What could be the reason I only got IIs from a couple T20s and nowhere else?

[deleted1118591]

Mainly asking out of boredom/trying to distract myself from waiting for post-interview results. If I had gotten no IIs at all, I would think there was some kind of red flag on my application, but I got two, both from T20s. One of them is my alma mater and interviews quite a large proportion of their applicants so that could explain it, and the other school is fairly close to where I went to college and I also think I fit their mission really well. But basically all the non-T20s I applied to have at least one of those characteristics. My state school is also very IS friendly, but not a peep from them.

I think the prevailing view (probably accurate for most people) is that if someone is getting IIs at T20s, they're a competitive applicant who probably has a relatively large number of IIs, so the fact that I only have two makes me feel like some kind of fluke. And it's intriguing to me why I'd get absolutely no love from schools where the competition is theoretically not as steep. Yield protection? Dumb luck?? If it's the former, could a letter of interest to the schools that aren't done giving out IIs potentially help?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I think the prevailing view (probably accurate for most people) is that if someone is getting IIs at T20s, they're a competitive applicant who probably has a relatively large number of IIs, so the fact that I only have two makes me feel like some kind of fluke.

Whose "prevailing view" is this? You are very fortunate to have 2 II's. Most applicants get 1, even from a T20 in many cases. There are too many factors why, and often many of those factors have nothing to do with how strong or weak your application may be. This is not a deterministic process. Mission fit however is important. Sometimes it also includes a guess whether you really are going to be happy at their program. It only serves to feed your anxiety if you keep thinking about it. This is why networking before applying can help in some schools' cases.

So for what it's worth, R-E-L-A-X.

 

[deleted1118591]

Whose "prevailing view" is this? You are very fortunate to have 2 II's. Most applicants get 1, even from a T20 in many cases. There are too many factors why, and often many of those factors have nothing to do with how strong or weak your application may be. This is not a deterministic process. Mission fit however is important. Sometimes it also includes a guess whether you really are going to be happy at their program. It only serves to feed your anxiety if you keep thinking about it. This is why networking before applying can help in some schools' cases.

So for what it's worth, R-E-L-A-X.

Thanks, needed to hear that. I think a lot of it is other applicants/premeds thinking that only superstars with a ton of IIs get into T20s...and also me being spooked by all the people I see on SDN with like 15 IIs in their signatures.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Thanks, needed to hear that. I think a lot of it is other applicants/premeds thinking that only superstars with a ton of IIs get into T20s...and also me being spooked by all the people I see on SDN with like 15 IIs in their signatures.

That might be the case for undergraduate admissions, but medical school admissions doesn't usually behave the same way (at least not unless we get more information).

 

[ragingotter]

Wow. Pretty confusing. I will agree that the interview process appears capricious. So many applicants and so few seats. However, I must strongly disagree that it is only undergrad admissions where students stack up multiple acceptances. A cursory reading of SDN will quickly unearth some prolific posters who have 10+ interviews. It appears that particular combinations of stats, experiences, training and personal characteristics can attract attention at multiple schools. What this means for applicants is that everyone is chasing that elusive combination, trying to earn the chance to make a pitch in person.

I understand you can't explain the ins and outs of different admissions committees. But please don't stake out a position that frazzled applicants know far too well is simply not the case.

Btw, good luck to Wendy. Sounds like you'll be a great doc!

 

[USN2MD]

Wow. Pretty confusing. I will agree that the interview process appears capricious. So many applicants and so few seats. However, I must strongly disagree that it is only undergrad admissions where students stack up multiple acceptances. A cursory reading of SDN will quickly unearth some prolific posters who have 10+ interviews. It appears that particular combinations of stats, experiences, training and personal characteristics can attract attention at multiple schools. What this means for applicants is that everyone is chasing that elusive combination, trying to earn the chance to make a pitch in person.

I understand you can't explain the ins and outs of different admissions committees. But please don't stake out a position that frazzled applicants know far too well is simply not the case.

Btw, good luck to Wendy. Sounds like you'll be a great doc!

People posting on here is not representative of reality. And there is actual data out there not anecdotes. About 50% of students going to MD schools only get 1 acceptance. 50% of those same students get <3 IIs. Individuals who get 8 or more invites is only 15%, that's such a small minority. Just look up the AMCAS MSQ report.

 

[ragingotter]

Data rules, no doubt. Yet when a process is this opaque, it leaves participants scrambling for any bit of information. AMCAS is unusual in its clarity and does not speak to the characteristics of individual applicants or programs. My point was not that SDN is accurate. Quite the contrary. SDN is clearly not a representative sample. Yet I have tired of the "buck up little camper" talks when it is all too clear that this process is capricious at best and unfair at worst. It takes dedicated students and grinds them up. Most insulting of all is to read about the impending shortages of healthcare providers knowing all of the fine applicants turned away because there just aren't enough seats. So yeah, maybe only 15 percent get 8+ invites, but when you're looking for any info you can find, SDN is an imperfect but available tool. And it is a fact that the 15 percent are clearly represented on these threads. And sometimes that just makes an applicant feel even worse. Not so easy to kick back and RELAX when it's your life.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I think that most people who are current applicants often don't think many of us who are experts went through the application process too. Not all of were superstars but many of us were successful in finding our way even with our own insecurities then and volunteer our time now to altruistically give advice and comfort to those who are. Information about the process was even less available than today. That is how SDN became popular as a site for community and support as well as resources that preceded so many others. Don't get angry or appear ungrateful. For the most part we are supportive and empathetic. And we root for everyone to be successful in the end.

But yes we have the benefit of hindsight and experience. Things work out. It's not the end if it doesn't.

 

[Daredevil95]

Do you have a strong research background with less of a focus on community/volunteering? That could be a big reason. Otherwise maybe yield protection

 

[LizzyM]

Do you have a strong research background with less of a focus on community/volunteering? That could be a big reason. Otherwise maybe yield protection

Those would be my first two guesses: you didn't appear to fit the mission of the other schools which might focus more on producing primary care providers for specific regions/populations or it was yield protection from schools that figured they were not your top pick and you'd have "better" choices that you'd prefer so why waste an interview slot on you.

 

[lacrossegirl420]

High stats, yield protection

 

[deleted1118591]

Do you have a strong research background with less of a focus on community/volunteering? That could be a big reason. Otherwise maybe yield protection

Honestly quite the opposite, my app is extremely health advocacy/healthcare disparities/leadership focused. I have a respectable amount of research but nothing to write home about which is why I suspect I didn't get much attention from most of the T20s (+ a lower-than-average GPA for most T20s)

 

[deleted1118591]

And I followed WARS almost exactly for my school list in case anyone starts asking about low-yield or extremely-OOS-unfriendly schools.

 

[ragingotter]

I think that most people who are current applicants often don't think many of us who are experts went through the application process too. Not all of were superstars but many of us were successful in finding our way even with our own insecurities then and volunteer our time now to altruistically give advice and comfort to those who are. Information about the process was even less available than today. That is how SDN became popular as a site for community and support as well as resources that preceded so many others. Don't get angry or appear ungrateful. For the most part we are supportive and empathetic. And we root for everyone to be successful in the end.

But yes we have the benefit of hindsight and experience. Things work out. It's not the end if it doesn't.

Respectfully, the process was quite different 5-10 years ago, especially when it comes to raw numbers of applicants and stats. With that said, It is indeed appreciated that you donate your time, but it's hard not to react to the ungrateful statement. My understanding was the intent of this forum was to share worries, thoughts and comments both to seek support and to provide support to others. In that regard, SDN can be a double-edged sword, assuaging some concerns while fueling others. My comments were actually expressed out of empathy for the original post and frustration about the process in general. I was actually not angry, just sad.

I understand your intent was not to be offensive but I thought sharing how those comments landed, emotions and all, was well within bounds. No matter when you go through the process, it's a tough road. Because you are volunteering your time does that mean you do not accept feedback? Clearly you were providing some feedback to me by warning me not to be ungrateful or angry?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

That's okay. It is hard to decipher emotion on an online forum. I want to be sure that being ungrateful or angry is not the emotional carrier of the statements. I'm certainly amenable to feedback, but many on the internet crave attention for whatever purpose or reason (seen this for many years, so not pointing specifically to you) and aren't really that receptive to feedback, even when it's given in a way you/I might not like. Many of us are throwing out possible reasons, and many of us can be completely wrong because we can't replicate the decisions of a committee. Suffice it to say, it's too early to draw up an autopsy to the OP's application progress... I've seen it and been involved with sending out late offers in the past. Sometimes I can only say "trust the process"... usually because it is still too early to give up.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

And I followed WARS almost exactly for my school list in case anyone starts asking about low-yield or extremely-OOS-unfriendly schools.

Would you be comfortable sharing your school list? I personally don't like WARS. if i used wars id have 0 interview invites

 

[lacrossegirl420]

I don’t agree with the comments about OP being “ungrateful”, with a LM 79 and WARS 94 I’d expect them to have much more than 2 II’s. It’s completely understandable for a strong applicant to expect a better result

 

[deleted1118591]

I don’t agree with the comments about OP being “ungrateful”, with a LM 79 and WARS 94 I’d expect them to have much more than 2 II’s. It’s completely understandable for a strong applicant to expect a better result

I believe that was directed to ragingotter, not me.

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

Question, what happens if someone with high stats etc only applies to lower-tier schools / DO?

I keep seeing yield protection pop up, but what if the mid-upper schools aren't even on the list?

 

[LunaOri]

Question, what happens if someone with high stats etc only applies to lower-tier schools / DO?

I keep seeing yield protection pop up, but what if the mid-upper schools aren't even on the list?

Many lower-tier schools will still be happy to give you an interview invite if you fit their mission, have ties to the region, or can express “why this school” in your secondaries.

 

[LizzyM]

Question, what happens if someone with high stats etc only applies to lower-tier schools / DO?

I keep seeing yield protection pop up, but what if the mid-upper schools aren't even on the list?

Aside from the 2001-2002 cycle which was a mess for a variety of reasons, schools can't see where else you've applied so they are going to yield protect unless you telegraph in your secondary and with updates that you are considering that school for the following reasons (and if you say you want to practice in a rural area, etc please have the work/activities, home address, etc that show that you've had experience in that regard.)

 

[MyStateofMind]

Question, what happens if someone with high stats etc only applies to lower-tier schools / DO?

I keep seeing yield protection pop up, but what if the mid-upper schools aren't even on the list?

Based on my experience, I would caution against this. I'm in the current cycle and my list comprised of schools scattered up and down the tiers. I received interview invites from most of the T20's on my list, and only 2 from others. Apply broadly is the name of the game.

 

[MCAThiccy]

That's right. Always apply broadly

 

[Deltasidearm]

with a LM 79 and WARS 94 I’d expect them to have much more than 2 II’s. It’s completely understandable for a strong applicant to expect a better result

In my opinion, one consistent mistakes premeds make is thinking stats are everything and hyper-focusing on that, when in reality it's more similar to a go/no-go gauge. Although important and a significant factor for being seriously considered, strong academic performance is unlikely to be the majority of an admissions decision and extracurricular activities are only as good as what you put into them (read: not hours). You can have the most amazing application by numbers but if you didn't learn something about yourself to write about and/or you didn't put together your story well then you will have a tough time during your application cycle. To actually be a strong applicant, the entire application has to be solid and that is not something which can be conveniently conveyed by stats displayed on SDN.

 

[oof_ouch]

One addition to this, I find it happens a lot on SDN. Just because someone states they are a high-stat applicant with minimal success in a cycle, does not mean that we can assume they have no ECs, volunteering, or aren't well-rounded. There can be well-rounded high and low stat applicants. Please try to refrain from telling someone that their disappointment/confusion in a cycle is because they only care about stats or have an outdated view of the process. I think there is a tendency for successful applicants to perceive this process as 100% merit-based (I am well-rounded and was successful, so YOU must have identifiable holes in your application), and people that are less successful to perceive it as 100% bad luck. Realistically, it is somewhere in the middle.

I know someone that quit adcoms bc many apps per cycle at their program were never even looked at. Further, I know reapplicants that didn't change anything about their app but got accepted second time around with similar school lists. If this process was 100% fair, predictable, and holistic, we would all be successful because we all care so much about this career path and have the potential to make great doctors! (edit: last sentence is rhetorical, meant to emphasize our collective accomplishments successful cycle or not. I understand that schools have limited # of seats )

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

Ok thanks guys, I thought that folks could see your school list. I've been out of the game for a while!

 

[LizzyM]

If this process was 100% fair, predictable, and holistic, we would all be successful because we all care so much about this career path and have the potential to make great doctors!

I must disagree. Schools have a limited number of seats. Even if the reviews were 100% fair, holistic and predictable, you can't admit 55,000 applicants-- or even just 44,000 applicants when there are only 22,000 seats to be filled.

 

[2024 or 5 ?]

I must disagree. Schools have a limited number of seats. Even if the reviews were 100% fair, holistic and predictable, you can't admit 55,000 applicants-- or even just 44,000 applicants when there are only 22,000 seats to be filled.

This is the best answer by far. Sometimes it is just plain luck. Every school has at least 100 excellent applicants for every spot. I accept this, and I am an extremely demoralized person in wait list hell.

 

[oof_ouch]

One addition to this, I find it happens a lot on SDN. Just because someone states they are a high-stat applicant with minimal success in a cycle, does not mean that we can assume they have no ECs, volunteering, or aren't well-rounded. There can be well-rounded high and low stat applicants. Please try to refrain from telling someone that their disappointment/confusion in a cycle is because they only care about stats or have an outdated view of the process. I think there is a tendency for successful applicants to perceive this process as 100% merit-based (I am well-rounded and was successful, so YOU must have identifiable holes in your application), and people that are less successful to perceive it as 100% bad luck. Realistically, it is somewhere in the middle.

I know someone that quit adcoms bc many apps per cycle at their program were never even looked at. Further, I know reapplicants that didn't change anything about their app but got accepted second time around with similar school lists. If this process was 100% fair, predictable, and holistic, we would all be successful because we all care so much about this career path and have the potential to make great doctors!

Since I was a freshman in college, I did my research, and I was able to understand broadly what schools genuinely want its obvious. Many high-stat applicants that don't get in have no theme or narrative. They pick ECs that fulfill their checklist. What does " well rounded" even mean? Does it mean they just checked all the boxes? Students don't understand schools want to see a unique theme and narrative in your application. That theme should also focus on the underserved and marginalized communities. Students don't think outside the box. When you do what everybody else is doing, you will get average results. When I read applications, since so many people check boxes, many applications end up looking bland and the same. I shared what I know with all my friends and family, and we are all having very successful cycles. I received 21 interviews.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this generalization. Stats have nothing to do with an applicants ability to think outside the box. Nor do high stats have anything to do with likelihood to serve marginalized communities. Congratulations on 21 interviews (seems like a rude flex on a thread meant to help OP), that is impressive for sure but does not mean that you know how an entire population of applicants thinks or approaches the cycle.

 

[oof_ouch]

I must disagree. Schools have a limited number of seats. Even if the reviews were 100% fair, holistic and predictable, you can't admit 55,000 applicants-- or even just 44,000 applicants when there are only 22,000 seats to be filled.

hahaha that's what I meant! If the process was fair (as in all deserving applicants got a spot) they would have to increase the number of available seats to fit all of the smart minds wanting to pursue this career! Obviously that is not possible but it proves that the process can not be truly fair 100% of the time under the current system

 

[deleted1118591]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this generalization. Stats have nothing to do with an applicants ability to think outside the box. Nor do high stats have anything to do with likelihood to serve marginalized communities. Congratulations on 21 interviews (seems like a rude flex on a thread meant to help OP), that is impressive for sure but does not mean that you know how an entire population of applicants thinks or approaches the cycle.

Yeah uhh I really hesitated to even make this post because people tend to assume less successful high-stat people are terrible writers with no good ECs or narrative...like literally none of that is true for me.......

No offense but I feel like really successful applicants (and nervous pre-meds who haven't applied yet) really love to "just world fallacy" the med school admissions process because they either want to be proud of themselves or convince themselves that they're guaranteed to be successful if they do everything right. You can do everything right and still lose - and I wouldn't consider getting 2 T20 interviews (one of which is my absolute dream school) to be "losing" anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Clearly you are a high stat applicant. So maybe the ones you received II are NYU and WashU? Totally a wild guess.

 

[deleted1118591]

Clearly you are a high stat applicant. So maybe the ones you received II are NYU and WashU? Totally a wild guess.

Lol I'm pretty sure I was an auto-reject at NYU with a sub-3.9 cGPA

 

[deleted1119806]

Yeah uhh I really hesitated to even make this post because people tend to assume less successful high-stat people are terrible writers with no good ECs or narrative...like literally none of that is true for me.......

No offense but I feel like really successful applicants (and nervous pre-meds who haven't applied yet) really love to "just world fallacy" the med school admissions process because they either want to be proud of themselves or convince themselves that they're guaranteed to be successful if they do everything right. You can do everything right and still lose - and I wouldn't consider getting 2 T20 interviews (one of which is my absolute dream school) to be "losing" anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I hear you, and agree with you. Some people get lucky and others dont even though both parties are equally qualified. There are definitely cases of high stat people being weird, wack writing skills, or bots irl lol, leading them to be unsuccessful but I can’t see that being the majority. Medical school admissions needs to become a more fair process, and the next generation of physicians needs to collectively sort out how we can make that happen

 

[LizzyM]

Having enough seats for all the "qualified" applicants (set a floor and let everyone above the minimum required for success matriculate) would be tremendously unfair in third and fourth year when we would not have enough patients for everyone to have the opportunity perform hands-on clinical services but would be relegated to the bleacher seats like you might see in some photos from the nineteenth and early 20th century.

Keep in mind, too, that the number of medical school seats is roughly equal (just a little less) than the number of residency slots in the US. Without a residency, you can't be licensed to practice medicine. While people will say that residency slots are limited by Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, there were residencies before Medicare was passed. Again, the rate limiting step is patients. If you need to do a specific number of procedure X and procedure Y in order to graduate from a residency program, you need access to patients who need those procedures. Too many residents chasing too few patients would not be a service to people who want to be trained and licensed to practice medicine.

It can seem unfair that not everyone who enters the funnel can come out the other end as a physician, it is the way things work in many other fields, too, including the military (not everyone who enters ROTC or a service academy is going to become a general or an admiral, there are just not enough slots no matter how good you are).

 

[lacrossegirl420]

Also the definition of “high-stats” is very dependent on school. 3.9/520 is great for most schools, but for schools like UPenn, NYU, JHU it’s going to be a weakness in your application

 

[deleted1119806]

@LizzyM those are important points to consider when talking about expanding the number of applicants that are offered spots in medical school, but even so: about 22k (MD) + 8k (DO) incoming medical students every year gives us 30k

according to NRMP, about 39k (of which 36k are filled) residency slots. granted preferences/competitiveness/etc. are all important, but from a numbers perspective, I think we can afford to let more students into medical school in the long term. please correct me if I am missing something

But I was actually insinuating originally that the quality of students accepted should be augmented, not the number. with a faulty admissions process, quality students slip through the cracks (as is the case with other fields as we are all aware), but that does not mean that admissions is close to equitable in this current state

I am a current applicant, one who is fortunate to have great options, but I am aware my success is a product of not just understanding the system (writing well, forming close relations with LOR, submitting early, good stats, etc) and having the right skillset (which is a must for ALL applicants who wish to matriculate), but also luck of the draw; in the same vein, medical schools across the board need to do better when it comes to NOT letting quality applicants slip through (ex: truly holistic file screening, more MMI interviews, less emphasis on fulfilling an arbitrary DEI portfolio, placing certain groups of stats as equivalent, reducing the nepotism when applicable, etc.)

just some thoughts I have had over the past year, all for conversations sake

 

[LizzyM]

less emphasis on fulfilling an arbitrary DEI portfolio,

Not sure what you mean by that.... I guess you want a classroom where everyone looks exactly like you and has had life experiences identical to your own.

And those residency programs with slots in excess of the number of US med school grads.... some of them are in small town and inner city, rust belt "St Elsewhere" locations. My mother was a patient last summer in a community hospital in a medium size city known for crime and violence where not a single medical resident was a graduate of a US medical school. Why don't people want to serve in a place like that? I can imagine why.... and I think that you can too. As with many things, immigrants will take jobs that Americans don't want. Increasing the number of med grads might end up with more US grads not matching because there aren't any places where they'd be willing to serve (as evidenced by no US grads being willing to match there now).

 

[deleted1119806]

Not sure what you mean by that.... I guess you want a classroom where everyone looks exactly like you and has had life experiences identical to your own.

And those residency programs with slots in excess of the number of US med school grads.... some of them are in small town and inner city, rust belt "St Elsewhere" locations. My mother was a patient last summer in a community hospital in a medium size city known for crime and violence where not a single medical resident was a graduate of a US medical school. Why don't people want to serve in a place like that? I can imagine why.... and I think that you can too. As with many things, immigrants will take jobs that Americans don't want. Increasing the number of med grads might end up with more US grads not matching because there aren't any places where they'd be willing to serve (as evidenced by no US grads being willing to match there now).

No, that is not what I meant at all.

But with every school having a mission statement that suggests increasing diversity is a top priority, without disclosing how those aims are precisely being carried out (taking people who just look different? or actually considering things like geography, SES status, work experience, etc.) at the expense of quality applicants, it perpetuates a muddled perception for what it is that schools are actually looking for in a candidate

again, from a numbers perspective, we can do better. I mentioned that personal preferences are there when it comes to residency, and I can absolutely sympathize with your situation, as must be the case with thousands of others both from a patient and provider perspective, but when we talk about optimizing admissions, certain things are already clear to us

 

[chilly_md]

Question, what happens if someone with high stats etc only applies to lower-tier schools / DO?

I keep seeing yield protection pop up, but what if the mid-upper schools aren't even on the list?

DO schools are fine granting interviews to high stat applicants. Some even prefer doing that (eg the Midwesterns). Due to the non-refundable deposit, the school gets compensated if the accepted student chooses to go elsewhere. And they know that some will slip through the cracks during the AMCAS cycle or prefer the DO school due to location (see Western in CA).

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

Lizzy makes an interesting point about there not being enough patients, but isn't one of the reasons for crazy resident hours partly due to the fact that there are so many patients and not enough doctors?

Are most residency positions actually having difficulty meeting the required minimum amount of procedures?

Aren't we having mid-level providers step into pick up the slack? (In addition to them being cheap).

I am a genuinely curious this is not meant as an argument. I was just under the impression that in total there are way more patients than doctors, so increasing residencies / hospitals would be a good thing.

 

[deleted1118591]

I really hate to shut down a worthwhile discussion, but mods, could we potentially start winding this thread down? I feel like the discussion's gone far beyond the scope of my initial question.
Thanks to everyone who offered their insights and support; I'll hopefully come back with an update post in a few weeks that my dream school accepted me and my relative lack of IIs didn't even matter (because by god, I hope that's what happens...) 😅😫

 

[chilly_md]

So it shall be.