What goes into the rankings?

[LizzyM]

This podcast about undergraduate ranking was very eye-opening. I greatly regret that med school assessments use these rankings as a measure of the level of difficulty of a school's curriculum when it is about something far different.

Lord of the Rankings | Revisionist History

For 30 years, US News & World Report has been using a secret formula to rank the best colleges and universities in the United States. As a public service to our listeners, we hack the algorithm and discover the dirty little secret of the rankings game.

www.pushkin.fm

The podcast episode that follows this one, about Dillard, is also illuminating.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Good podcast…What is your opinion on how much undergrad rankings factor into med school admissions? Also do Adcoms go directly by USNEWS rankings or individual perceptions of prestige? How much of an advantage does HYPSM confer over Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, UPenn, etc? How much does that tier have an advantage over UCLA, UVA, BU, etc.

 

[LizzyM]

Good podcast…What is your opinion on how much undergrad rankings factor into med school admissions? Also do Adcoms go directly by USNEWS rankings or individual perceptions of prestige? How much of an advantage does HYPSM confer over Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, UPenn, etc? How much does that tier have an advantage over UCLA, UVA, BU, etc.

It does factor in a little bit.... More that the unranked schools (Geographic-subsection-of-the-State College) will hurt you a bit. Less of an issue in you are in the top 50 research universities or LACs. But this is a huge proxy for wealth and that's where I think we do a grave disservice to applicants.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

It does factor in a little bit.... More that the unranked schools (Geographic-subsection-of-the-State College) will hurt you a bit. Less of an issue in you are in the top 50 research universities or LACs. But this is a huge proxy for wealth and that's where I think we do a grave disservice to applicants.

I think that this is somewhat true but the highest ranked schools often give the most aid. Sample size of 1, but my undergrad was significantly cheaper than any of my state schools. Ivys are almost all need blind now. Of course there is still incredible wealth on these campuses due to legacy advantage but I would say maybe 10-15% of students get a full ride because of a disadvantaged socioeconomic background.

 

[LizzyM]

I think that this is somewhat true but the highest ranked schools often give the most aid. Sample size of 1, but my undergrad was significantly cheaper than any of my state schools. Ivys are almost all need blind now. Of course there is still incredible wealth on these campuses due to legacy advantage but I would say maybe 10-15% of students get a full ride because of a disadvantaged socioeconomic background.

What proportion qualify for Pell grants compared with the proportion at a school like Dillard. Listen to the Revisionist History podcast about Dillard and you'll see what the difference is between a school that has wealth (both in terms of endowment and the average family income of the students) and how that compares to a school where a large proportion of the students come from low income and /or first gen families and where the school's endowed wealth is a fraction of that of the wealthiest schools.

 

[Lucca]

What proportion qualify for Pell grants compared with the proportion at a school like Dillard. Listen to the Revisionist History podcast about Dillard and you'll see what the difference is between a school that has wealth (both in terms of endowment and the average family income of the students) and how that compares to a school where a large proportion of the students come from low income and /or first gen families and where the school's endowed wealth is a fraction of that of the wealthiest schools.

NYT has some helpful (interactive)data from 2017

Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours. (Published 2017)

A new study, based on millions of anonymous tax records, shows that colleges are even more economically segregated than previously understood.

www.nytimes.com

 

[MD-PhD-NonTrad]

It does factor in a little bit.... More that the unranked schools (Geographic-subsection-of-the-State College) will hurt you a bit. Less of an issue in you are in the top 50 research universities or LACs. But this is a huge proxy for wealth and that's where I think we do a grave disservice to applicants.

Why does “geographic subsection of the state college” put one at a disadvantage…? You would think that runs immediately contrary to missions of equity and diversity. At least for my Uni, I know we are 50+% first gen and 40% or so (possibly more…?) pell grant recipient. Why would a specifically disadvantaged student population be viewed as less than?

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I think that pell grants were around 15% but it varies from year to year.

 

[LizzyM]

Why does “geographic subsection of the state college” put one at a disadvantage…? You would think that runs immediately contrary to missions of equity and diversity. At least for my Uni, I know we are 50+% first gen and 40% or so (possibly more…?) pell grant recipient. Why would a specifically disadvantaged student population be viewed as less than?

Those schools tend to be very easy to get into and the students tend to be less academically inclined (competitve) and perhaps less academically talented than students who perform well enough in HS to get into the most competitive schools. Therefore, a 4.0 or 3.96 from such a school is not considered as "good" as a similar GPA from a "top" school.

Of course, there is the economic disparity at the population level between the students at the "top" schools and those at the unranked schools and you are correct to point out how this runs contrary to the goal of equity and diversity.

 

[Alexxxxx]

It does factor in a little bit.... More that the unranked schools (Geographic-subsection-of-the-State College) will hurt you a bit. Less of an issue in you are in the top 50 research universities or LACs. But this is a huge proxy for wealth and that's where I think we do a grave disservice to applicants.

Indeed, a proxy for wealth:




I can't post the imgur link with the median household income by undergrad school unfortunately because SDN is messing it up. The point is though that any undergrad ranking advantage for med schools is just classism.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

How is it possible that this is classism if all top schools are need blind and provide more generous financial aid than almost all state schools?

 

[deleted1008763]

How is it possible that this is classism if all top schools are need blind and provide more generous financial aid than almost all state schools?

I think that schools can be need blind and provide generous aid, but at the same time still be systemically classist. If those whose families make more money have better opportunities, the system provides them a better chance to get into these schools well before the schools have the opportunity to judge their fit for attending a top institution. It might not be in the nature of the school to directly be classist (which is another arguable point at times), but rather the system sets these students up better than the rest.

 

[deleted1017120]

How is it possible that this is classism if all top schools are need blind and provide more generous financial aid than almost all state schools?

Being "need blind" doesn't really change the fact that top-tier universities perpetuate a classist system.

It also doesn't matter if their financial aid is more generous when they admit relatively few students that actually need that financial aid anyway.

Top-tier university overtures towards increasing economic diversity are more performative than they are substantive.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Indeed, a proxy for wealth:




I can't post the imgur link with the median household income by undergrad school unfortunately because SDN is messing it up. The point is though that any undergrad ranking advantage for med schools is just classism.

The extracurricular experiences required to be admitted to top undergrad schools (international volunteering trips, summer research, well-funded clubs, etc.) are much more accessible to those from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds.

This is one of the main reasons why I don’t think they should eliminate the SAT or ACT. It is much easier and cheaper to go to the library or download Scribd and study for standardized tests than do expensive ECs

 

[LizzyM]

How is it possible that this is classism if all top schools are need blind and provide more generous financial aid than almost all state schools?

Let's just take Yale as an example.
Pell grants 19%
Under-represented minorities 19%
First generation: 18% (up from 13% while children of alumni declined from 14% to 11%).

So, it is not inconceivable for a school to be need blind and yet to favor applicants who grown up with all the advantages that money can buy including test prep, tutoring, private schools, and all the rest.

 

[deleted1017120]

This is one of the main reasons why I don’t think they should eliminate the SAT or ACT. It is much easier and cheaper to go to the library or download Scribd and study for standardized tests than do expensive ECs

Being wealthy also makes standardized tests much easier.

Wealthier kids frequently have less responsibilities that take them away from studying. Their families can also frequently afford formalized test prep for the student. This exact problem also applies to the MCAT.

 

[MD-PhD-NonTrad]

Therefore, a 4.0 or 3.96 from such a school is not considered as "good" as a similar GPA from a school that attracts the students from the "top" schools.

This is……not a sentiment one tends to think would be favorable. Easier to get in to because they have an obligation to the state to allow more admissions due to being cheaper for students with economic hardships…but when you have people from these schools graduating at 40-50% and top schools at 95+%, I would imagine the academic rigor is at best comparable and at worst more difficult due to less resources and under-prepared faculty.

That is some hogwash…

 

[LizzyM]

This is……not a sentiment one tends to think would be favorable. Easier to get in to because they have an obligation to the state to allow more admissions due to being cheaper for students with economic hardships…but when you have people from these schools graduating at 40-50% and top schools at 95+%, I would imagine the academic rigor is at best comparable and at worst more difficult due to less resources and under-prepared faculty.

That is some hogwash…

If grades are on a curve and the average HS GPA of the class was 2.3 and the median SAT was 1100 what does it take to be in the top 10% of the class and earn an A? Does it mean the same as if you are in the top 10% of a class where the HS GPA was 3.7 and the median SAT was 1490?

If grades are not on a curve and it is proportion of correct answers on an exam, where will it be more likely for you to rise to the top of the class and be in the top 5% of students your instructor has seen? (something that gets mentioned in LORs).

I'm not sure what you mean by"people from these schools graduating at 40-50%...." I guess you mean the proportion who graduate.... again, as you'll hear in the Dillard podcast, very often a measure of economic hardship. If you graduated from a school with a low graduation rate, it may be just luck that nothing happened back home that required you to drop out to support the family or just to preserve family resources.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Being wealthy also makes standardized tests much easier.

Wealthier kids frequently have less responsibilities that take them away from studying. Their families can also frequently afford formalized test prep for the student. This exact problem also applies to the MCAT.

Not everyone who has financial resources goes for formalized test prep or engages in expensive ECs. Most kids I know went to public schools and engaged in ECs that doesn't need spending lot of money. Yes, being from upper middle class or above gives some advantage but eliminating standardized tests or quotas for various categories is not the solution to level the field. Already lot of ORMs feel that they are at disadvantage when comes to admissions.

 

[deleted1017120]

Not everyone who has financial resources goes for formalized test prep or engages in expensive ECs. Most kids I know went to public schools and engaged in ECs that doesn't need spending lot of money. Yes, being from upper middle class or above gives some advantage but eliminating standardized tests or quotas for various categories is not the solution to level the field. Already lot of ORMs feel that they are at disadvantage when comes to admissions.

I never said they had to eliminate them, but standardized tests don't really do much to level the playing field for the economically disadvantaged; they simply exacerbate it.

Also, the luxury of choosing not to use formalized test prep or expensive EC's is just that; a luxury. It doesn't eliminate the other advantages that growing up with money gives you.

Finally, an ORM can feel like they are at a disadvantage, but just because they feel it doesn't mean that it's true.

 

[MD-PhD-NonTrad]

ORMs feel that they are at disadvantage

Disadvantaged ORM is an oxymoron. If you are from a group which is over represented, that group on average is not disadvantaged (generalized, not for individual circumstances)

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I never said they had to eliminate them, but standardized tests don't really do much to level the playing field for the economically disadvantaged; they simply exacerbate it.

Also, the luxury of choosing not to use formalized test prep or expensive EC's is just that; a luxury. It doesn't eliminate the other advantages that growing up with money gives you.

Finally, an ORM can feel like they are at a disadvantage, but just because they feel it doesn't mean that it's true.

how do you want to level the field?

Try telling it to ORMs with stats and ECs but can't even get interviews from lot of schools. Lot of these are immigrants who worked hard to get to a certain economic level and now suddenly tagged as ORMs.

 

[deleted1017120]

how do you want to level the field?

Try telling it to ORMs with stats and ECs but can't even get interviews from lot of schools.

I will tell them and I do.

Also, this conversation isn't about the solution to what is essentially one of the primary flaws of capitalism, and at no point did I attempt to make some grand statement about the solution to this problem. It's worth noting that the attitude of "well how can you actually fix it?" is one frequently taken by those that benefit the most from the status quo and have a vested interest in not changing it.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I will tell them and I do.

Also, this conversation isn't about the solution to what is essentially one of the primary flaws about capitalism, and at no point did I attempt to make some grand statement about the solution to this problem. It's worth noting that the attitude of "well how can you actually fix it?" is one frequently taken by those that benefit the most from the status quo and have a vested interest in not changing it.

Socialism is not an answer though, tried in lot of countries and lot fled these socialist societies to this country for better opportunities despite flaws with (crony) capitalism.

 

[deleted1017120]

Socialism is not an answer though, tried in lot of countries and lot fled these socialist societies to this country for better opportunities despite flaws with (crony) capitalism.

And again, I never said that socialism was the answer.

You have a habit of assuming what people are saying without them actually saying it.

 

[Alexxxxx]

Socialism is not an answer though, tried in lot of countries and lot fled these socialist societies to this country for better opportunities despite flaws with (crony) capitalism.

You are putting words in stratos's mouth and you just went off-topic talking about socialism. I don't think anything else productive will come out of this conversation lol.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

You are putting words in stratos's mouth and you just went off-topic talking about socialism. I don't think anything else productive will come out of this conversation lol.

I was responding to flaws of capitalism. Anyway, I don't want to be accused of derailing the thread. Yes, there are issues/flaws with admissions process but no one has concrete solutions. Only solution I keep hearing is eliminating standardized tests or make them P/F and now even ECs are considered privileged.

 

[LizzyM]

If you want to really be radical, set a minimum GPA, minimum MCAT, (based on the minimum needed to be successful at a given school) and the usual check boxes (pre-req courses, shadowing, community service, clinical experience) and then grant interviews to 3 times as many applicants as one has seats to fill from a group of qualified applicants chosen at random! Interviewers should not have access to application and should not be permitted to ask about age, race, sex, GPA or test scores. Interviewer may be provided with major and year of graduation plus home state, but not school(s) attended. Schools would be likely to make as many offers as they have seats at the outset and waitlist most of the rest just to see how this shakes out as the folks who previously had many choices may have only one and those who had only one may have more than one by luck. It might make for more applications (you've gotta be in it to win it) but not more work for adcoms who would just apply an algorithm to the applications and then a random number generator.


Too radical?

 

[abcdedcba]

If you want to really be radical, set a minimum GPA, minimum MCAT, (based on the minimum needed to be successful at a given school) and the usual check boxes (pre-req courses, shadowing, community service, clinical experience) and then grant interviews to 3 times as many applicants as one has seats to fill from a group of qualified applicants chosen at random! Interviewers should not have access to application and should not be permitted to ask about age, race, sex, GPA or test scores. Interviewer may be provided with major and year of graduation plus home state, but not school(s) attended. Schools would be likely to make as many offers as they have seats at the outset and waitlist most of the rest just to see how this shakes out as the folks who previously had many choices may have only one and those who had only one may have more than one by luck. It might make for more applications (you've gotta be in it to win it) but not more work for adcoms who would just apply an algorithm to the applications and then a random number generator.


Too radical?

This is radical and appropriate. People squirm when I suggest this approach, but the true meritocracy does not exist.

Take it a step further, why interview? You're asking for additional bias by adding an interview step with humans prone to bias. With the metrics provided, you have enough to deem an applicant to be "successful" in medical school, and will teach them the rest. This is also something that should be applied to graduate programs, IMO. Most people above a 2.5-3.0 GPA can get a PhD, yet admissions committees there do the exact same thing as med adcoms.

The equity-based answer to this would be to bias the "randomizer" algorithm towards underrepresented or historically excluded groups. If you insist on interviews, then interview all of these groups first (within logistical reason). Without interviews, no need to do that other than weight them much more heavily for admission.

 

[LizzyM]

This is radical and appropriate. People squirm when I suggest this approach, but the true meritocracy does not exist.

Take it a step further, why interview? You're asking for additional bias by adding an interview step with humans prone to bias. With the metrics provided, you have enough to deem an applicant to be "successful" in medical school, and will teach them the rest. This is also something that should be applied to graduate programs, IMO. Most people above a 2.5-3.0 GPA can get a PhD, yet admissions committees there do the exact same thing as med adcoms.

The equity-based answer to this would be to bias the "randomizer" algorithm towards underrepresented or historically excluded groups. If you insist on interviews, then interview all of these groups first (within logistical reason). Without interviews, no need to do that other than weight them much more heavily for admission.

The "successful" students of the past were selected after interview. There aren't many that I've found unacceptable for admission after being interviewed (maybe 3% per year) but these folks are best screened out by interview, particularly when the letters of recommendation won't be used to make admission decisions.

Over sampling under-represented groups seems unjust. If the randomizer works well, they should be selected in proportion to their representation in the applicant pool. The schools will be far better off to take action to encourage applicants from historically under-represented groups to apply to the school so that they make up a larger proportion of the pool.

Keep in mind, by keeping a cap on the number of interviews a school can offer, the school will not be able to toss many applicants as "unacceptable" and still fill a class.

 

[abcdedcba]

The "successful" students of the past were selected after interview. There aren't many that I've found unacceptable for admission after being interviewed (maybe 3% per year) but these folks are best screened out by interview, particularly when the letters of recommendation won't be used to make admission decisions.

Over sampling under-represented groups seems unjust. If the randomizer works well, they should be selected in proportion to their representation in the applicant pool. The schools will be far better off to take action to encourage applicants from historically under-represented groups to apply to the school so that they make up a larger proportion of the pool.

Keep in mind, by keeping a cap on the number of interviews a school can offer, the school will not be able to toss many applicants as "unacceptable" and still fill a class.

The "successful students" of the past are defined by an inequitable and biased system though. Who is to say the many students not interviewed wouldn't also have been "successful"? The faith in interviewers' selection doesn't seem founded in controlled data other than "that's the way we've done it."

"should be selected in proportion to their representation in the applicant pool" is exactly why you need an oversampling of them. They are underrepresented in the applicant pool and even more so in the profession itself, so it behooves patients and the systems to have an overselection of these groups until that inequity no longer exists. That's one small part of the hard work that needs to be done to fix the system.

Putting it on the applicants to apply after "being encouraged" puts the onus on them to fix the issues, which is often systemic and way far out of their control. It ignores the systemic issues that require systemic solutions. Until institutions can prove they successfully enriched the applicant pool with historically underrepresented groups who meet their criteria, oversample the demographics. It might be "unjust" to ORMs, but that's exactly the point. Otherwise, totally onboard with randomization, sans interview.

 

[LizzyM]

There are nut-jobs that you really don't want to have admitted to medical school. Other than interviews, I don't know how to weed them out aside from admitting them and flunking them out for professionalism.

Let's say I get 3,000 applicants (this is low ball). If the breakdown of qualified applicants is:
15% Black
15% Latinx
40% Asian
30% White
and I'm interviewing 300 candidates to fill 100 seats I'd be interviewing approximately
45 black
45 Latinx
120 Asian
90 White

Again, I'm not pulling a certain number from each pool but randomly selecting from among the qualified. We need a bigger pipeline but I think that eliminating the bump offered for high MCAT, "top" undergrad school, expensive ECs, etc will even the playing field.

One of the problems is that there are only enough seats for 43% of applicants (and enough seats for 1/3 of the interviewed). Perhaps if there was a universal understanding that there are minimum MCAT/GPA/experience expectations and those who were suboptimal would not apply thus shrinking the pool and increasing the proportion admitted somewhere.

What if after using the interview to discard the 3% of applicants who have poor demeanor, we selected 100 at random from the remaining 291?

We'd still need to show LCME that we were making every effort to recruit a diverse student body by encouraging qualified applicants of every stripe and we'd need to show that the application process did not favor one group over another.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

If you want to really be radical, set a minimum GPA, minimum MCAT, (based on the minimum needed to be successful at a given school) and the usual check boxes (pre-req courses, shadowing, community service, clinical experience) and then grant interviews to 3 times as many applicants as one has seats to fill from a group of qualified applicants chosen at random! Interviewers should not have access to application and should not be permitted to ask about age, race, sex, GPA or test scores. Interviewer may be provided with major and year of graduation plus home state, but not school(s) attended. Schools would be likely to make as many offers as they have seats at the outset and waitlist most of the rest just to see how this shakes out as the folks who previously had many choices may have only one and those who had only one may have more than one by luck. It might make for more applications (you've gotta be in it to win it) but not more work for adcoms who would just apply an algorithm to the applications and then a random number generator.


Too radical?

Not too radical, but why year of graduation when you are excluding age? Also, what are the guidelines for interviewers?

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

There are nut-jobs that you really don't want to have admitted to medical school. Other than interviews, I don't know how to weed them out aside from admitting them and flunking them out for professionalism.

Let's say I get 3,000 applicants (this is low ball). If the breakdown of qualified applicants is:
15% Black
15% Latinx
40% Asian
30% White
and I'm interviewing 300 candidates to fill 100 seats I'd be interviewing approximately
45 black
45 Latinx
120 Asian
90 White

Again, I'm not pulling a certain number from each pool but randomly selecting from among the qualified. We need a bigger pipeline but I think that eliminating the bump offered for high MCAT, "top" undergrad school, expensive ECs, etc will even the playing field.

One of the problems is that there are only enough seats for 43% of applicants (and enough seats for 1/3 of the interviewed). Perhaps if there was a universal understanding that there are minimum MCAT/GPA/experience expectations and those who were suboptimal would not apply thus shrinking the pool and increasing the proportion admitted somewhere.

What if after using the interview to discard the 3% of applicants who have poor demeanor, we selected 100 at random from the remaining 291?

We'd still need to show LCME that we were making every effort to recruit a diverse student body by encouraging qualified applicants of every stripe and we'd need to show that the application process did not favor one group over another.

Setting those minimums also will become a controversy.

 

[Middle Age DDS]

I'm sure many of you are fans of his entire Revisionist History Podcast. A big part of his podcasts touch upon what goes into education and how children develop(or do not) into great students. A few of his podcasts actually laid out how difficult it is for a child from a challenging background(think homeless, abusive situations, foster homes) to excel academically. He went on to say that a lot of elite universities want these type of students but there isn't that many to go around. I think that was in his first season.
He has touched upon school endowments at elite universities and how they could be used so much better to benefit students. Sleep quality and how it affects a child's academics. The Quality of food at a college as opposed to the number or pell grant students it can admit. (This sort of goes along with increasing/decreasing the endowment) All fascinating subjects that maybe are presented in a way that you haven't considered. He once took the LSAT and was laying out the argument on the validity of what it is supposed to test.

He even had a podcast where school students were drawn randomly to be class president, vp etc. So he is really into nature vs nurture. I'm not sure if he is solving a lot of inequities but the first step it to recognize and understand it.

This past podcast obviously is drawing a lot of attention due to Reed College being able to "crack the code" when it comes to USNWR's ranking system. I think most of us already knew innately what went into it. Most of his podcasts are interesting, in this case I think it was the SUBJECT that is creating the interest. I know I am guilty at looking at the rankings and it certainly makes up a lot of the SDN rhetoric.

Some of my friends make fun of his books and their simplicity but I am a fan.

Ok, I'm going back to just following the banter.

 

[deleted1025488]

It's mildly disconcerting that AOs actually believe schools like HYPS are hard....I'm pretty sure the premed system is literally constructed in such a way that all premeds can get a 3.75+ GPA as long as they don't intentionally tank or don't try at all.

Like, my intro chemistry classes were literally curved to A-/B+'s and I don't think anything less than an A- is given in upper-level classes. The only hard class was biochemistry, if at all. I've literally never met someone in my life at my university that has below a 3.6, which, to an AO, is probably quivalent to a 3.9x from a state school (which is way harder to get in reality). IMO a 3.8 from HYPS is borderline worthless. Then you begin to wonder why only the rich kids affording prep courses get the mega high MCATs at these schools. Lol. You really get the blunt end as a low income student here, seeing all the BS that goes around with the uber rich kids who auto-enrolled from whatever private school their dad sent them to.

 

[KnightDoc]

If you want to really be radical, set a minimum GPA, minimum MCAT, (based on the minimum needed to be successful at a given school) and the usual check boxes (pre-req courses, shadowing, community service, clinical experience) and then grant interviews to 3 times as many applicants as one has seats to fill from a group of qualified applicants chosen at random! Interviewers should not have access to application and should not be permitted to ask about age, race, sex, GPA or test scores. Interviewer may be provided with major and year of graduation plus home state, but not school(s) attended. Schools would be likely to make as many offers as they have seats at the outset and waitlist most of the rest just to see how this shakes out as the folks who previously had many choices may have only one and those who had only one may have more than one by luck. It might make for more applications (you've gotta be in it to win it) but not more work for adcoms who would just apply an algorithm to the applications and then a random number generator.


Too radical?

Well, yeah, because it would eliminate the illusion that there is an art or science to this. Adcoms are presently masters of the universe who are not only uniquely qualified and sufficiently talented to make such weighty decisions, but they literally hold the fate of so many in their hands. Cede that power and control to the luck of the draw, because, at the end of the day, a random number generator could do as good a job at performing a preliminary screen? Good luck with that!!

 

[LizzyM]

Setting those minimums also will become a controversy.

The only minimums would be the minimum grades/scores/hours needed to make the preliminary cut. That number would be somewhat below each school's 10th percentile. That greatly expands the pool of "eligible for interview" compared with the current policy that tends to favor the super high GPA/.MCAT folks and leaves others, particularly applicants who have "good enough" grades and scores out in the cold although they could do the work and be successful if given a chance.

 

[LizzyM]

It's mildly disconcerting that AOs actually believe schools like HYPS are hard....I'm pretty sure the premed system is literally constructed in such a way that all premeds can get a 3.75+ GPA as long as they don't intentionally tank or don't try at all.

Like, my intro chemistry classes were literally curved to A-/B+'s and I don't think anything less than an A- is given in upper-level classes. The only hard class was biochemistry, if at all. I've literally never met someone in my life at my university that has below a 3.6, which, to an AO, is probably quivalent to a 3.9x from a state school (which is way harder to get in reality). IMO a 3.8 from HYPS is borderline worthless. Then you begin to wonder why only the rich kids affording prep courses get the mega high MCATs at these schools. Lol. You really get the blunt end as a low income student here, seeing all the BS that goes around with the uber rich kids who auto-enrolled from whatever private school their dad sent them to.

Consequently, we are treating anything less than a 3.9 as "suboptimal" regardless of the school. It is a inordinate stress on students and leaves little opportunity for many students to claim a spot at the table if they have faltered along the way.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

It's mildly disconcerting that AOs actually believe schools like HYPS are hard....I'm pretty sure the premed system is literally constructed in such a way that all premeds can get a 3.75+ GPA as long as they don't intentionally tank or don't try at all.

Like, my intro chemistry classes were literally curved to A-/B+'s and I don't think anything less than an A- is given in upper-level classes. The only hard class was biochemistry, if at all. I've literally never met someone in my life at my university that has below a 3.6, which, to an AO, is probably quivalent to a 3.9x from a state school (which is way harder to get in reality). IMO a 3.8 from HYPS is borderline worthless. Then you begin to wonder why only the rich kids affording prep courses get the mega high MCATs at these schools. Lol. You really get the blunt end as a low income student here, seeing all the BS that goes around with the uber rich kids who auto-enrolled from whatever private school their dad sent them to.

I don't think AOs think H & S are hard, but they need those students for their marketing material. For example check U Michigan data.

https://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/assets/Class%20PROFILE%20%202020-%20external.pdf

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

The only minimums would be the minimum grades/scores/hours needed to make the preliminary cut. That number would be somewhat below each school's 10th percentile. That greatly expands the pool of "eligible for interview" compared with the current policy that tends to favor the super high GPA/.MCAT folks and leaves others, particularly applicants who have "good enough" grades and scores out in the cold although they could do the work and be successful if given a chance.

are there any studies done comparing 10th percentile and 90th percentile performance in medical school and afterwards?

 

[deleted1025488]

I don't think AOs think H & S are hard, but they need those students for their marketing material. For example check U Michigan data.

https://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/assets/Class%20PROFILE%20%202020-%20external.pdf

Average MCAT is 90th percentile but their median MCAT is 518? Huh?

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Average MCAT is 90th percentile but their median MCAT is 518? Huh?

That's interesting. Also Matriculating directly from UG 15.5% is crazy. My kid and couple of other kids (different profiles) didn't even get interviews since school loves gap years.

 

[KnightDoc]

Average MCAT is 90th percentile but their median MCAT is 518? Huh?

Average =/= median!! What's the big deal? They are saying their average is 515. P.S. The median of their matriculants is 516!!!

This is totally consistent, but the lesson is to not get too hung up on stats because, you know what they say about lies, damn lies and statistics. Stats can be manipulated to show whatever you want -- applicants, matriculants, average, median, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Alexxxxx]

That's interesting. Also Matriculating directly from UG 15.5% is crazy. My kid and couple of other kids (different profiles) didn't even get interviews since school loves gap years.

I doubt they didn't get interviews because of a lack of gap years, there is just a trend that more people that get in take gap years because it allows more time for ECs.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I doubt they didn't get interviews because of a lack of gap years, there is just a trend that more people that get in take gap years because it allows more time for ECs.

15% only with no gap years is well below average. BTW, these candidates have multiple top tier As and as I said have different ECs and from different regions. Only commonality is they are ORMs and out of state.

 

[Alexxxxx]

15% only with no gap years is well below average. BTW, these candidates have multiple top tier As and as I said have different ECs and from different regions. Only commonality is they are ORMs and out of state.

Thank you for flaunting your child's and some other applicants' top-tier acceptances, but there was almost certainly a reason that they didn't get interviewed that isn't the fact that they didn't take a gap year. The fact that UMich is a top school makes it more competitive, and accordingly, a higher percentage of applicants will have to take gap years to get in.

 

[KnightDoc]

I doubt they didn't get interviews because of a lack of gap years, there is just a trend that more people that get in take gap years because it allows more time for ECs.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying a lack of gap years is not a reason to be denied an interview while the trend is for people who get interviews to have ECs that require gap years!

For whatever reason, this school values gap years more than most other schools. The numbers don't lie. The difference between 1 in 4 (typical) and 1 in 7 (Michigan) is significant.

This school breaks the mold in many ways. Its stats are way below what they could be. It is also way more difficult to score an II here than at much more prestigious schools. Finally, the II-->A rate is as high here as anywhere in the country, way higher than at comparable schools.

 

[Alexxxxx]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying a lack of gap years is not a reason to be denied an interview while the trend is for people who get interviews to have ECs that require gap years!

For whatever reason, this school values gap years more than most other schools. The numbers don't lie. The difference between 1 in 4 (typical) and 1 in 7 (Michigan) is significant. This school breaks the mold in many ways. Its stats are way below what they could be. It is also way more difficult to score an II here than at much more prestigious schools. Finally, the II-->A rate is as high here as anywhere in the country, way higher than at comparable schools.

I think they value meaningful, longitudinal ECs more being a top school, which creates a correlation in admissions statistics of having more gap years in their classes (but not causation).

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Thank you for flaunting your child's and some other applicants' top-tier acceptances, but there was almost certainly a reason that they didn't get interviewed that isn't the fact that they didn't take a gap year. The fact that UMich is a top school makes it more competitive, and accordingly, a higher percentage of applicants will have to take gap years to get in.

I have no need to flaunt, but I am trying to figuring the reason why they didn't get interview at UMich despite success in other places with different ECs and only reason I can think of is their emphasis on gap years (and may be fascination for Harvard )