors that every other school looks at, aside from maybe the rural medicine bias. Either way, of course someone on an admissions committee is going to tell you this. Do you really think they tell you that GPA and MCAT are all they look at (even if it is)? That wouldn't make them look very good.

One anecdotal account from faculty at that medical school is not a good source of information since they presumably don't sit on admissions committees for other schools, and thus can't truly compare. Not to mention that they want their institution seen in the best possible light. Without objective data, the conclusions you are making are hard to draw.

 

[alpinism]

The info is available on their website and on their school specific discussion threads via accepted students.

 

[thesauce]

The info is available on their website and on their school specific discussion threads via accepted students.

Which info are you referring to?

 

[alpinism]

Their criteria for OOS applicants.

 

[thesauce]

Their criteria for OOS applicants.

I looked through the FAQ and remain unconvinced. At least from their description, it's basically the same admissions criteria that other schools use, which makes sense.

I would be careful trying to make the case that a specific school uses a more "holistic" admissions approach without good evidence to back it up (and no, anecdotal accounts from students/faculty, etc isn't good evidence). For one, you're going to come off as uninformed and for another, it will end up sounding degrading to other schools, where the majority of your future colleagues will have trained.

 

[Ismet]

Moving to school-specific discussions forum

 

[alpinism]

I looked through the FAQ and remain unconvinced. At least from their description, it's basically the same admissions criteria that other schools use, which makes sense.

I would be careful trying to make the case that a specific school uses a more "holistic" admissions approach without good evidence to back it up (and no, anecdotal accounts from students/faculty, etc isn't good evidence). For one, you're going to come off as uninformed and for another, it will end up sounding degrading to other schools, where the majority of your future colleagues will have trained.

How is one school having a more holistic adcom than another degrading?

Every school evaluates applicants using different criteria and some focus on stats more than others. It's within every schools right to evaluate applicants as they see fit and there's nothing wrong with recruiting applicants either way. Being holistic isn't about expecting applicants to have diverse and meaningful ECs. Every school does this as you've pointed out. It's how much weight they give to ECs and personal circumstances when evaluating applications.

Most schools do not use a weighted GPA, do not take into account hrs worked during school, give preference to certain undergrads, and only have a single reviewer look at each application.

Most schools also have a higher stats screening bar before anyone looks at your application.

None of this is anecdotal.

 

[thesauce]

How is one school having a more holistic adcom than another degrading?

This should be abundantly obvious, but I'll explain anyway. Let's first clarify what you mean by "holistic." What is sounds like you're saying is that UW looks at more personal factors (and puts more weight on those factors) than other schools, clearly with the connotation that it results in selecting more "well-rounded" applicants. This comes off as incredibly arrogant and elitist. The fact that you can't backup the statement with any credible evidence makes it even worse.

Every school evaluates applicants using different criteria and some focus on stats more than others. It's within every schools right to evaluate applicants as they see fit and there's nothing wrong with recruiting applicants either way. Being holistic isn't about expecting applicants to have diverse and meaningful ECs. Every school does this as you've pointed out. It's how much weight they give to ECs and personal circumstances when evaluating applications.

Correct. And furthermore, there will be substantial differences in selection criteria within an institution depending on who first picks up your application - perhaps even more than the differences between institutions. However, you still haven't posted any credible evidence to suggest that UW's method differs in any significant way from any other institution. Clearly you want to believe this, but that doesn't make it true.

Most schools do not use a weighted GPA, do not take into account hrs worked during school, give preference to certain undergrads, and only have a single reviewer look at each application. Most schools also have a higher stats screening bar before anyone looks at your application.

Most of this is patently false. Every school looks favorably on working while attending school. Every school also has a panel of reviewers.

As far as UW being unique in its use of a weighted GPA, not giving preference to certain undergrads, or having a lower screening bar: I seriously doubt it, but would love to see your evidence.

None of this is anecdotal.

Until you have objective data supporting what you've said, it is all anecdotal by its very definition.

 

[alpinism]

This should be abundantly obvious, but I'll explain anyway. Let's first clarify what you mean by "holistic." What is sounds like you're saying is that UW looks at more personal factors (and puts more weight on those factors) than other schools, clearly with the connotation that it results in selecting more "well-rounded" applicants. This comes off as incredibly arrogant and elitist. The fact that you can't backup the statement with any credible evidence makes it even worse.

Okay?

And at the same time you could also say that having more "well rounded" applicants results in having applicants with lower stats, which by your same line of reasoning means they are selecting "dumber" applicants than other schools which is also degrading.

What you're saying sounds just as arrogant and elitist depending on the person's point of view.

Furthermore, most people would agree that having an institution not give preference to certain undergrads based on prestige or connections and admitting more applicants with real world experience is the opposite of arrogant and elitist.

Correct. And furthermore, there will be substantial differences in selection criteria within an institution depending on who first picks up your application - perhaps even more than the differences between institutions. However, you still haven't posted any credible evidence to suggest that UW's method differs in any significant way from any other institution. Clearly you want to believe this, but that doesn't make it true.

Possibly, however some adcoms use a standardized rubric to evaluate applications, while at other schools its entirely up to each reviewer. The inter-adcom variability differs from school to school.

Most of this is patently false. Every school looks favorably on working while attending school. Every school also has a panel of reviewers.

As far as UW being unique in its use of a weighted GPA, not giving preference to certain undergrads, or having a lower screening bar: I seriously doubt it, but would love to see your evidence.

Looking favorably at working during undergrad and taking it into account while evaluating your GPA are 2 different things.

I know for a fact that multiple schools only have 1 reviewer look at each application before deciding on interviews
(Georgetown is one example).

UW clearly states their admissions criteria on their website (not just the FAQs) and during admissions workshops they give to premeds every year.

Look, Im not saying admissions is some black and white endeavor between schools whereby some schools are holistic and others are not. Nor am I saying its as simplistic as you're suggesting. But, you can't seriously think that schools like WashU give the same weight to ECs as schools like Colorado and they every school essentially evaluates applications using the same criteria.

If what you're saying were true nearly all med schools would have almost identical student bodies (based on average stats, ECs, entering age, type of undergrad, percentage of students w/ grad degrees, percentage of non-trads, etc…) which is not the case.

 

[random1234]

For those who are currently attending MD school there (or who have in the past), could you please tell me your admission stats? I'm a Washington State resident and I know that UW is almost impossible for out of state people to get into but I was wondering what it's like for WA residents. Thanks!

In-state admissions data, fall 2012
1137 applied, 761 interviewed, 227 were accepted, 195 enrolled

Out-of-state admissions data
3492 applied, 156 interviewed, 40 were accepted, 21 enrolled

 

[thesauce]

Okay?

And at the same time you could also say that having more "well rounded" applicants results in having applicants with lower stats, which by your same line of reasoning means they are selecting "dumber" applicants than other schools which is also degrading. What you're saying sounds just as arrogant and elitist depending on the person's point of view.

LOL. That's a pretty big stretch, but even more of a reason not to say it, particularly without any evidence to back it up.

Furthermore, most people would agree that having an institution not give preference to certain undergrads based on prestige or connections and admitting more applicants with real world experience is the opposite of arrogant and elitist.

Perhaps with regard to not giving preference to certain undergrads (which I don't believe, BTW), but as far "real world experience" - not really. You're basically saying that the school takes more time and effort to look at the "whole person," suggesting that there's something unique and un-quantifiably better about those they admit. Let's face it - there isn't.

I know for a fact that multiple schools only have 1 reviewer look at each application before deciding on interviews (Georgetown is one example).

Even if I believed this, that's just one example (again, anecdotal). For all you know, they could be the outlier (rather than UW).

Look, Im not saying admissions is some black and white endeavor between schools whereby some schools are holistic and others are not. Nor am I saying its as simplistic as you're suggesting. But, you can't seriously think that schools like WashU give the same weight to ECs as schools like Colorado and they every school essentially evaluates applications using the same criteria. If what you're saying were true nearly all med schools would have almost identical student bodies (based on average stats, ECs, entering age, type of undergrad, percentage of students w/ grad degrees, percentage of non-trads, etc…) which is not the case.

Not at all - because it's a 2-way street and applicants have their preferences as well. WashU uses the same selection criteria as all the rest, but more of those top students choose them. There are also location preferences - Mayo would probably be more competitive if it weren't in the middle of nowhere and California schools are crazy competitive.

 

[alpinism]

Lol you can't be serious.

So for some magical reason everyone with a 38 MCAT wants to go to WashU as their top choice but all the students with 32 MCAT they accept decide on other schools instead…

And of course its everyone's dream to live in St. Louis, especially top students from CA, which is why they have much higher MCAT/GPA averages than Stanford and UCSF.

MCAT/GPA averages:
Stanford 34.8/3.75
WashU 37.2/3.91

Just for fun:

University of Washington 31.0/3.7

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Ex2MjlBTDE0bXFXNGFZczZqYTZKb2c&hl=en_US#gid=0

 

[thesauce]

Lol you can't be serious.

So for some magical reason everyone with a 38 MCAT wants to go to WashU as their top choice but all the students with 32 MCAT they accept decide on other schools instead…

And of course its everyone's dream to live in St. Louis, especially top students from CA, which is why they have much higher MCAT/GPA averages than Stanford and UCSF.

MCAT/GPA averages:
Stanford 34.8/3.75
WashU 37.2/3.91

Just for fun:

University of Washington 31.0/3.7

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Ex2MjlBTDE0bXFXNGFZczZqYTZKb2c&hl=en_US#gid=0

Uh, no.

It should have gone without saying that we're talking about self-selection PRE-APPLICATION. People will apply where they think there's a chance they'll be accepted. That accounts for the majority of the difference that is seen. Highly ranked/well-regarded or otherwise well-located schools will have more of the 35+ MCATers applying and fewer of the 32 MCATers throwing their money away. This results in a bell curve shifted to the right compared with less competitive schools. ADCOMs are then as selective as they can be with the applications they receive and, in the case of public schools, the quotas they must meet. Look no further than DO schools for evidence of the former.

Now, there are exceptional upper-echelon schools like Harvard and Stanford that do systematically select those with extraordinary accomplishments (think Rhodes Scholars, etc) over just high stats, but to put UW in that category is ludicrous.

 

[alpinism]

Uh, no.

It should have gone without saying that we're talking about self-selection PRE-APPLICATION. People will apply where they think there's a chance they'll be accepted. That accounts for the majority of the difference that is seen. Highly ranked/well-regarded or otherwise well-located schools will have more of the 35+ MCATers applying and fewer of the 32 MCATers throwing their money away. This results in a bell curve shifted to the right compared with less competitive schools. ADCOMs are then as selective as they can be with the applications they receive and, in the case of public schools, the quotas they must meet. Look no further than DO schools for evidence of the former.

Now, there are exceptional upper-echelon schools like Harvard and Stanford that do systematically select those with extraordinary accomplishments (think Rhodes Scholars, etc) over just high stats, but to put UW in that category is ludicrous.

That still doesn't explain why WashU has much higher stats than other top 10 schools (or any med school for that matter).

So now your saying people self select out pre application, and only to WashU? While at the same time no one self selects out for other more competitive schools such as Stanford, UCSF, or Harvard?

Thousands of people apply to top schools with below average stats every year. WashU isn't special and doesn't only get applications from people with 35+ MCATs. Nothing is stopping them from accepting people with a 33 or 34 MCAT like Stanford.

I assume you're not from the west coast? UW is frequently in the top 10 research rankings and has always been in the top 15. Sure its not on the same level as Harvard, Hopkins, or Stanford, but its one of the best public schools out there and has a great reputation. In 2011 it was ranked #9 ahead of Michigan, Columbia, UChicago, and Vandy.

For comparison:
Washington 31.0/3.70
Michigan 34.7/3.77
Columbia 35.8/3.79
UChicago 36.0/3.80
Vandy 34.8/3.80

 

[sunkist206]

Keep in mind that UW has a very strong in-state/in-region bias. 90%+ of the seats are reserved for students from the WAMI region, which accounts for the somewhat low stats relative to its ranking.

That still doesn't explain why WashU has much higher stats than other top 10 schools (or any med school for that matter).

So now your saying people self select out pre application, and only to WashU? While at the same time no one self selects out for other more competitive schools such as Stanford, UCSF, or Harvard?

Thousands of people apply to top schools with below average stats every year. WashU isn't special and doesn't only get applications from people with 35+ MCATs. Nothing is stopping them from accepting people with a 33 or 34 MCAT like Stanford.

I assume you're not from the west coast? UW is frequently in the top 10 research rankings and has always been in the top 15. Sure its not on the same level as Harvard, Hopkins, or Stanford, but its one of the best public schools out there and has a great reputation. In 2011 it was ranked #9 ahead of Michigan, Columbia, UChicago, and Vandy.

For comparison:
Washington 31.0/3.70
Michigan 34.7/3.77
Columbia 35.8/3.79
UChicago 36.0/3.80
Vandy 34.8/3.80

 

[alpinism]

Agreed. That definitely plays a part in their relatively lower stats.

They'd likely be a couple points higher (33 MCAT maybe more) if they took as many OOS students as Michigan or Virginia.

 

[thesauce]

That still doesn't explain why WashU has much higher stats than other top 10 schools (or any med school for that matter). So now your saying people self select out pre application, and only to WashU?

No. Read between the lines a little bit. You chose the WashU example, so I stuck with it. This is happening with every applicant and at every single school in the U.S. People are selective about where they put their application money. No one with crummy stats and half a brain applies to only top 10 schools. They end up applying to a lot of lower tier schools. The lower tier schools then accept more of them because they have to fill their classes somehow. These lower tier schools also accept the high stats applicants that apply, but the high stats applicants choose the "better" schools that also accepted them (WashU, etc). Thus, their average matriculant will have lower stats.

While at the same time no one self selects out for other more competitive schools such as Stanford, UCSF, or Harvard?

I've already explained all this. It's as if you read one sentence of my post and then start your rant. Once again:
Now, there are exceptional upper-echelon schools like Harvard and Stanford that do systematically select those with extraordinary accomplishments (think Rhodes Scholars, etc) over just high stats, but to put UW in that category is ludicrous.

Thousands of people apply to top schools with below average stats every year.

Right and most of their applications go in the garbage, negating their effect

WashU isn't special and doesn't only get applications from people with 35+ MCATs.

Correct, and that just gives them more options, but doesn't necessarily change their decision. What's important is that they get a lot more of the high scoring applicants than the lower tier schools. And that's who they select for acceptance. The low scoring applications go in the trash unless they have something amazingly special about them, in which case they'll be accepted there as well as at other top schools like Stanford. And they'll likely end up choosing Stanford.

Nothing is stopping them from accepting people with a 33 or 34 MCAT like Stanford.

Once again: Now, there are exceptional upper-echelon schools like Harvard and Stanford that do systematically select those with extraordinary accomplishments (think Rhodes Scholars, etc) over just high stats, but to put UW in that category is ludicrous.

I assume you're not from the west coast?

Wrong again

UW is frequently in the top 10 research rankings and has always been in the top 15. Sure its not on the same level as Harvard, Hopkins, or Stanford, but its one of the best public schools out there and has a great reputation. In 2011 it was ranked #9 ahead of Michigan, Columbia, UChicago, and Vandy.

I'm glad you were able to fit in a plug for your school. As I said (and you agreed), it isn't on the level of Harvard or Stanford. In the future, I wouldn't point out that it dropped in its ranking.

Now, I have to ask: I'm curious how you explain D.O. schools having lower stats? Do you honestly believe that they put more emphasis on the "whole person?"

 

[thesauce]

Keep in mind that UW has a very strong in-state/in-region bias. 90%+ of the seats are reserved for students from the WAMI region, which accounts for the somewhat low stats relative to its ranking.

I appreciate this Sunkist. Not sure why he didn't get it when I explained it: "ADCOMs are then as selective as they can be with the applications they receive and, in the case of public schools, the quotas they must meet."

 

[thesauce]

Agreed. That definitely plays a part in their relatively lower stats. They'd likely be a couple points higher (33 MCAT maybe more) if they took as many OOS students as Michigan or Virginia.

Wait. I thought you said:

They usually only take OOS students with a demonstrated interest in serving rural or underserved populations instead of high stats applicants like other schools with a significant IS bias.

You mean that UW's average stats would increase if they were allowed to take more students from other states? Why on earth would that happen when they have their own unique "holistic" approach to admissions, selecting applicants based on their personal attributes rather than their numbers? Isn't what what you've been saying this whole time?

 

[alpinism]

No. Read between the lines a little bit. You chose the WashU example, so I stuck with it. This is happening with every applicant and at every single school in the U.S. People are selective about where they put their application money. No one with crummy stats and half a brain applies to only top 10 schools. They end up applying to a lot of lower tier schools. The lower tier schools then accept more of them because they have to fill their classes somehow. These lower tier schools also accept the high stats applicants that apply, but the high stats applicants choose the "better" schools that also accepted them (WashU, etc). Thus, their average matriculant will have lower stats.

Right and using that same logic the same people self selecting out for WashU should also self select out for other top 10 schools (which is what you just stated above). This would give all the top schools higher stats similar to WashU. The evidence (average stats for each school) clearly does not support this.

I've already explained all this. It's as if you read one sentence of my post and then start your rant. Once again:
Now, there are exceptional upper-echelon schools like Harvard and Stanford that do systematically select those with extraordinary accomplishments (think Rhodes Scholars, etc) over just high stats, but to put UW in that category is ludicrous.

Except that I never said that. If you look at my last post I said the opposite, that they're not on the same level as Harvard, Stanford, or UCSF.

Like I said before, UW selects people who fit into their OOS mission profile and are interested in rural medicine or working with underserved populations.

Right and most of their applications go in the garbage, negating their effect

Obviously they aren't throwing those 33 MCAT apps away at other top 10 schools or else they wouldn't have a lower average than WashU.

Correct, and that just gives them more options, but doesn't necessarily change their decision. What's important is that they get a lot more of the high scoring applicants than the lower tier schools. And that's who they select for acceptance. The low scoring applications go in the trash unless they have something amazingly special about them, in which case they'll be accepted there as well as at other top schools like Stanford. And they'll likely end up choosing Stanford.

Again you're ignoring all the other top 10 schools with much lower stats than WashU. If what you're saying were true, Stanford and Harvard would get the people w/ extraordinary ECs and great stats, while other top 10 schools would get the people left over with great stats but no extraordinary ECs. That doesn't explain the huge difference between WashU (37.2) and Duke (34) when it comes to average stats.

In addition, Stanford and Harvard aren't the only schools that select apps with extraordinary ECs over just high stats (which is the definition of holistic). There are other top 25 schools (not WashU) that do the same. Duke and Columbia are well known for taking students with amazing ECs but lower stats. Last year's class at my school had multiple upper level athletes (professional and NCAA division 1), ex olympians, ex military special forces, past multinational CEOs, an ex Sports Illustrated writer, an ex professional dancer, and multiple people who founded their own international NGOs just to name a few off the top of my head. You won't find that at WashU.

I'm glad you were able to fit in a plug for your school. As I said (and you agreed), it isn't on the level of Harvard or Stanford. In the future, I wouldn't point out that it dropped in its ranking.

Lol I'm not at UW.

Now, I have to ask: I'm curious how you explain D.O. schools having lower stats? Do you honestly believe that they put more emphasis on the "whole person?"

Of course not. They mostly take people who couldn't get into MD schools. That doesn't mean they all use the same admissions criteria for evaluating applicants.

 

[alpinism]

You mean that UW's average stats would increase if they were allowed to take more students from other states? Why on earth would that happen when they have their own unique "holistic" approach to admissions, selecting applicants based on their personal attributes rather than their numbers? Isn't what what you've been saying this whole time?

They take less than 10% OOS. If they took as much as 50% like other state schools of course their stats would increase since they'd have more OOS apps to choose from that fit their mission.

My original post:

UW is one of the more holistic schools out there. In addition, they use a weighted GPA instead of the actual AMCAS GPA.

Both of those factors help to bring down their stats (in addition to having a huge regional bias).


I never said they select apps based on personal attributes rather than numbers. Nor did I say they have their own unique holistic approach.

 

[thesauce]

We could continue to debate this but we obviously aren't going to convince one another. You've defended your position, which I can respect.

I continue to believe that med school admissions is a game of musical chairs fueled by hope and desperation and a lot of luck. You can't count on any acceptance from any school even with the best numbers and most compelling "story." You may think one aspect of your application sticks out while a completely different one is what actually got you in, and you'll never know it. Maybe your application was rejected on a Tuesday, but you would have been accepted if it was instead reviewed by the ADCOM member that reviews on Wednesdays. Maybe your interviewer will be the perfect match or maybe they will have polar opposite political views and reject you for them.

I think, in general, a lot of silly distinctions are made (up) between schools than reality really supports. And on the end, it's all moot since the vast majority of your training comes in residency.

Good luck to you.

 

[alpinism]

Fair enough.

I can definitely see where you're coming from and agree that med school admissions is often a crap shoot that depends on luck as much as anything else. Its also true that most schools are more similar to one another than their admissions depts. would have you believe.

Good luck to you too.