D
deleted962973
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think in Wedgedawgs system, only HYPSM is a 1. Though I would argue for adding Caltech, UChicago, and Columbia to that list.
WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated for 2026-2027)
Started by WedgeDawg
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Interesting... I'm unsure where to find this sort of data? Could you give me a link? I'd like to take an in-depth look at where my fellow students end up
ask the Berkeley pre-med office for outcomes, I'm sure they will have the most complete data.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't think they track acceptances based on matriculant school ranking? Idk I always just assumed it was all or nothing "Did they get into an MD school or not?" type of thing. So idk where you get that kind of data. Out of curiosity though, what constitutes a category 2 undergraduate school? I suppose I just assumed since it was the 1st/2nd best public school it would be a 2, but perhaps that was just some good-old fashioned self-aggrandizing on my part..? Because in this system 3 is the best, 2 is for other prestigious schools, and 1 is for all other schools. I'm just not sure if I should put 1 (worse) or 2 (better). I'm thinking 1 just because I'm a transfer student, but I'm unsure.
Last edited:
just be conservative and put it into the lower one. The office probably has info on which schools exactly. You check a box on AMCAS giving info to your pre-health advisor. I would bet most people who used the office end up checking it.
I scored an 89. On the chart it says a 85+ should be applying to vast majority top schools. I think the major problem with the accuracy of this in my case is that some schools care a lot more about research vs community service/clinical time than others. I am strong in the clinical experiences/volunteering/teaching sections, but have not done the amount/kinds of research that a school like Stanford really wants (and I don't have a big hook - like URM, veteran, peace corps, etc). I received the bulk of my interviews not from the those top tier schools that the chart suggested should make up 80% of my apps. This clearly took a lot of work by OP and I thank them for that, but for pre-meds out there be sure that you are using your critical thinking skills too. This is a suggestion. 85 or 89 will definitely not guarantee you invites at one or any of those top places. Had I followed this suggestion when applying I would have been screwed.
Also a second thought to people reading this and trying to make their lists - be sure to really evaluate your fit with the school. This was the number one thing that I underestimated the importance of. I applied to some really academic/research heavy schools (Stanford, Duke, etc) even though that is not at all my personality/interests just because they have big names and I thought my scores may be good enough, etc. Not surprisingly the adcoms could tell I wasn't a good fit for them and didn't offer me an interview. There are other schools like Brown where I also really wasn't a fit, but applied anyways. I could have saved $ and time had I prioritized applying to schools that truly were a good fit for me.
1. Wedgie has been around for a long time and provided so many tips, tricks, spreadsheets to help others; this is just another example of what he provides to the premed community
2. This spreadsheet, like the LizzyM calculator (she is an adcom at some stratospheric school on east coast), is a guide. Guide. That's all. You have to think about the schools listed and as you stated, think about the fit, the direction of the school, the class make-up (age, etc.)
I qualify for A schools but, hmm, knowing me and my background, there is not ONE school on the list I am qualified for no matter my MCAT score or GPA, why? I'm simply not a good fit for their student model... I'm okay with that but in using Wedge's guide, I was able to find other schools that I would never have thought of.
So, before disparaging something remember, it's just a guide. A good guide, just like LizzyM's and for most of us, the Wedge + Lizzy got us to where we want to be.
I am happy to hear you got into a school that excites you - best of luck to you in the future!!
OP wanted to know how it worked for applicants so I gave my feedback based on my experience. Specifically, I said that for me the calculator wasn't accurate because those top schools care about research and my lack of research/pubs wasn't fully reflected in my score because schools weigh activities differently and there is no way to make the calculator take all of that into account - nor was it meant to. It is still a great tool and I am thankful OP made it for applicants. I did not say anything "disparaging" about OP or their work. I shared my story and emphasized to others using it that it should be used as a tool because I feel like there are many students on SDN and in general that need advice and would take it as an exact template because they want certainty in an uncertain situation as opposed to using it for its intended purpose: a guide. My goal was to help other students in similar positions as me think critically about what kind of school they want to apply to - even if they have the scores for a top school - do they have the research/do they want to be in a research-oriented setting like that? Thank you OP for your hard work and I hope that what was meant to be advice to fellow applicants did not come across as disrespectful.
Okay, it came across to me poorly, apologies for that. CARS is still a work in progress for me 🙂
@WedgeDawg
Hi again, I'm back with another stupid question... I finally found some data on community college transfer students going to medical school; and it seems that while 40% of undergraduate students went to community college, only 5% are actually enrolled in medical schools. Do you think this is bias on the part of admissions committees? Or is it just based on performance? If it is the later then could my high stats be grounds for an argument that I fit into the "Underrepresented in Medicine" category? If its the former I'm pretty screwed lol
Hi again, I'm back with another stupid question... I finally found some data on community college transfer students going to medical school; and it seems that while 40% of undergraduate students went to community college, only 5% are actually enrolled in medical schools. Do you think this is bias on the part of admissions committees? Or is it just based on performance? If it is the later then could my high stats be grounds for an argument that I fit into the "Underrepresented in Medicine" category? If its the former I'm pretty screwed lol
Regardless of whether it’s 5% due to bias or applicant self-selection, the answer to the above question is no.
Ok so to be clear under no circumstances whatsoever can "Underrepresented in Medicine" apply to anything other than race/ethnicity and sex? Not to any other qualities that are underrepresented in medicine?
The AAMC’s definition of URM is specifically for race/ethnicity, if i remember correctly, but (some) schools also give consideration to low SES (i.e. - socioeconomically disadvantaged) applicants, and I think a small amount also consider sexual orientation and rural backgrounds in admissions decisions (not including the schools that are just located in rural areas and are focused on rural Medicine)
I think it’s far more correlative than it is causative. I don’t think going to a community college inherently disadvantages you (I.e if you went to community college and then UVA or Cornell or something, you should apply as if you are from UVA or Cornell). It doesn’t confer upon you the designation of URM.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Pretty much. I work in healthcare, and I drink tea every morning. Every one of my colleagues drinks coffee. Am I underrepresented in medicine? Maybe in the technical sense of the word, but not in the spirit of it.
Do University of Washington, University of Florida, University of Minnesota, and University of Wisconsin count as Level 2 or Level 1 undergraduate schools?
Lowest level most likely. Rate conservatively if unsure.
9
907914
University of Washington is solidly a tier 2 school (Consistently T10 primary care and consistently T20 research). HOWEVER, they absolutely do NOT accept anyone from outside the states of Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska and Montana.
I was framing the question in terms of the undergraduate school, not the medical school.
Not sure if this was what you were looking for but this was published by the career service office (not available to the public).
Attachments
Wow thanks!!!
Sorry, sometimes notifications get missed or don’t go through.
Yes, I would say so, but again, if you’re not sure, post in WAMC for more detailed feedback to see if it’s a school you should apply to
9
920820
@WedgeDawg - looks like Emory and Wayne State both received 9k+ applications this year. Not sure what other schools experienced this much of a bump in applications. Thoughts on moving these two schools to the tier 6 category within the next few years?
Not sure how NYU's free tuition will pan out in the future, but I'm treating as a Category 1 for the next cycle.
I’m going to try to do a category revamp in the next month or so
D
deleted962973
Can I ask how schools in the low-yield category get placed there? I’m wondering why, for example, UCLA with 14.5K apps, Mayo with 9K, and Wake Forest with 10.5K wouldn’t also fall into this group.
If a school is in one of the most highly competitive categories (1 or 2), they are excluded from low yield.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
How is that revamp coming along? I recommend applicants figure out their WARS score but should they wait until it's updated?
9
907914
Those kinds of schools get a lot of applications because everyone knows their names so they apply there. Students really don't do a whole lot of research into where they apply, so they just apply with name recognition, stats, and region even if they are not competitive whatsoever. Same reason UW gets 8K OOR applications every year but they have an OOR acceptance rate of like 0.25%.
It’s still very usable as is - you can calc it now and then again later if you want
I assume it means schools that accept very few of their applicants? So even if you're qualified, it's not worth your time/money to apply. Unsure though
9
907914
Bruh, you are replying to a comment from 2015 lol Yah, low yield is like everyone applies there because they see how low the stats are. In reality, however, because everyone applies there thinking they have a shot those low yield schools are actually some of the lowest overall acceptance rates of any schools (think less than 1% acceptance rate for GWU, whereas even Harvard has like a 3-5% acceptance rate)
It swings both ways though. If you have a 512 then there is no such thing a "low yield" in my opinion
9
907914
Very true. 512 is a scary score, it is good enough to get in just about anywhere Save for T25s but it is not good enough to stand out Save for the lower rungs.
If you have average numbers your most likely outcome BY FAR is admission to your public school(s) or no admits at all.
The number of seats at the list of mid tier private schools (e.g. GWU, Georgetown, Jefferson, Drexel etc) is just vanishingly small compared to the 12-15,000 applicants vying for them at each.
The number of seats at the list of mid tier private schools (e.g. GWU, Georgetown, Jefferson, Drexel etc) is just vanishingly small compared to the 12-15,000 applicants vying for them at each.
I mean, even if you have stellar numbers your most likely result is landing at your state school. That doesn't mean you should not apply to harvard.
I think that if you are entering the cycle, you would rather waste a few hundred dollars applying to the "low yields" rather than having to re-apply.
The bold I actually don't think is as apparently true. Someone with a 3.9/523+ is extremely likely to have U of State as an option, and also likely to get a bunch of attention from top ranking schools, and I can't say I've ever seen anything to convince me that that the majority in that position choose the former.
I agree that a few hundred dollars spent on low yield schools is probably worth it, just so you won't have to wonder "what if"
Where does "800 hours of research with 3 poster presentations" fit: tier 4 or tier 3?
I'd say generally Tier 4. Tier 5 is a big step up from having poster presentations, in my opinion. Most applicants probably fall into Tiers 3 and 4 if they have research.
And what about 800 hours of volunteering as an attendant with my town's ambulance corps, in addition to 120 hours in my suburban ER: does that fall into tier 2 or tier 3 for clinical ? This volunteering was done over the course of approximately four years.
Finally, does having 300 hours with Habitat plus the aforementioned clinical volunteering put me in tier 2 or tier 3 for volunteering?
Does working part-time for 450 hours as an MCAT tutor, as well as mentoring science-fair students for 50 hours, count as tier 2 or tier 3?
Finally, does having 300 hours with Habitat plus the aforementioned clinical volunteering put me in tier 2 or tier 3 for volunteering?
Does working part-time for 450 hours as an MCAT tutor, as well as mentoring science-fair students for 50 hours, count as tier 2 or tier 3?
You could probably claim tier 3 for both volunteering and teaching, but just to be conservative/safe I'd go tier 3 on volunteering and tier 2 for teaching, since being an MCAT tutor is less teaching and more working. The mentoring is nice, but not sustained enough to put you over to tier 3.
Tier 3 for both clinical experience/volunteering and general volunteering? Also, does a U-shaped (3.8/3.47/3.47/3.8) GPA trend count as "upward trend" or no?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted972488
Yes, tier 3 for both of those. A U-shaped GPA trend will probably hurt you more than help you. It definitely doesn't count as an upward trend unless there was a gap between the first few years and the last few.
Is the U-shaped GPA trend worse than if I had had a 3.6 every year? Should I treat it like I have a 3.47?
Having a 3.6 straight might be better in terms of consistency. As it is, some schools might see you as your overall cGPA/sGPA and others might see you as a 3.47 due to your dropping from your first year to your second year and having concerns with your ability to perform consistently. Not necessarily something I would bring up in secondaries or in your primary, though. I'd ask this in a WAMC thread if you had one.
D
deleted972488
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
