Waitlisted at two schools... why do I feel so bad

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

KBSama

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
I had one interview in september and one in october.

I hit the waitlist @ both of them... here are my stats

3.8gpa, 3.6sgpa, 32mcat.....

No more interviews and have no clue if I will get in... I was hoping so much to be accepted and have nothing to worry about...

Why do I feel like if I did get in I would be a second choice.... is it true that I am undesirable right now and they just want the cream of the crop or am I just overthinking this?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
If you don't mind me asking, how many schools did you apply to?
 
15 different schools,

5 in state and 10 out of state
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I had one interview in september and one in december.

I hit the waitlist @ both of them... here are my stats

3.8gpa, 3.6sgpa, 32mcat.....

No more interviews and have no clue if I will get in... I was hoping so much to be accepted and have nothing to worry about...

Why do I feel like if I did get in I would be a second choice.... is it true that I am undesirable right now and they just want the cream of the crop or am I just overthinking this?

Just goes to show that "cream of the crop" doesn't mean 4.0/45 MCATs these days. It means interesting individuals who have diverse experiences to share.

I don't mean to offend but maybe if you posted your ECs and whatnot people could give advice. Either that, or there is a red flag in your application. Also, just plain bad luck on who looks at your application. Thousands of people are applying.

Numbers aren't everything :)
 
100 hour physician shadowing
100 hour clinic volunteer work
50 hour elderly volunteer work
1 summer research
 
I had one interview in september and one in december.

I hit the waitlist @ both of them... here are my stats

3.8gpa, 3.6sgpa, 32mcat.....

No more interviews and have no clue if I will get in... I was hoping so much to be accepted and have nothing to worry about...

Why do I feel like if I did get in I would be a second choice.... is it true that I am undesirable right now and they just want the cream of the crop or am I just overthinking this?

At this time last year I had two interviews and zero acceptances. I ended up with four interviews, and then got into my top choice off of the waitlist... IN MAY. Way too early to panic IMO.

There is no shame to getting in off of the waitlist, something like 1/3 of my class got in off of the waitlist. Don't take this process personally; admissions is not a person, you are not their second choice for a prom date. Nobody in your class will know you came off the wait list unless you tell them, and after a few weeks of working your butt off in class, nobody is going to care.

It's a stressful process, I know. Good luck, you're in a strong position right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
I didn't even have any interviews by this time when I had applied. Be patient and send out letters of interest/updates.

I also got in off the waitlist at my top-choice, but I don't even care, I'm just happy I'm in and that I'm lucky to be here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
the thing is one of the state schools i have really strong ties to... 4 of my family members graduated there. all of them had lower stats than me and less ecs
 
the thing is one of the state schools i have really strong ties to... 4 of my family members graduated there. all of them had lower stats than me and less ecs

When was this? Getting in medical school 15 years ago is much different than getting in today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
graduation years: 1984, 2009, 2010 and 2012
 
Last edited:
From the looks of your ECs, it seems like you may have a pretty cookie cutter application in terms of numbers and ECs, as a result it may not make your application stand out as much as if you had more diverse ECs and other significant experiences that are not necessarily medically related. Regardless, you are wait listed which is better than being rejected, and do still stand a decent chance of getting in. Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I had one interview in september and one in december.

I hit the waitlist @ both of them... here are my stats

3.8gpa, 3.6sgpa, 32mcat.....

No more interviews and have no clue if I will get in... I was hoping so much to be accepted and have nothing to worry about...

Why do I feel like if I did get in I would be a second choice.... is it true that I am undesirable right now and they just want the cream of the crop or am I just overthinking this?

If it makes you feel any better I'm in a very similar situation as yourself. Only interviewed at 2 schools, waitlisted at one and waiting on the decision of another. My GPA and MCAT is lower than yours as well.

There are plenty of people who have not even had an II yet and would love to be placed on a waitlist. So in my opinion, hang in there, we'll get in eventually haha
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Well, to directly answer your question, you feel bad because a waitlist isn't an acceptance. That being said, a waitlist isn't a rejection either. Especially around May, there will be a lot of waitlist movement, and it's quite common (from what I've heard) to get in off the waitlist. Depending on where you are waitlisted, you can send in a LOI. Some schools (I have Georgetown in mind) specifically waitlist a lot of applicants, and then extend acceptances to people who have showed continued interest in the school, which can be demonstrated with a LOI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Continue to send update letters and letters of interest to the school (not once a week, but probably something like once every 2 months or so).
 
I'm in your situation right now-my number one choice (not to mention the only in-state public medical school where I live) waitlisted me as well. True, they didn't formally accept you, but obviously they're interested in you or else they would have outright rejected you. If you're interested in the school, then write a letter of interest and keep them updated on any significant activities you've done. It also doesn't hurt to keep doing clinical and volunteer activities (it may not affect your application that much, but you never know).
 
OP, there's a big chance you won't get in this cycle. It is normal to feel depressed about that. If being a doctor is still your dream, don't give up! You can always reapply down the line and make your dreams come true. GL
 
Actually, now that I think about it. It JUST turned into December. How have you interviewed and then been waitlisted at a Dec interview already?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Concur here. Look at the glass as still being half-full. You're feeling bad because you've worked very hard on to get into a netherworld. One could go on about "instant gratification" but remember this is a marathon and not a sprint.

In the worst-case scenario, call the Admissions deans for feedback on why you were rejected. Your interviewing skills might be lacking in something. So, IF, next year, apply more broadly, and strategically. Good luck!



Regardless, you are wait listed which is better than being rejected, and do still stand a decent chance of getting in. Good luck!
 
Sorry made a mistake, supposed to say interviewed in september and october (not december)
 
Depending on where you're waitlisted, huuuuuge numbers of applicants get accepted off the list. Plus, if you're at a school with a point system they usually adjust the point threshold for being accepted throughout the year. Sometimes they will set the point threshold too high and screen out too many applicants that go to waitlist, so then they alter the points needed to get in and BAM formerly waitlisted applicants are accepted. I am sorry you have to wait to know the resolution, but I am hopeful you still have a great shot! Good luck!

P.S. I think sending calm, periodic letters of interest is a great idea to keep your application fresh in their minds. ;)
 
I personally think with slightly above average stats, a person should apply to at least 30 schools these days. I'm curious -- did people in your family tell you that 15 schools was enough? Most attendings are completely out of touch, I've noticed. Everything is a gamble nowadays, and having slightly above average / average stats is no guarantee of an acceptance. You can't think of the average stats as thresholds above which you are guaranteed an acceptance! Still, I think you will eventually gain an acceptance from your IS school. Try to get someone to write another LOR, send updates and a strong LOI... I think you'll make it.
 
Last edited:
And yes, just to echo what others have said: upwards of 1/3 ro 1/2 of all applicants get into medical school off of the waitlist -- so basically that is part of the norm and just how the game is played! (two words: yield protection)
 
OP, I am in a similar situation, except I had one interview in the beginning of Oct and am waiting on the decision. It has been weeks and I am losing hope as the day passes. From the specific thread, ppl who interviewed later than me have already heard back. I keep crossing my fingers but there's nada. While being on the waitlist isn't what you'd hoped for, its far better than a rejection. Besides many ppl do get off the list. I wouldn't worry abt not being the school's first choice. Continue to express your interest and send in periodic updates and hope for the best! Good luck!
 
IMO, with your stats, you should have applied to at least 30 schools. Everything is a gamble nowadays, and having slightly above average / average stats is no guarantee of an acceptance. You can't think of the average stats as thresholds above which you are guaranteed an acceptance! Still, I think you will eventually gain an acceptance from your IS school. Try to get someone to write another LOR, send updates and a strong LOI... I think you'll make it.
30 schools seems like a bit much for an applicant with these stats. I had similar stats, am an ORM, and got multiple IIs and acceptances. Applied to the fourteen FAP would give me and not one more. n=1, but I personally know several people who have done just fine with these stats and did not apply to 30 schools. 20 seems a lot more reasonable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
30 schools seems like a bit much for an applicant with these stats. I had similar stats, am an ORM, and got multiple IIs and acceptances. Applied to the fourteen FAP would give me and not one more. n=1, but I personally know several people who have done just fine with these stats and did not apply to 30 schools.

30 seems a little excessive... 20 maybe.

You are from Pennsylvania, which gives you advantages at Temple, Drexel, Jefferson, Upenn, Penn State, and Commonwealth. Some people only have an instate/regional advantage at one school. If that school doesn't bite, they have to hope for OOS schools or private schools with no home advantage. The average applicant from Texas could probably apply to five Texas schools and be set. The average applicant from California would probably be screwed if they applied to 5 schools.
 
You are from Pennsylvania, which gives you advantages at Temple, Drexel, Jefferson, Upenn, Penn State, and Commonwealth. Some people only have an instate/regional advantage at one school. If that school doesn't bite, they have to hope for OOS schools or private schools with no home advantage. The average applicant from Texas could probably apply to five Texas schools and be set. The average applicant from California would probably be screwed if they applied to 5 schools.
I'm advocating for applying to 20 schools, not 5. An applicant with these stats is pretty well off compared to the rest of the applicant pool, and applying to 30 schools (as was suggested by the post I was replying to) is a waste of both time and money regardless of state residency.
 
I'm advocating for applying to 20 schools, not 5. An applicant with these stats is pretty well off compared to the rest of the applicant pool, and applying to 30 schools (as was suggested by the post I was replying to) is a waste of both time and money regardless of state residency.

I agree, and I had no in-state advantage anywhere. I applied to 24 schools, in retrospect that was overkill. I also would have had to majorly stretch my list to apply to 30, probably adding schools that I didn't actually want to attend.

Given the other things that tie into that ever-elusive 'fit' (stats, geographic preference, family ties, school mission and culture, etc) I think most applicants should find their list having a natural top-out point at around 20 schools and only extremely marginal applicants need to apply to 30ish.
 
Just goes to show that "cream of the crop" doesn't mean 4.0/45 MCATs these days.

I know this isn't really related to the direction this thread took...but I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on a 3.8/3.6/32 application.
 
I also think 30 is a bit much for anyone...I applied to 13 and was fine, but I could see why someone would apply to 20. Once your MCAT/GPA are within a certain range, its impossible to predict without having the complete picture of an applicant.
 
I'm advocating for applying to 20 schools, not 5. An applicant with these stats is pretty well off compared to the rest of the applicant pool, and applying to 30 schools (as was suggested by the post I was replying to) is a waste of both time and money regardless of state residency.

The way the system is set up, the more schools you apply to, the better your chances of acceptance. This is especially true of someone with no home state advantage.

AMCAS really should limit the number of schools people can apply to. This would benefit both applicants and med schools (maybe not the admissions departments which rake in a million dollars of fees each). As of now, you are best off applying to as many schools as you can realistically afford.
 
The way the system is set up, the more schools you apply to, the better your chances of acceptance. This is especially true of someone with no home state advantage.

AMCAS really should limit the number of schools people can apply to. This would benefit both applicants and med schools (maybe not the admissions departments which rake in a million dollars of fees each). As of now, you are best off applying to as many schools as you can realistically afford.
Up to a point, yes, but as @SN12357 alluded to earlier, there's a point where the schools you're adding to your list becomes unrealistic and you afford no real benefit. Even if I could afford to apply to every single medical school in the country, I wouldn't because there's a stage in that process where it becomes me throwing money at a lost cause.

In any case, we're off topic.
 
You are from Pennsylvania, which gives you advantages at Temple, Drexel, Jefferson, Upenn, Penn State, and Commonwealth. Some people only have an instate/regional advantage at one school. If that school doesn't bite, they have to hope for OOS schools or private schools with no home advantage. The average applicant from Texas could probably apply to five Texas schools and be set. The average applicant from California would probably be screwed if they applied to 5 schools.
Only Penn State, and maybe Temple will give some bias towards in-state applicants, otherwise there is no in-state preference at the other schools.
 
I know this isn't really related to the direction this thread took...but I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on a 3.8/3.6/32 application.

Just using it as an extreme example. I consider 3.8/3.6/32 to be very high caliber stats.
 
Only Penn State, and maybe Temple will give some bias towards in-state applicants, otherwise there is no in-state preference at the other schools.

At Temple, IS acceptance rate is 18%, OOS is 3%
At Jefferson, IS acceptance rate is 12%. OOS is 3.5%.
At Drexel, IS acceptance rate is 18%, OOS is 4%.
At UPenn, there is a slight preference towards IS, though not to the same degree as the above schools.
 
From the looks of your ECs, it seems like you may have a pretty cookie cutter application in terms of numbers and ECs, as a result it may not make your application stand out as much as if you had more diverse ECs and other significant experiences that are not necessarily medically related. Regardless, you are wait listed which is better than being rejected, and do still stand a decent chance of getting in. Good luck!
Your ECs seem pretty weak unless you left out some things. Having said that, the interview season extends through March and you got 2 already, so you'll probably get more. As for the wait list, some schools take many people off the list, some very few. You can probably search here and find that info on your wait list schools. Knowing that might make you feel better, or worse. My school admitted only a handful of people off the list each year.
The waitlist isn't a death sentence. If they weren't interested at all they wouldn't grant you an interview in the first place. If you get a couple more interviews and still don't get in, consider that your interview may be the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As a fairly weak applicant I've actually toyed with the idea of applying to around 40 schools. I think, for myself, it wouldn't be a waste as I'm not really a schoo-in anywhere so best to give myself the best chance of getting in somewhere. of course it'd be a huge waste if I get denied everywhere haha, but I digress.

for you OP, I think applying to 20 (well picked) schools should have been enough. I hope you get off those waitlists with more interviews to come!
 
My dad only wanted me to apply to the in state schools. My other siblings told me to do 15 (which I did). I am paying for the applications myself so it is a bit hard to shovel out money for applications fees, transport etc.

As for my ECs, the only things I have not mentioned is my employment history and tutoring (250 hours).
 
Yeah, the waitlist train--good times. I sat on it at 7 schools, and was eventually pulled at two really great schools. Just remember that many people who are eventually accepted get pulled from the waitlist--at some schools it's a sizable number.
 
And yes, just to echo what others have said: upwards of 1/3 ro 1/2 of all applicants get into medical school off of the waitlist -- so basically that is part of the norm and just how the game is played! (two words: yield protection)

I think that's including people who have other acceptances and just attend another school that pulled them off the wait list (which I would assume is the majority of the wait list-to-acceptance crowd). If that's what you meant, then never mind!
 
I actually think that the more marginal of an applicant you are, the more likely it is that you'll do more harm than good when applying to greater than say...20 schools. The harm being increased stress, lost time, and lost money.

I look at it like physician over-treatment. For example, mommography in women under a certain age could do more harm than good, or PSA screening in some cases. There is some abstract statistical chance that the treatment could help, but a greater chance of harm. At the individual level, its hard to not just take the treatment or apply to the extra schools, but in reality chances are it won't help and may hurt.
 
At Temple, IS acceptance rate is 18%, OOS is 3%
At Jefferson, IS acceptance rate is 12%. OOS is 3.5%.
At Drexel, IS acceptance rate is 18%, OOS is 4%.
At UPenn, there is a slight preference towards IS, though not to the same degree as the above schools.
Is this acceptance or matriculation?? If it is acceptance, where did you find that information? Note that the MSAR provides information on matriculation, not acceptance. If you don't know the difference, don't post this crap.

There is a difference between acceptance and matriculation and there may be a bias in where students with many choices choose to matriculate; they are more likely than not to choose the school in their home state, particularly those that have choices among the lower tier schools (those with choices among top tiers, not so much).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is this acceptance or matriculation?? If it is acceptance, where did you find that information? Note that the MSAR provides information on matriculation, not acceptance. If you don't know the difference, don't post this crap.

There is a difference between acceptance and matriculation and there may be a bias in where students with many choices choose to matriculate; they are more likely than not to choose the school in their home state, particularly those that have choices among the lower tier schools (those with choices among top tiers, not so much).

Its on US News (not for every single school I guess), you have to pay to subscribe to see the acceptance numbers. For example,

Temple in-state:
Apps: 1218
Interviewed: 300
Accepted: 205
Enrolled: 110

Temple OOS:
Apps: 9111
Interviewed: 745
Accepted: 296
Enrolled: 97

They also give a breakdown for women and minorities...Who knows, maybe its not accurate? You would know better than us
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is this acceptance or matriculation?? If it is acceptance, where did you find that information? Note that the MSAR provides information on matriculation, not acceptance. If you don't know the difference, don't post this crap.

There is a difference between acceptance and matriculation and there may be a bias in where students with many choices choose to matriculate; they are more likely than not to choose the school in their home state, particularly those that have choices among the lower tier schools (those with choices among top tiers, not so much).

It's US News. It's not the exact numbers (I did the calculations in my head from the numbers that CarlosDanger posted). I said acceptance rate - I'm not sure why you are insinuating that I'm ignorant to the differences between matriculation and acceptance.
 
This is getting really off topic, but at one of the private schools I interviewed at, they said that they were unbiased regarding IS/OOS status. I looked up the acceptance data, and it showed that IS had a huge advantage over OOS. I questioned the assistant dean of admissions, and they said that while they don't specifically look at state residence, they do look for ties to the area, whether it's undergrad/high school location, parents/relatives ties, faculty affiliations, alumni of the affiliated undergrad, etc. These factors have high correlations to being an instate resident. Clearly this school and many other private schools indirectly favor IS.
 
This is getting really off topic, but at one of the private schools I interviewed at, they said that they were unbiased regarding IS/OOS status. I looked up the acceptance data, and it showed that IS had a huge advantage over OOS. I questioned the assistant dean of admissions, and they said that while they don't specifically look at state residence, they do look for ties to the area, whether it's undergrad/high school location, parents/relatives ties, faculty affiliations, alumni of the affiliated undergrad, etc. These factors have high correlations to being an instate resident. Clearly this school and many other private schools indirectly favor IS.
I believe I misunderstood you and the confusion was the difference between use of the terms 'in-state residency status' and simple in-state ties. For example, Stanford officially has no in-state bias, so whether you qualify as an in-state resident (which in CA is notoriously difficult) doesn't really matter, but if you've worked at Stanford before, went to Stanford ugrad, or have general ties to the area, your chances are vastly increased. This is compared to a school like UCLA, that will take into account your actual residency status and have very high proportion of in-state residents matriculating, skewing acceptance rates pretty heavily.

I don't doubt that people who are nearby the school have a higher acceptance rates, however when people refer to residency status, it's typically in reference to state schools and the very stringent rules that apply to residency status.
 
Last edited:
Its on US News (not for every single school I guess), you have to pay to subscribe to see the acceptance numbers. For example,

Temple in-state:
Apps: 1218
Interviewed: 300
Accepted: 205
Enrolled: 110

Temple OOS:
Apps: 9111
Interviewed: 745
Accepted: 296
Enrolled: 97

They also give a breakdown for women and minorities...Who knows, maybe its not accurate? You would know better than us
Thank you. I learned something today. However, note that while Temple gives ~70% of its interviews to OOS applicants, (but to a very low proportion of that applicant pool, < 10% of OOS applicants get an interview) and grants ~60% of its offers to OOS applicants (but IS applicants have better odds of getting an offer if they interview), the IS applicants accept the offers 50% of the time while OOS applicants accept only 33% of the time. It seems to me that they would be chasing what they hope will be the best out of state applicants who are likely to matriculate but end up settling for good IS applicants who want to go there.

Ties to a region, including relatives (but not necessarily parents) who live there, etc can be seen as a a source of "social support" and can be a plus in some circumstances .
 
I believe I misunderstood you and the confusion was the difference between use of the terms 'in-state residency status' and simple in-state ties. For example, Stanford officially has no in-state bias, so whether you qualify as an in-state resident (which in CA is notoriously difficult) doesn't really matter, but if you've worked at Stanford before, went to Stanford ugrad, or have general ties to the area, your chances are vastly increased. This is compared to a school like UCLA, that will take into account your actual residency status and have very proportion of in-state residents matriculating, skewing acceptance rates pretty heavily.

I don't doubt that people who are nearby the school have a higher acceptance rates, however when people refer to residency status, it's typically in reference to state schools and the very stringent rules that apply to residency status.

Yeah that's what I meant. US News does sort by instate/out of state, and you can see the bias through the numbers. Schools may not officially be favoring instate vs out of state, but there is a bias via in-state ties. Ugrad affiliation, working affiliation, etc, makes sense. But when schools are also favoring students who have lived in the state before (which is highly correlated to IS status), they may as well be officially favoring IS residency status.
 
Yeah that's what I meant. US News does sort by instate/out of state, and you can see the bias through the numbers. Schools may not officially be favoring instate vs out of state, but there is a bias via in-state ties. Ugrad affiliation, working affiliation, etc, makes sense. But when schools are also favoring students who have lived in the state before (which is highly correlated to IS status), they may as well be officially favoring IS residency status.

But the numbers that are reported are those of matriculants, right? If so, then there is also bias in terms of the number of students willing to leave their homestates to matriculate to another school OOS.
 
Top