What do you think is most critical to get into a top med school.

[bannie22]

so ive been waiting around, analyzing the stats of ppl that get interviews, while critically taking apart my own application, and i realized that an early app helps alot. as in early early early, early july sort.

and also the importance of having extensive research experience, and a very strong mcat.

to me i tink the research just swings it. but waht do u guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Beta Cell]

so ive been waiting around, analyzing the stats of ppl that get interviews, while critically taking apart my own application, and i realized that an early app helps alot. as in early early early, early july sort.

and also the importance of having extensive research experience, and a very strong mcat.

to me i tink the research just swings it. but waht do u guys think?

No one thing can set you apart much. It's a complicated process, but everyone agrees that the earlier the app, the better.

 

[bannie22]

No one thing can set you apart much. It's a complicated process, but everyone agrees that the earlier the app, the better.

darn i forgot to include that in the poll!

*scatterbrain*

 

[ChiDO]

Other: unless you helped build a village from the nearby forest in Africa you are not getting into a top medical school.

Furthermore, by "top med school" did you mean the one furthest from sea level?

 

[bannie22]

Other: unless you helped build a village from the nearby forest in Africa you are not getting into a top medical school.

Furthermore, by "top med school" did you mean the one furthest from sea level?

*serious look*
no i meant the top 20 of any ranking system. such as the bannie22 system whereby the top school is bannie22 school of medicine.

only admits one student per year. very very competitive.

 

[BlueElmo]

I think they are all important. Obviously, numbers play the biggest role.

 

[jvesco22]

research experience (years)
publications (numbers and standard of journal)
leadership experience
volunteering experience
shadowing experience
other experiences (sports, hobbies ... diversity)
secondary essays

won't mean that much until you have your...

mcat
cgpa
sgpa

in check!

 

[bannie22]

research experience (years)
publications (numbers and standard of journal)
leadership experience
volunteering experience
shadowing experience
other experiences (sports, hobbies ... diversity)
secondary essays

won't mean that much until you have your...

mcat
cgpa
sgpa

in check!

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

 

[Zorrix]

I think numbers play a huge role in getting past the initial cut...BUT if u have something that sets u apart from John Doe that would explain why people with 'lower' stats get in

 

[aggie08]

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

I am so glad not my classmates are like you. Get ready for a wake-up call when you get to med school.

 

[BlueElmo]

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

It's not stellar, but they are good numbers. It's not all about stats.

 

[rockaction]

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

You spend too much time on SDN. Do realize there are lots of nice, smart people with sub 39 scores who deserve a chance to go to a top med school...

 

[metallica81788]

Why did so many people vote for pubs?

That's ridiculous. TONS of people don't have pubs and get into really really good schools every year. If you have 3 pubs but a 26 and a 3.4 - you're probably not getting in anywhere.

 

[loveoforganic]

Assuming competitive stats (3.7+ both GPA's and 35+ MCAT), I'd guess one of the biggest tipping factors is serious research (spanning multiple years and first author level work), preferentially pub'ed in a reputable journal.

 

[bannie22]

I am so glad not my classmates are like you. Get ready for a wake-up call when you get to med school.

i apologize if i might have tickled the wrong buttons in my post.

You spend too much time on SDN. Do realize there are lots of nice, smart people with sub 39 scores who deserve a chance to go to a top med school...

i do agree with that,
in no way am i trying to say that people with a lower mcat score than me do not deserve acceptances!!!
i just feel that my own lack of a publication/sufficient research experience is costing me dearly. and i would just like to see if people concur, or disagree, like you have done

and perhaps i do spend too much time on sdn.

and im still only a quarter the amount of posts you have put up

 

[bannie22]

It's not stellar, but they are good numbers. It's not all about stats.

yea i agree with you. perhaps my use of the word 'decent' was misleading.


and thus the poll to see if its really all about stats, or maybe less about stats than i initially thought it was. but we do at least seem come to an agreement that the mcat is valued more than the gpa

 

[ChubbyChaser]

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

You are just neurotic. Its funny how none of that **** matters once you actually get there. 4.0/42?? Yup ive seen them get outscored by the 29/3.4 sometimes.

 

[aggie08]

i apologize if i might have tickled the wrong buttons in my post.

Numbers aren't everything and they sure don't make good doctors. People who have attitudes like you have represented are grossly misinformed about what it takes to be a good doctor. Low 30 and 3.6 is a perfectly fine place to be and, quite honestly, is better than a lot of people who still get in to med school.

 

[bannie22]

Numbers aren't everything and they sure don't make good doctors. People who have attitudes like you have represented are grossly misinformed about what it takes to be a good doctor. Low 30 and 3.6 is a perfectly fine place to be and, quite honestly, is better than a lot of people who still get in to med school.

i believe the point of this poll was for me and other users to learn more about the application process. i never said that someone with a lower gpa/mcat/publication/any sort of experience would make a poor doctor. and i would appreciate if you could retract your statement on "grossly misinformed about waht it takes to be a good doctor".


just to clarify things.


i do not believe that mcat/gpa tells the entire story, and that is why i created this poll, to further understand what other sdners think are important.

so i would greatly appreciate if people would stop being overly critical of a simple, lighthearted poll.

thank you

 

[ChubbyChaser]

i believe the point of this poll was for me and other users to learn more about the application process. i never said that someone with a lower gpa/mcat/publication/any sort of experience would make a poor doctor. and i would appreciate if you could retract your statement on "grossly misinformed about waht it takes to be a good doctor".


just to clarify things.


i do not believe that mcat/gpa tells the entire story, and that is why i created this poll, to further understand what other sdners think are important.

so i would greatly appreciate if people would stop being overly critical of a simple, lighthearted poll.

thank you

k...its an imperfect system and will vary greatly case by case.

A min threshold for numbers gets you a look, and then everything else is important minus those stupid clubs you may have joined or the one day volunteer experience you did.

 

[bannie22]

You are just neurotic. Its funny how none of that **** matters once you actually get there. 4.0/42?? Yup ive seen them get outscored by the 29/3.4 sometimes.

if u had read my previous post, i had stated that there might be a misunderstanding in my use of the word 'decent'

i used it as an equivalent to "good"

perhaps that brings our opinions closer.


i know none of that matters once we get in. but as this is a premed forum, the question i am asking is not what happens when we get in, but HOW we get in.

 

[ronmillsey]

so ive been waiting around, analyzing the stats of ppl that get interviews, while critically taking apart my own application, and i realized that an early app helps alot. as in early early early, early july sort.

and also the importance of having extensive research experience, and a very strong mcat.

to me i tink the research just swings it. but waht do u guys think?

hi, the most critical step is being able to have connections, and be able to be a two-faced person

 

[BlueElmo]

bannie didn't really mean what he said. I think it came out wrong, but it's all good, bannie.

 

[randombetch]

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

I agree with you. People who are talking s*** need to realize that low 30s and 3.6's are NOT decent at the top level med schools.

 

[aggie08]

i believe the point of this poll was for me and other users to learn more about the application process. i never said that someone with a lower gpa/mcat/publication/any sort of experience would make a poor doctor. and i would appreciate if you could retract your statement on "grossly misinformed about waht it takes to be a good doctor".


just to clarify things.


i do not believe that mcat/gpa tells the entire story, and that is why i created this poll, to further understand what other sdners think are important.

so i would greatly appreciate if people would stop being overly critical of a simple, lighthearted poll.

thank you

I'm not talking about your poll.


Nevermind. You're right - people with a 34, who have a 3.6 and a bunch of publications don't have decent scores and don't deserve interviews at schools you're referring to as top tier.

If what you're saying is true, that it's not all about numbers, then you wouldn't have said these people didn't deserve interviews. YOU are the one who minimized it to numbers, I simply pointed out your arrogance. It's NOT all about numbers and that's my point - there are LOTS of people with 34s and 3.6s that deserve interviews at top tier schools if that's what they care about.

 

[randombetch]

I am so glad not my classmates are like you. Get ready for a wake-up call when you get to med school.

What's the wake-up call going to be? Oh my stats were actually a lot better than a lot of the students at this med school, I guess low 30s and 3.6s are decent after all? I'm sure he'll be real devastated.

 

[randombetch]

I'm not talking about your poll.

I'm referring to your ridiculous statement saying a low 30 and 3.6 isn't a decent score. And even if by decent you meant good, it's still a ridiculous thing to say. Get off your high horse.

Maybe to her, they're not good. Maybe he has higher standards than you because she's smarter than you. You know, there are people smarter than you...

In my opinion, it's way more ridiculous to think that low 30s and 3.6s are good scores in the eyes of top med schools. That sentiment can be easily disproven with a copy of the MSAR.

 

[bannie22]

hi, the most critical step is being able to have connections, and be able to be a two-faced person

i guess its time to add $ to the equation

bannie didn't really mean what he said. I think it came out wrong, but it's all good, bannie.

thanks blueelmo. this experience made me realize that i better watch what comes out of my mouth during the interview. dont wish to be misinterpreted and have it go downhill. must develop composure to resurrect the dying situation!


meh. controversy

 

[aggie08]

Maybe to her, they're not good. Maybe she has higher standards than you because she's smarter than you. You know, there are people smarter than you...

This has nothing to do with my scores. Obviously there are people smarter than me. And if you ever get into med school you'll find out the same thing. I couldn't have cared less where I went to med school so this has nothing to do with me, I'm talking about her going on and on about how numbers aren't everything and then reducing it to that by saying that someone didn't deserve an interview if they had a 3.6 and 34. That is blatantly not in line with her preaching that numbers aren't everything.

And to the other poster, her wakeup call will be that doing good in undergrad and on the MCAT has very little to do with doing well in med school. The person who is honoring everything and at the top of the class right now came into school with a GPA well below our school's average.

 

[randombetch]

I'm not talking about your poll.


Nevermind. You're right - people with a 34, who have a 3.6 and a bunch of publications don't have decent scores and don't deserve interviews at schools you're referring to as top tier.

If what you're saying is true, that it's not all about numbers, then you wouldn't have said these people didn't deserve interviews. YOU are the one who minimized it to numbers, I simply pointed out your arrogance. It's NOT all about numbers and that's my point - there are LOTS of people with 34s and 3.6s that deserve interviews at top tier schools if that's what they care about.

Where the f*** did he say they don't deserve interviews? I'm sure the OP believes people with a 34/3.6 with many amazing accomplishments certainly deserve interviews at upper end schools, just that their GPA/MCAT aren't the reason why.

 

[randombetch]

This has nothing to do with my scores. Obviously there are people smarter than me. And if you ever get into med school you'll find out the same thing. I couldn't have cared less where I went to med school so this has nothing to do with me, I'm talking about her going on and on about how numbers aren't everything and then reducing it to that by saying that someone didn't deserve an interview if they had a 3.6 and 34. That is blatantly not in line with her preaching that numbers aren't everything.

And to the other poster, her wakeup call will be that doing good in undergrad and on the MCAT has very little to do with doing well in med school. The person who is honoring everything and at the top of the class right now came into school with a GPA well below our school's average.

Again, where the hell did he say someone doesn't deserve an interview if they have a 3.6 and 34? That's just complete bulls*** of an argument.

 

[aggie08]

Where the f*** did he say they don't deserve interviews? I'm sure the OP believes people with a 34/3.6 with many amazing accomplishments certainly deserve interviews at upper end schools, just that their GPA/MCAT aren't the reason why.

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

This statement implies the question "Why did this person get an interview if they don't have great stats?"


This is ridiculous. Bannie, I understand that is not what you meant by the statement. Obviously you realize that how you word things can affect how they are interpreted, especially in "internet land." Good luck to you.

 

[randombetch]

This statement implies the question "Why did this person get an interview if they don't have great stats?"


This is ridiculous. Bannie, I understand that is not what you meant by the statement. Obviously you realize that how you word things can affect how they are interpreted, especially in "internet land." Good luck to you.

What are you talking about, "this statement implies the question 'why did this person get an interview if they don't have great stats?'"

Obviously the person would have other characteristics that makes him/her deserve the interview. MCAT/GPA, like you said, are not the only factor. Bannie never once implied in any statement that they were, so what the hell is with your non sequiturs?

READ the quote: i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats

Does that statement make any reference as to whether people with low stats deserve interviews? IF bannie had stated that stats are the only factor that goes into interviews, then you can say bannie is saying people with low stats don't deserve interviews. BUT Bannie did not state that (in fact, he stated just the opposite of that a few posts up), so you're drawing logically fallacious conclusions from that statement.

 

[bannie22]

This has nothing to do with my scores. Obviously there are people smarter than me. And if you ever get into med school you'll find out the same thing. I couldn't have cared less where I went to med school so this has nothing to do with me, I'm talking about her going on and on about how numbers aren't everything and then reducing it to that by saying that someone didn't deserve an interview if they had a 3.6 and 34. That is blatantly not in line with her preaching that numbers aren't everything.

And to the other poster, her wakeup call will be that doing good in undergrad and on the MCAT has very little to do with doing well in med school. The person who is honoring everything and at the top of the class right now came into school with a GPA well below our school's average.

aggie. i think you did not see the point. if u re read my post, it says clearly that i was surprised that some applicants get interviews at top tier schools despite their low gpa/mcat. this was right after i quoted a post that stated that u require gpa/mcat before you were considered in other aspects of your application.

i was pointing out that, even with low gpa/mcat you can still get an interview if you excelled in other areas, specifically your research involvement.


and i would like to once more emphasize that i am not talking about how a student with terribly low mcat/gpa can do terrific and top your class and wahtnot. i am trying to discuss what is important in the admission process.

unlike you, i am not as fortunate to already be in medical school.
perhaps you might have perofrmed better than your honour student classmate in undergrad, and thus, i feel that you should perhaps try to explore ways to improve your score to the same level as your friend has achieved in medical school. (should strive to be as competent as expected of your potential)

and please. i do not want a flame war.

 

[aggie08]

aggie. i think you did not see the point. if u re read my post, it says clearly that i was surprised that some applicants get interviews at top tier schools despite their low gpa/mcat. this was right after i quoted a post that stated that u require gpa/mcat before you were considered in other aspects of your application.

i was pointing out that, even with low gpa/mcat you can still get an interview if you excelled in other areas, specifically your research involvement.


and i would like to once more emphasize that i am not talking about how a student with terribly low mcat/gpa can do terrific and top your class and wahtnot. i am trying to discuss what is important in the admission process.

unlike you, i am not as fortunate to already be in medical school.
perhaps you might have perofrmed better than your honour student classmate in undergrad, and thus, i feel that you should perhaps try to explore ways to improve your score to the same level as your friend has achieved in medical school. (should strive to be as competent as expected of your potential)

and please. i do not want a flame war.

I'm sorry your statement was misinterpreted. Thank you for clearing it up without the use of profanities and ridiculous statements.

My point about people honoring is that once you get to med school you're with the cream of the crop and there still has to be a bell curve. Her GPA was lower - possibly her major was more difficult or something to that effect. However, my med school grades are perfectly fine. Thanks for the advice.

 

[imer]

...

 

[randombetch]

My guess is that the number of people with those stats and 1st author in rep journal can fit in a couple of porta-potty's - just my (limited) experience. While research experience is very common, the distinguishing characteristic of many at top schools is that they truly excel at something (unrelated to academics because they mostly have killed all the metrics). So this means things like the arts, service, sports...

Hahha I think my university has several people with those stats and a first author pub go to med school every year. Hopefully I'll be one of them! Submitting a paper as a first author by the end of this month we think.

 

[imer]

..

 

[ensuii]

so ive been waiting around, analyzing the stats of ppl that get interviews, while critically taking apart my own application, and i realized that an early app helps alot. as in early early early, early july sort.

and also the importance of having extensive research experience, and a very strong mcat.

to me i tink the research just swings it. but waht do u guys think?

If you're seriously considering this question, you need an rx of chill pills.

 

[BozoSparky]

letters of recommendation are pretty important...and can separate those with similar gpa/mcat/experience

 

[COdoubleMO2theN]

its funny but ive noticed premed with like low 30s, or maybe 3.6s get interviews at top top schools. and i dont really think low30s or 3.6s are really decent stats. unless i am just neurotic....

I am sorry but I have the same sentiment as a lot of these people. What goes into admissions is a lot more than numbers and having a sense of entitlement and superiority is ridiculous. Medicine is more than than numbers, it is ultimately about the patients and that is what we want to achieve in medical school. Stop acting like you are god's gift to the world, be proud of your accomplishments (they are great), but hopefully we are here to instill a focus on the patient and proper medicine.

 

[NotAsking4Much]

.

 

[bannie22]

I am sorry but I have the same sentiment as a lot of these people. What goes into admissions is a lot more than numbers and having a sense of entitlement and superiority is ridiculous. Medicine is more than than numbers, it is ultimately about the patients and that is what we want to achieve in medical school. Stop acting like you are god's gift to the world, be proud of your accomplishments (they are great), but hopefully we are here to instill a focus on the patient and proper medicine.

a lot of which people?

get a coffee and reread thread!


on another note, congrats randombetch on the first author. im sure ull get accepted at many schools!



and to the above posters. i also agree that LORs and excelling in something else also makes a big difference eh..

that would be even more difficult to improve on than most of the other factors.
takes years to do well in say a sport or something

 

[flip26]

so ive been waiting around, analyzing the stats of ppl that get interviews, while critically taking apart my own application, and i realized that an early app helps alot. as in early early early, early july sort.

and also the importance of having extensive research experience, and a very strong mcat.

to me i tink the research just swings it. but waht do u guys think?

Assuming one applies early, has the stats, the experiences, etc., that make a strong applicant, I think your poll misses one of the key factors: graduate of a prestigious, highly regarded undergrad institution.

I am not suggesting that applicants from lesser known colleges can't break through, but I am convinced that your undergrad institution can carry a lot of weight with the Top 20 med schools. There are exceptions: WashU seems more open minded and interviews applicants from a broad spectrum of schools, but the Ivy affiliated med schools are much more inclined to interview and accept graduates of Ivy and 'near Ivy' schools (MIT, Stanford, etc).

 

[GoSpursGo]

Assuming one applies early, has the stats, the experiences, etc., that make a strong applicant, I think your poll misses one of the key factors: graduate of a prestigious, highly regarded undergrad institution.

I am not suggesting that applicants from lesser known colleges can't break through, but I am convinced that your undergrad institution can carry a lot of weight with the Top 20 med schools. There are exceptions: WashU seems more open minded and interviews applicants from a broad spectrum of schools, but the Ivy affiliated med schools are much more inclined to interview and accept graduates of Ivy and 'near Ivy' schools (MIT, Stanford, etc).

The prevailing wisdom (coming straight from the mouth of the likes of LizzyM) is that undergrad institution has little more influence on admissions than perhaps the role of being a tiebreaker between two applicants who are otherwise similarly qualified. Now perhaps going to an Ivy will put you in a position to get involved in truly meaningful research, plug into the top levels of certain national organizations, or get you a rec letter from someone extremely recognizable, and maybe someone who went to an Ivy might be more likely to excel at the MCAT, but in-and-of-itself, I don't think the Ivy name carries a whole lot of weight.

And seriously, anyone still arguing with the OP over whether or not numbers are important in making a good doctor clearly isn't reading his statements, as he's not sayingthat; what he's saying is they are important in med school admissions, which is clearly true, especially at top-tier schools if, for whatever reason, you have decided that you want to go to one of those. Also please note that nowhere has he made the claim that going to one of those schools is necessarily going to magically make you a better doctor either.

I think that once you're applying for one of the top schools, all they're looking for is a certain base level of competency being expressed by your numbers in order for them to at least consider you; a 30/3.6 sounds about right to me. From there, you're going to need SOMETHING that really sets you apart from the other applicants beyond the usual laundry list of pre-med activities. Maybe for one applicant, they're just a total academic superstar (3.98/39); maybe for another, they did 4 years of research and got several pubs; for another, perhaps they spent all of their summers abroad doing clinical work; another maybe started a health program for underserved patients in their area; and maybe another was an Olympic swimmer, or had some other crazy, unique life-experience. Clearly, the lower your stats are, the more incredible that "something" must be in order to get an interview and ultimately get accepted, but as long as you've got some basement level of stats, they're not going to reject you out of hand; after all, even the top med schools (other than WashU) only have MCAT averages in the 34-35 range, so by definition half of their acceptances must go to people with a lower score.

Therefore, I think it's a gross oversimplification to try and point to any one thing as being "most important" at a "top school." Clearly, at any of those schools a certain level of generally good stats is to be expected, but then, EVERYONE at those top schools is exceptionally qualified. Given that all of their applicants are well qualified, there has to be something in your application that's going to pique the adcom's interest and make them want to meet you; from there, that "something" can be just about anything. Research might be the most common way that applicants try to distinguish themselves, but it's far from the only way.

At least, that's what I think. That is just my $0.02, as it's really just my best guess of maybe how this crazy process works

 

[flip26]

The prevailing wisdom (coming straight from the mouth of the likes of LizzyM) is that undergrad institution has little more influence on admissions than perhaps the role of being a tiebreaker between two applicants who are otherwise similarly qualified. Now perhaps going to an Ivy will put you in a position to get involved in truly meaningful research, plug into the top levels of certain national organizations, or get you a rec letter from someone extremely recognizable, and maybe someone who went to an Ivy might be more likely to excel at the MCAT, but in-and-of-itself, I don't think the Ivy name carries a whole lot of weight.

And seriously, anyone still arguing with the OP over whether or not numbers are important in making a good doctor clearly isn't reading his statements, as he's not sayingthat; what he's saying is they are important in med school admissions, which is clearly true, especially at top-tier schools if, for whatever reason, you have decided that you want to go to one of those. Also please note that nowhere has he made the claim that going to one of those schools is necessarily going to magically make you a better doctor either.

I think that once you're applying for one of the top schools, all they're looking for is a certain base level of competency being expressed by your numbers in order for them to at least consider you; a 30/3.6 sounds about right to me. From there, you're going to need SOMETHING that really sets you apart from the other applicants beyond the usual laundry list of pre-med activities. Maybe for one applicant, they're just a total academic superstar (3.98/39); maybe for another, they did 4 years of research and got several pubs; for another, perhaps they spent all of their summers abroad doing clinical work; another maybe started a health program for underserved patients in their area; and maybe another was an Olympic swimmer, or had some other crazy, unique life-experience. Clearly, the lower your stats are, the more incredible that "something" must be in order to get an interview and ultimately get accepted, but as long as you've got some basement level of stats, they're not going to reject you out of hand; after all, even the top med schools (other than WashU) only have MCAT averages in the 34-35 range, so by definition half of their acceptances must go to people with a lower score.

Therefore, I think it's a gross oversimplification to try and point to any one thing as being "most important" at a "top school." Clearly, at any of those schools a certain level of generally good stats is to be expected, but then, EVERYONE at those top schools is exceptionally qualified. Given that all of their applicants are well qualified, there has to be something in your application that's going to pique the adcom's interest and make them want to meet you; from there, that "something" can be just about anything. Research might be the most common way that applicants try to distinguish themselves, but it's far from the only way.

At least, that's what I think. That is just my $0.02, as it's really just my best guess of maybe how this crazy process works

Well, the underlined is consistent with what I am saying - that your undergrad institution can make a difference, perhaps as a tiebreaker asu you suggest, all else being equal, if we are talking about admissions chances at the "top" schools.

Where I disagree with you is that the Ivy undergrad name doesn't carry any weight - I absolutely think that, all else being equal, being the graduate of an Ivy or Ivy peer institution does carry weight in this process, particularly at Ivy affiliated med schools.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Well, the underlined is consistent with what I am saying - that your undergrad institution can make a difference, perhaps as a tiebreaker asu you suggest, all else being equal, if we are talking about admissions chances at the "top" schools.

Where I disagree with you is that the Ivy undergrad name doesn't carry any weight - I absolutely think that, all else being equal, being the graduate of an Ivy or Ivy peer institution does carry weight in this process, particularly at Ivy affiliated med schools.

I didn't say it doesn't carry any weight, just that I don't think it carries a whole lot of weight. But I think it's pretty far down the list, well below MCAT/GPA, research experience, volunteer experience, etc; if the sum of all those things are truly equal or at least extremely close, then sure, where you graduated might come into play.

 

[flip26]

I didn't say it doesn't carry any weight, just that I don't think it carries a whole lot of weight. But I think it's pretty far down the list, well below MCAT/GPA, research experience, volunteer experience, etc; if the sum of all those things are truly equal or at least extremely close, then sure, where you graduated might come into play.

And that is all I am saying - I am not implying it is the most important thing, rather that all else equal, the prestige and pedigree of your undergrad institution can come into play at the top med schools, and I am personally convinced it does come into play at the Ivy affiliated med schools.

Otherwise, these "what is the most important thing" polls are dumb. Everything matters...and even things that you can't particularly control at this stage, such as where you went to college, can even come into play, and that is pretty frustrating for a lot of applicants.

 

[Uisa]

In your poll you really shouldn't have things like high GPA or high MCAT... because without those things you're not even going to get your foot in the door, let alone the front door.

Those things should already be assumed. However, I feel that everyone who has a fair shot of making into one of these top med schools offer something more than just a high mcat/gpa. Obviously when you filter applications down to these high calibre scores than the next obvious question would to be to ask well then what else can they offer (mainly I feel they ask of how "unique" you are compared to others). I believe that it is here that makes the difference of whether you're a successful candidate or not.

 

[randombetch]

Is MCAT really more important than GPA? I selected GPA because a low MCAT score can be made up for by a steller GPA, but not vice versa. I'd rather have a 30/4.0 than a 40/3.0, wouldn't you?