Not too sure what people mean when they say "stellar" ec's. Would years of work experience, years of tutoring, 500 hours of hours of clinical experience w/ the underserved, 500 non-clinical hours , and multiple research publications be an example of stellar EC's?
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
What does stellar EC's mean?
Started by axel345
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
It's subjective. What may be stellar to some, may seem average to others. I suspect its subjective to those in admissions as well. Different schools seem to value different things.
> 250 hrs volunteering, especially in situations that emphasize service to the most vulnerable (hospice, nursing homes, Americorps, TFA, working with sick children, the developmentally disabled or mentally ill); military service, and Peace Corps come to mind.
Your example would be stellar ECs, especially if the tutoring is to poor children. These are what I have seen with people who get into Top Schools.
Having publications is a rarity for UG students, and obviously laudable.
Your example would be stellar ECs, especially if the tutoring is to poor children. These are what I have seen with people who get into Top Schools.
Having publications is a rarity for UG students, and obviously laudable.
Gonna quote this when someone asks about volunteering 😀
Ok so I personally have a problem with TFA though. Why should pre-meds be taking these spots from students who not only want to serve the underserved but *also* actually want to become teachers? Basically pre-meds are using it as a resumé booster while someone who is actually passionate about continuing in education loses out on a spot, mostly because pre-meds have high GPAs and are good smooth talkers. I don't know TFA just rubs me the wrong way when people are using it before medical school, even law school unless they want to actually serve these communities which most of my lawyer friends who did TFA don't (they're in BigLaw making BigMoney).
Stellar doesn't always, but sometimes does, mean hours. Some may consider the following to be a "Stellar EC"
1k+ hours of research during undergrad, and one first authorship on a paper
Others may see "5k research hours" as stellar despite no paper being produced.
While it is entirely subjective, I personally consider stellar ECs to be above and beyond the usual premed stuff. Like with the research example, every pre-med does research, but to have a paper published puts that activity on a whole new level.
But...I have a secret. The most "stellar EC" EVERY medical school looks for...
is.
a really high, balanced MCAT. Rumor has it, people with high MCATs and GPAs tend to get admitted. Its a secret so don't tell anyone, kthxbai
Having plans to return to school shouldnt preclude one from committing a significant time to service, disingenuous motives should. However, as you alluded, for some people it is practically impossible to tell when they just want a resume boost vs a sincere desire to learn and serve. If you find a way to tell liars from fakers, let us all know, and start with our adcom members.
Otherwise, I dont think we should be so cynical about all of its members.
Beating ISIS, defending the french motherland against the invading Nazis, curing polio, professional blunt wrapping.
Things like that you know?
Things like that you know?
LOL
My theory: An olympic medal, or anything else that puts you in a pool of less than 20 applicants per cycle.
Why <20? becasue each T20 is trying to collect the rare pokemon cards to impress all their other T20 friends.
Why <20? becasue each T20 is trying to collect the rare pokemon cards to impress all their other T20 friends.
TBH I think this forum has an underestimated view of "stellar." I've seen people say that 150 clinical volunteer hours is "good" when in reality it's nothing, especially if done over more than 2 academic semesters.
All that means is that youre can make it to the Carib schools, therefore unlikely to matriculate domestically. What chance do US schools have if an applicant can study in the "Harvard of the Caribbean"?
I knew the application process can cost an arm and a leg, but this takes it to a new level.
Harvard's endowment is over 34B, so I'd still rather be the Harvard of the Caribbean.
Last edited:
One of my advises/students worked in refugee camps in the middle east, he is now at HMS.
Donating a kidney!? Lol.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Know someone who ran created a food/clothing/OTC medicine bank since high school, sat on a board for local government and spoke to legislature and Congress about poverty. Meanwhile she volunteered at the VA for clinical experience. She made my years at free clinic feel so insignificant.
I disagree. 150 hours of volunteering can be good. It depends on the impact you made, and how it affected you. In any case 150 hours of meaningful clinical volunteering, substantiated with other relevant activities, does not sound bad at all. (again subjective)
Being spread out over multiple academic semesters makes it sound better doesn't it? It shows commitment rather than packing them all together to "check a box".
"Stellar" is a broad word and its meaning can differ vastly based on who is using it. I will just stick to the facts. On AMCAS, you describe 15 experience/activities, 700 characters each. You must mark 1 but no more than 3 meaningful experiences, where you have an extra 1,325 characters to describe how the experience affected your personal growth, humility, etc.
This is just my personal opinion, definitely have one clinical meaningful experience because if you want to be a doctor but do not have a meaningful clinical experience, it can make them wonder why you want to pursue medicine if you did not experience strong growth by it.
This is just my personal opinion, definitely have one clinical meaningful experience because if you want to be a doctor but do not have a meaningful clinical experience, it can make them wonder why you want to pursue medicine if you did not experience strong growth by it.
I looked it up and you were right. I must have misread it somewhere. But, I'm sure it still got the message through regardless. I there is an applicant that does not mark at least one.
I worry about this because I'm sure that some desperate premed somewhere, at some point, will do this with the hopes of getting in. What do you say about that person? I wouldn't even know where to start.
I'm more of a fan of the Egyptian burial pots myself, but to each his own.
Good lord, now that this is on SDN the pre-med kids will all be putting "organ donor #blessed" on their resume/app.
IMHO, "stellar EC" means you are committing/accomplishing what's considered top in the EC category as an undergrad.
For example, for research that would be a first/front authorship in publication, completing an competitive research internship, having your own funding for the project, etc.
For athletics, perhaps representing your school to compete in regional/state/national.
For clinical, above commitment in a clinical setting with a diverse pool of patients.
But by the time you apply, you should have at least one (if not more) EC that you could enthusiastically elaborate on your written app and interview.
For example, for research that would be a first/front authorship in publication, completing an competitive research internship, having your own funding for the project, etc.
For athletics, perhaps representing your school to compete in regional/state/national.
For clinical, above commitment in a clinical setting with a diverse pool of patients.
But by the time you apply, you should have at least one (if not more) EC that you could enthusiastically elaborate on your written app and interview.
How much of a commitment are you making if you volunteer 2 hours a week for 2 years? It looks more like you just show up whenever you feel like it and don't do much because how much can you really do in 2h? The theory is, if you continue that 4h/week for 2 or 3 years, you'll achieving like 300+h in that time. That is commitment. It's not like you do the 150h for one year and call it done.
Depends on the circumstances surrounding the rest of the app. If 2h/week is on top of a normal course load, that's weaksauce. If the applicant is working full time while juggling multiple other volunteer commitments in excess of 10+ hrs per week with leadership components, different story.
Strong volunteer commitment =/= extraordinary EC. Its great for lots of reasons, but I thought this thread was about the "wow factor" ECs
I'd say volunteering with TFA or the Peace Corps is pretty extraordinary.
Granted, not Rhodes-level but few applicants can actually claim volunteer experience of this type.
Multiple (4+) 1-4 hour a week volunteer commitments for 2+ years on top of full time class and part time work is weak, or did I read that wrong?
You read it wrong; we're discussing doing a single position for 150 total clinical volunteering hours.
Okay good. I was like damn I better start working on the cure for cancer
sounds pretty good and unique
Did she get in?
True if you list only one activity. Otherwise, from the AAMC site: "If you have two or more entries, you will be required to identify at least one as the most meaningful."
Section 5 of the AMCAS® application: Work and Activities
Last edited:
We started off talking about Rhodes level stellar. Something that makes you so unique there aren't enough to go around for the top schools, changing the tides from a buyers market to a sellers market. Somewhere along the way people changed it to solid ECs.
It makes sense. People will want to make it relevant to themselves and/or want their ECs to be considered stellar.
Edit: If we're doing evaluations here, how does 2-3 clinical first author papers, 1-2 clinical coauthor papers, and 2-3 national conference presentations stack up? What about starting a new internship between your school's main campus and its medical school. (Don't really know if it's appropriate for this thread or not)
Last edited:
agreed.
i'd say it depends on where they were published. There could be hundreds of applicants with similar numbers, but very few who are frequent flyers in Nature, Science, or NEJM. But i'm talking out my rear, I don't know anything about research.
Few applicants have any significant product from their research experiences, and very few applicants have a publication! I think some adcoms previously estimated that even at top tier schools, less than 10% of applicants had a publication. (On the other hand, you have Stanford that is very research heavy and ends up with a class in which 50% of their matriculants have been published... 🙄) So in that sense, having any sort of publication probably makes someone stick out. However, I'm sure that adcoms are also aware about how fickle research can be, and care more about what you've learned from the experience (e.g. scientific method, critical thinking, communication).
Also, I would say that very few professors who research and have their own labs with abundant funding are frequent flyers in Nature, Science, or NEJM. 😛 To be an undergrad with a publication in one of these journals would be amazing! While a great accomplishment, I think that it reflects more on the PI having that caliber of research in the lab than the undergrad who was lucky to stumble in at the right time. (Which is not to detract from the amount of work it takes to recieve authorship.)
@gonnif @LizzyM @gyngyn how common is it that you see an app from someone who is already in a medical field, like Resp Therapist, Rad Tech, PA, NP, RN/LPN, etc???? (Not EMT)
Like, if your school gets 5,000 apps, how many of them are already a licensed medical field worker?
Are these applicants a dime a dozen? If so, what makes one "stellar" or memorable?
Like, if your school gets 5,000 apps, how many of them are already a licensed medical field worker?
Are these applicants a dime a dozen? If so, what makes one "stellar" or memorable?
Why do you think their matriculation rate is so weak? Do non-trads tend to skew lower? If so, would you attribute the low matriculation rate to their non-trad status or something else?
Interesting, thanks for the data! I hadn't studied it so closely.
So do you have any anecdotes of specialized health major applicants who were "memorable"?
Is there any data on the actual matriculation rate split between those recent college grads and nontrads. How does the acceptance rates of specialized health majors compare to more science based majors? It'd be interesting to see if the matriculation with a low MCAT was only limited to nontrads who could compensate with experience or if there was some benefit to the path overall.
