What are Adcom meetings like?

[unsung]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm sure it varies by the school, but I'm very curious. With the paucity of info out there, the whole process seems very opaque.

Reading through SDN, one student Adcom's description of the process at one school seemed like each Adcom takes several files home and makes the decision on who to interview individually. Then they meet every few wks or whatever & give a short spiel about why they think so-and-so deserves an interview. And that's it. It's not really a debate or anything. Apparently at that school, whether or not an applicant gets an interview invite has a lot to do with which Adcom (randomly) happens to be assigned your file.

Other schools seem to have meetings in which several Adcom members are simultaneously discussing the same applicant and going over the PS, etc. with a microscope.

So I'm just really confused about how this process typically works, at a majority of schools.

-- How many people are on an Adcom?

-- Do multiple individuals read the same application then discuss it together OR is the decision on one app typically made by 1 person?

-- Do people take the applications home to read over on their own time and only get together to discuss OR do people meet & read applications *together* on the spot?
(if it's the latter, I think the group dynamic could really sink or elevate an app faster than if it were evaluated individually 1st...)

-- Are Adcom members "told" what qualities/specific experiences, etc. to look for OR is each person pretty much free to choose based on their own tastes?

-- How do you get to be on the Adcom & what qualities are they looking for?


Anyone have ANY insights??

Yeah, I seem to be overly analyzing this, but I'm CURIOUS damn it 😎

And, it seems to me that the more we know, the better our applications will be.

 

[Protoss]

Well at least for UC Irvine, once you get passed their cut-offs, your application is given to a group of individuals who look at your application and then each person presents what they think of you during the weekly meeting. It is some what subjective b/c although one person likes you, another may not like you, so I would say part of the admissions is luck.

 

[Law2Doc]

So I'm just really confused about how this process typically works, at a majority of schools.

In 120+ schools there are probably 120+ variations. There is no set way adcoms work, so trying to get inside their heads is really a big waste of time. The majority of adcom members are clinicians, but most schools mix in a few PhD/professor types and many schools have student members. They are usually people the dean invites to be on the committee. There is no pay for being on the committee, and it involves a lot of work, so folks are only doing it out of a love for the school or a sense of obligation/loyalty to the dean. Whether an applicant is a "good fit" for the school is subjective, and you will never really know if that subjective evaluation is being made by one or many. So no point thinking about it.

What you can be sure of is that the schools getting 8000-10,000 applications have to find a way to cull the herd fairly significantly. So that probably involves secretaries separating things out into separate piles based on various indicators (depending on what the school is looking for), and then the adcoms dividing and conquering those piles. So no, it's not like every adcom will have read your file before it is cast in the trash or before they vote whether you get an interview. The Dean of admissions probably did, and whomever was delegated to the role of screening it probably did. The ones that are screened and still in the running probably end up in more piles which are likely seen by or presented to more people before the decision process is made. As to what the school is looking for in terms of good fit, I suspect this gets discussed, but is certainly a fluctuating concept within various people's brains, more than an objective, fixed concept.

Anyhow all of this is out of your hands; no point worrying about it or trying to socially engineer it. I'm fairly certain more people get rejected trying to be what they think adcoms want them to be than being themselves. And so given that, I actually think you are exactly wrong in your last sentence -- you won't have a better application by trying to know what they are looking for. Because you will be tempted to change that which is factual to that which is what they are looking for. And with 120 schools with, say, ten folks on adcom at each, there may be 1200 versions of what they are looking for and you won't be right about most of them. So why bother? The point of a subjective yardstick is that it's something you can't control. So focus on the objective ones which are totally under your control, and let your own personality and interests dictate the rest. That's what med schools seem to want anyhow.

 

[DROCKINDAHOUSE]

.

 

[unsung]

In 120+ schools there are probably 120+ variations. There is no set way adcoms work, so trying to get inside their heads is really a big waste of time. The majority of adcom members are clinicians, but most schools mix in a few PhD/professor types and many schools have student members. They are usually people the dean invites to be on the committee. There is no pay for being on the committee, and it involves a lot of work, so folks are only doing it out of a love for the school or a sense of obligation/loyalty to the dean. Whether an applicant is a "good fit" for the school is subjective, and you will never really know if that subjective evaluation is being made by one or many. So no point thinking about it.

What you can be sure of is that the schools getting 8000-10,000 applications have to find a way to cull the herd fairly significantly. So that probably involves secretaries separating things out into separate piles based on various indicators (depending on what the school is looking for), and then the adcoms dividing and conquering those piles. So no, it's not like every adcom will have read your file before it is cast in the trash or before they vote whether you get an interview. The Dean of admissions probably did, and whomever was delegated to the role of screening it probably did. The ones that are screened and still in the running probably end up in more piles which are likely seen by or presented to more people before the decision process is made. As to what the school is looking for in terms of good fit, I suspect this gets discussed, but is certainly a fluctuating concept within various people's brains, more than an objective, fixed concept.

Anyhow all of this is out of your hands; no point worrying about it or trying to socially engineer it. I'm fairly certain more people get rejected trying to be what they think adcoms want them to be than being themselves. And so given that, I actually think you are exactly wrong in your last sentence -- you won't have a better application by trying to know what they are looking for. Because you will be tempted to change that which is factual to that which is what they are looking for. And with 120 schools with, say, ten folks on adcom at each, there may be 1200 versions of what they are looking for and you won't be right about most of them. So why bother? The point of a subjective yardstick is that it's something you can't control. So focus on the objective ones which are totally under your control, and let your own personality and interests dictate the rest. That's what med schools seem to want anyhow.

Thanks for the info. I understand your pt about the whole "process" being largely out of our hands, so why worry about it? And practically speaking, speculation devoid real information is probably largely useless.

But, I disagree that knowing more about the actual Adcom practices at a particular school will tempt me to "change what is factual" to something which is not. My purpose in wanting to find out more about the process is simply an extension of researching the school's mission, for example, or trying to get a feel for what that school emphasizes through info they post on their own website.
If it were all about me expressing myself, then in theory I could just reuse my essays verbatim in all my secondaries. In practice, I think most of us tailor our essays to each school to emphasize different things.

It's not about lying. It's about what you choose to focus on or which examples you pick to illustrate your point. For example, if a school seems to really emphasize community service, I'll probably choose to talk more about my volunteer experiences in a particular essay. If a school seems devoted to "scholarly inquiry", for an otherwise identical prompt "tell me about yourself", I'd probably focus more on my research background. I'm not making stuff up in either case. I'm just choosing to focus on one thing or another.

I mean, everything I've said is certainly NOT necessary for success... plenty of people make it through doing exactly what you said: saying exactly the same set of things XYZ to each school, without really trying to tailor it that much, i.e. without really paying attention to who is on the receiving end. Otoh, I don't think paying attention to who is on the receiving end is equivalent to "social engineering", and certainly I don't consider it lying. It's the simple adage for writers: "Know your audience." When I write my essays, I like to have some idea of who is reading it and in what kind of setting they're reading it in. Blame it on my psych background if you like

Anyway, for the most part, I agree with you that it's pretty much impossible to know or to "get inside" the mind of the Adcom. But I'm still curious and any info I get is helpful for me 😀 Maybe it's less helpful or even useless for others. As with all things I suppose, ymmv.

 

[LizzyM]

Yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat and no doubt each school is a little different depending on its size, the number of applications it receives, the number of interviews it grants, etc.

I'll just say that you can expect more than one adcom member to look at your application before you are invited to interview. Your interviews may be open file (your interviewer has seen your file in advance) or closed interview (limited or no information provided to the interview so they are not biased by your scores, etc.). After your interview, your file or portions of it along with your interviewers' assessments, is likely to be handled by more members of the adcom before a decision is made by a group of adcom members whether to offer/waitlist/decline.

Rules governing the operation of medical school in the US (rules made jointly by the AMA and the AAMC) require that admission decisions be made by medical school faculty so a adcom is made up of med school faculty members. In some schools, medical students may have a role in reviewing files or conducting interviews but I would doubt that ehy are given any role in the final decision because they are not faculty members.

Adcoms do a lot of reading which is generally a solitary pursuit. After lots of quiet time (alone or in a group), there are times for discussion for or against a candidate or about the school's mission and philosophy in selecting applicants and in how to evaluate various aspects ofthe applications.

 

[unsung]

Yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat and no doubt each school is a little different depending on its size, the number of applications it receives, the number of interviews it grants, etc.

I'll just say that you can expect more than one adcom member to look at your application before you are invited to interview. Your interviews may be open file (your interviewer has seen your file in advance) or closed interview (limited or no information provided to the interview so they are not biased by your scores, etc.). After your interview, your file or portions of it along with your interviewers' assessments, is likely to be handled by more members of the adcom before a decision is made by a group of adcom members whether to offer/waitlist/decline.

Rules governing the operation of medical school in the US (rules made jointly by the AMA and the AAMC) require that admission decisions be made by medical school faculty so a adcom is made up of med school faculty members. In some schools, medical students may have a role in reviewing files or conducting interviews but I would doubt that ehy are given any role in the final decision because they are not faculty members.

Adcoms do a lot of reading which is generally a solitary pursuit. After lots of quiet time (alone or in a group), there are times for discussion for or against a candidate or about the school's mission and philosophy in selecting applicants and in how to evaluate various aspects ofthe applications.

Words from the oracle. Thank you very much! It helps to have some idea of what's going on. 😍

 

[ami1983]

The majority of adcom members are clinicians, but most schools mix in a few PhD/professor types and many schools have student members. They are usually people the dean invites to be on the committee. There is no pay for being on the committee, and it involves a lot of work, so folks are only doing it out of a love for the school or a sense of obligation/loyalty to the dean.

They're all faculty, which means they all want to get tenure. To get tenure, you must do teaching, research and service. Service= committees

 

[MsKrispyKreme]

I've heard that it's something like this:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdaRuTwWl9I[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Bradstein]

I've heard that it's something like this:

flawless victory

 

[enjoydrywax]

I assume most/all adcoms operate by placing your name on a piece of paper (sized proportionally to your MCAT score), hanging this piece of paper on a HUGE wall with everybody else's name, and to tossing darts while blind-folded. Those who are hit get interviews.

Roughly 5 minutes before they look at you they highlight random parts of your application and ask you about them in your interview. This explains the whole "whoa didn't know they would ask about that in my interview."

 

[lord_jeebus]

There are tasty cookies.

I'm not really at liberty to share much more.

 

[beachblonde]

I assume most/all adcoms operate by placing your name on a piece of paper (sized proportionally to your MCAT score), hanging this piece of paper on a HUGE wall with everybody else's name, and to tossing darts while blind-folded. Those who are hit get interviews.

Roughly 5 minutes before they look at you they highlight random parts of your application and ask you about them in your interview. This explains the whole "whoa didn't know they would ask about that in my interview."

I always just thought that they brought in a bunch of chimps to select who they want. But maybe that's just post-interview.

But what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at some ADCOM meetings. Especially when they're discussing my file.....

 

[Law2Doc]

They're all faculty, which means they all want to get tenure. To get tenure, you must do teaching, research and service. Service= committees

Most of the adcom members are already fairly senior folks who already have tenure if the school gives it (most places don't have it though -- the "faculty" are clinicians at the affiliated hospital. So no, it really is about volunteering to help the school, or do a favor to the Dean who invited them onto the committee.

 

[LizzyM]

Most of the adcom members are already fairly senior folks who already have tenure if the school gives it (most places don't have it though -- the "faculty" are clinicians at the affiliated hospital. So no, it really is about volunteering to help the school, or do a favor to the Dean who invited them onto the committee.

It depends on the school. Most clinicians with academic appointments, and many other faculty, are not tenure eligible and they serve on the adcom as a form of "good citizenship" (one must serve on committees to justify the faculty appointment and to be a good citizen of the academic community). It is a favor to the Dean and that -- and the cookies -- can go far in getting collaboration from adcom members.

 

[Adnama]

It depends on the school. Most clinicians with academic appointments, and many other faculty, are not tenure eligible and they serve on the adcom as a form of "good citizenship" (one must serve on committees to justify the faculty appointment and to be a good citizen of the academic community). It is a favor to the Dean and that -- and the cookies -- can go far in getting collaboration from adcom members.

Do you guys ever get in arguments or are you usually on the same page?

 

[MilkmanAl]

Wow, that's a great question. I'm curious as well.

 

[pianola]

I have a theory that I'm curious if LizzyM would respond to:

--> The theory is that a committee is more likely to favor a well-rounded individual over one who is slightly lopsided but has one single amazing talent/research/EC.

My theory is that, as the candidate is being discussed, people are looking for reasons to eliminate each one, at least to start out with. "Candidate X has no community service, Candidate Y has no research, Candidate Z has a 3.2 sGPA, etc." This will eliminate the lopsided candidates far earlier than the one who is "good all around" but maybe has nothing to particularly distinguish him/her.

If it were a single evaluator, the decision between two candidates with different merits might not be as simple.

What do you think of the theory, Lizzy?

 

[Adnama]

I think that is an interesting theory but I assume that more people are rejected based on numbers than anything else?


I also wonder if people are rejected because their stats are too high for a certain school? I know that sounds odd but does a place that has an average of 30/3.7 want to waste its time accepting the 40/4.0 applicants? Or do they try to attract them with scholarships?

 

[LizzyM]

Do you guys ever get in arguments or are you usually on the same page?

There can be disagreements... someone will explain their position, someone holding a conflicting opinion will speak, and in the end everyone makes their own decision.

 

[LizzyM]

I have a theory that I'm curious if LizzyM would respond to:

--> The theory is that a committee is more likely to favor a well-rounded individual over one who is slightly lopsided but has one single amazing talent/research/EC.

My theory is that, as the candidate is being discussed, people are looking for reasons to eliminate each one, at least to start out with. "Candidate X has no community service, Candidate Y has no research, Candidate Z has a 3.2 sGPA, etc." This will eliminate the lopsided candidates far earlier than the one who is "good all around" but maybe has nothing to particularly distinguish him/her.

If it were a single evaluator, the decision between two candidates with different merits might not be as simple.

What do you think of the theory, Lizzy?

It depends on the school but the time when most applicants get tossed aside is between the secondary and the interview invitation. Those applications are rarely discussed. If an applicant is fatally flawed it will get tossed early. Someone with an interesting hook might get moved ahead as "interesting" even if lopsided. The hard spot is with the vanilla application who is average for that school. There are far more of them than there are interview spots... how do we choose? There is no easy answer.

Schools do chase the 4.0/40s even if they seem "out of our league". You won't get a shot at taking the beauty queen to the prom if you don't ever talk to her.

 

[lord_jeebus]

I have a theory that I'm curious if LizzyM would respond to:

--> The theory is that a committee is more likely to favor a well-rounded individual over one who is slightly lopsided but has one single amazing talent/research/EC.

My theory is that, as the candidate is being discussed, people are looking for reasons to eliminate each one, at least to start out with. "Candidate X has no community service, Candidate Y has no research, Candidate Z has a 3.2 sGPA, etc." This will eliminate the lopsided candidates far earlier than the one who is "good all around" but maybe has nothing to particularly distinguish him/her.

If it were a single evaluator, the decision between two candidates with different merits might not be as simple.

What do you think of the theory, Lizzy?

In my experience, there are enough well-rounded applicants with an "amazing" accomplishment (or at least a very significant one) that the chances for both the cookie-cutter well-rounded applicant and the lopsided applicant are not that good. Of the two, I think the lopsided one is more likely to generate interest.

 

[pianola]

OK, I guess the question is probably impossible to answer without actual applicants in mind. Too much variation and every applicant is different, etc.

Wonder if there's a quota for weird-applicants-who-can't-exactly-be-compared-to-the-other-ones-apart-from-the-MCAT? ;-)

 

[Kaydubz]

Schools do chase the 4.0/40s even if they seem "out of our league". You won't get a shot at taking the beauty queen to the prom if you don't ever talk to her.

Haha, and I thought that sentiment was more common for premeds applying to Harvard et al.

 

[lord_jeebus]

OK, I guess the question is probably impossible to answer without actual applicants in mind. Too much variation and every applicant is different, etc.

Wonder if there's a quota for weird-applicants-who-can't-exactly-be-compared-to-the-other-ones-apart-from-the-MCAT? ;-)

I think it would also be rare for a situation to come up when two applicants are compared to each other. It's not Candidate A vs. B; it's "Do we take A?" "Do we take B?"

 

[pianola]

I think it would also be rare for a situation to come up when two applicants are compared to each other. It's not Candidate A vs. B; it's "Do we take A?" "Do we take B?"

Hmm. Interesting. I REALLY hope I get the chance to find out what it's like to be on an ADCOM some day. 😛

I think I'd set up lots of little excel spreadsheets to help me decide 😀.

 

[MsKrispyKreme]

flawless victory

🙂

 

[unsung]

This has been very informative *munches popcorn*... for some reason I'm picturing judges on Top Chef debating the contestants. Actually it occurs to me that the "lopsided applicant with interesting hook" is sorta like the gorgeous guy/gal that has some personality flaw... but you still really really want to give that person a chance. Vs. the attractive/nice/vanilla guy/gal that you could easily be friends with, but might not have the chemistry for more... OT. Anyway.

So how common is the "lopsided applicant with interesting hook"? Or another way to ask the same question... how often does a personal statement actually STAND OUT as "wow, that was really interesting & well-written!" Is it pretty rare for something to hook an Adcom or are there usually 1 or 2 at each meeting that stands out like that?

 

[Vihsadas]

Let me raise a glass to lopsided applicants everywhere. May our applications not be tossed aside; and if they are, then let that same lopsidedness cause them to be sufficiently less aerodynamic than a more normal application so that they miss their intended destination of the trashbin and accidentally land in the interview pile.

(Who would have guessed that the interview pile is so close to the trashbin...😉)

 

[foodfood]

Let me raise a glass to lopsided applicants everywhere. May our applications not be tossed aside; and if they are, then let that same lopsidedness cause them to be sufficiently less aerodynamic than a more normal application so that they miss their intended destination of the trashbin and accidentally land in the interview pile.

(Who would have guessed that the interview pile is so close to the trashbin...😉)

cheers!

 

[pianola]

Let me raise a glass to lopsided applicants everywhere. May our applications not be tossed aside; and if they are, then let that same lopsidedness cause them to be sufficiently less aerodynamic than a more normal application so that they miss their intended destination of the trashbin and accidentally land in the interview pile.

(Who would have guessed that the interview pile is so close to the trashbin...😉)

Very inspired, actually.

I think most applicants are lopsided in one way or another. There is no such thing as a perfectly well-rounded, human-sphere applicant (some applicants are closer to approaching human spheres than others). The relevant questions are (1) whether or not the lopsidedness is apparent to the ADCOM and (2) whether or not the 'weakest area' is considered a significant, insurmountable liability on the application. At least, that's what I would guess...

But what do I know?

 

[lord_jeebus]

So how common is the "lopsided applicant with interesting hook"?

Not that uncommon, but I guess it depends on your threshold for "interesting"

how often does a personal statement actually STAND OUT as "wow, that was really interesting & well-written

Rare

 

[Nanon]

Let me raise a glass to lopsided applicants everywhere. May our applications not be tossed aside; and if they are, then let that same lopsidedness cause them to be sufficiently less aerodynamic than a more normal application so that they miss their intended destination of the trashbin and accidentally land in the interview pile.

(Who would have guessed that the interview pile is so close to the trashbin...😉)

Proust! 😀

 

[LizzyM]

Schools vary, I'm sure but some of the opinion/debate occurs in written communication rather than face-to-face in meetings. The vanilla applicant has an average (for that school) academic record, went to a school that sends a lot of applicants to this medical school, did one summer of research, one semester or of volunteer work at a hospital (pediatrics or ER) and has an EMT-B certification but has never used it and/or tutors college students in chemistry. The essay describing the motivation for medicine revolves either around feeling helpless in an emergency or the death of a close relative, most often a grandmother. I might get a few hundred like that this year. An interesting hook is all that plus having a really interesting activity, particularly something that relates to service, leadership, and/or scholarship. This might be a long term research project stretching over several years and culminating in a presentation at a national meeting, or increasing responsibility for a service project in the community. The hook can be an interesting job prior to attending college or after college, this includes military service. The hook can be related to your upbringing whether you traveled every few years as an Army brat, a expat's kid or as a migrant farm worker.

Basically, getting an interview sometimes depends on having several people read your application and say, this would be an interesting person to talk to, or this applicant would be a good catch for us (the good catch usually has stats above the school's average or a really unusual background).

The conversations really take off when committee members review applications after the interviews, make independent assessments of whether the applicant is good enough or a poor risk and then compare notes or "scores". The discussion often revolves around behaviors exhibited at the interview and how in confirms what is in the written application or conflicts with it. Was he cocky and elitist or just a confident student from a top 10 school? Was the dismissive behavior toward a staff member on interview day evidence of his disregard for others and an inability to follow directions or should that reported behavior be overlooked given his excellent raport with the interviewer and a LOR from a highly regarded pre-med advisor? Sometimes someone will adjust a score or recommendation (admit/waitlist/reject) after such a discussion. Often there is a consensus one way or another, sometimes (rather rarely) there is a vote up or down when a consensus can not be reached.

It never really comes down to "which of these two do we pick"? It is almost always "which do we choose of the 12 or 15 or 100 to choose from"?

It isn't an easy job and sometimes it is sad to put aside an application from an excellent candidate because there just isn't a slot for them.

 

[shiftingmirage]

LizzyM-

Does the undergrad institution of an applicant factor in to the process? Does an individual from an ivy looked better upon than someone from a small liberal arts school? Lastly-if one attends an undergrad institution that has a med school, do they have a better chance of getting in to that med school since they went there for undergrad than someone from another school?

 

[175961]

flip a coin, tear off the petals of a flower (hes in, hes out, hes in, hes out...), make some origami fortune teller with the names of some applicants on them, rock paper scissors with the winner getting to choose the applicant of their choice, rolling dice, russian roulette with the surviving adcom member picking someone to admit, drawing straws, throwing darts at applicants pictures and the list goes on...








I wanna be an adcom member

 

[JFrusciante]

At one particular school, I heard that Adcoms get together in a round table type of discussion. One member presents an applicant to the whole table, breaking it down in:

1. MCAT
2. GPA
3. Activities
4. Personal Statement
5. LORs

I'm sure some of them are given more weight than others (MCAT, GPA, Activities), but all of them are looked at considerably.

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM-

Does the undergrad institution of an applicant factor in to the process? Does an individual from an ivy looked better upon than someone from a small liberal arts school? Lastly-if one attends an undergrad institution that has a med school, do they have a better chance of getting in to that med school since they went there for undergrad than someone from another school?

I suspect that this varies by school. I don't know whether grads of a university's undergrad program have better odds of being admitted to that university's med school.... One would need to know the proportion of locals who are admitted and the proportion of applicants from other schools controlling for a host of other predictor variables.

You might expect that a student who did very, very well at a top research university or a top liberal arts school was facing stiffer competition in the classroom than an applicant who attended a college that admits 80% of its applicants. The MCAT can show that a student from Small State College is an academic equal to the Ivy Grad.

 

[njbmd]

For the two schools on which I serve on the Admissions Committee, the office staff screen the applications for us in terms of whether or not you meet the criteria for invitation to interview. They read every word of every application. Some are tossed right there after a second review by the Dean of Admissions.

Once the applications are screened, they are divided up between the members of the committee. We read the applications and either agree to the interview invitation or disagree (you can be tossed at this point too). Of those that we agree to invite, another member of the committee has to sign off on that interview invitation (can be tossed if they don't agree with the invitation).

Interviewees are contacted and we schedule interviews. Each applicant is interviewed by a member of the basic science faculty and the clinical science faculty. These two folks are the people who essentially sell (or don't sell) you to the rest of the committee.

If you pass muster in the committee meeting after comment by the folks who interviewed you, then your application is reviewed one last time by the Dean of Admissions who sends you a letter inviting you to become a member of the incoming class or places you on the waitlist depending on the results of their review.

 

[riceman04]

It depends on the school but the time when most applicants get tossed aside is between the secondary and the interview invitation. Those applications are rarely discussed. If an applicant is fatally flawed it will get tossed early. Someone with an interesting hook might get moved ahead as "interesting" even if lopsided. The hard spot is with the vanilla application who is average for that school. There are far more of them than there are interview spots... how do we choose? There is no easy answer.

Schools do chase the 4.0/40s even if they seem "out of our league". You won't get a shot at taking the beauty queen to the prom if you don't ever talk to her.

I live by that motto....so so true

 

[MsKrispyKreme]

 

[LizzyM]

We tried this but they ate all our cookies. 🙁 That's when we made the switch to M4s. They also eat our cookies but they are more fastidious about keeping the crumbs off of the appies.

 

[Vihsadas]

Kyoot!!!

 

[MsKrispyKreme]

We tried this but they ate all our cookies. 🙁 That's when we made the switch to M4s. They also eat our cookies but they are more fastidious about keeping the crumbs off of the appies.

I wub Lizzy. 😍

 

[Buckeye3]

Schools do chase the 4.0/40s even if they seem "out of our league". You won't get a shot at taking the beauty queen to the prom if you don't ever talk to her.

Ha ha ha. LizzyM, you are so helpful, but I LMAO every time you post a comment like this and I look at your avatar. I know it's not you, but I just picture this lady saying that and crack up. Is there a standard of seeing an app that completely lacks volunteer/clinical/research (only one of the three, of course) and throwing it out b/c of the absence of experience in one of these areas?

 

[LizzyM]

Is there a standard of seeing an app that completely lacks volunteer/clinical/research (only one of the three, of course) and throwing it out b/c of the absence of experience in one of these areas?

I've seen it happen, particularly with clinical experience.

 

[inhiding]

nonono...ADCOM munki is only responsible for pre-screens! The question was about ADCOM meetings.

I'm totally pressing my luck aren't I?

Oh well, with the exception of LizzyM and njbmd, we're all speculating anyway. Might as well add a little color to the speculation, right?

 

[MsKrispyKreme]

nonono...ADCOM munki is only responsible for pre-screens! The question was about ADCOM meetings.

I'm totally pressing my luck aren't I?

Oh well, with the exception of LizzyM and njbmd, we're all speculating anyway. Might as well add a little color to the speculation, right?

 

[footballrules]

I think that is an interesting theory but I assume that more people are rejected based on numbers than anything else?


I also wonder if people are rejected because their stats are too high for a certain school? I know that sounds odd but does a place that has an average of 30/3.7 want to waste its time accepting the 40/4.0 applicants? Or do they try to attract them with scholarships?

Yes, I'm sure it happens. This world is based on subject opinions. So yes, I'm sure it happens.