What goes into the rankings?

[Alexxxxx]

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 fascination for Harvard )

There is also the randomness of applying to medical school that could have caused the lack of an interview, or maybe even something as small as a flaw in their secondary application that gave them a reason to reject them because it doesn't take much when there are more than enough qualified applicants to fill their seats.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KnightDoc]

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

I think we're saying the same thing, albeit slightly differently. I don't know how you define causation, but if you need to do something (take a gap year) in order to do something else (gather the expected EC experiences), that certainly is causation in my book, but, whatever. We agree they value ECs more than most, and that causes more than a typical percentage of their applicants to need to take gap years in order to succeed.

 

[deleted555445]

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 fascination for Harvard )

You make it seem like its odd that a top-tier school would be more likely to interview applicants with more experience

 

[KnightDoc]

There is also the randomness of applying to medical school that could have caused the lack of an interview, or maybe even something as small as a flaw in their secondary application that gave them a reason to reject them because it doesn't take much when there are more than enough qualified applicants to fill their seats.

The answer is actually very simple. Just look at their stats. If they don't value stats as highly as other prestigious schools, that could easily be the reason a high stat applicant doesn't find success at Michigan. Add in that they seem to disproportionately love gap years, and you have a recipe for a high stat traditional applicant to not be able to see the obvious reason for lack of success (i.e., I got Harvard, by definition I should get everything ).

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

There is also the randomness of applying to medical school that could have caused the lack of an interview, or maybe even something as small as a flaw in their secondary application that gave them a reason to reject them because it doesn't take much when there are more than enough qualified applicants to fill their seats.

I agree there is randomness with the process given the # of applications, but we are all trying to figure out the process. Otherwise all we can say is apply broadly, sit back and let the process play out.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

You make it seem like its odd that a top-tier school would be more likely to interview applicants with more experience

How much more experience is needed to get admission into medical schools? Starting ECs in first semester of UG is not enough? The whole medical training itself is too long. Here is an opinion piece I read couple of years back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-simplest-way-to-solve-our-doctor-shortage/2018/08/13/ddb344f4-91c3-11e8-9b0d-749fb254bc3d_story.html

 

[deleted555445]

How much more experience is needed to get admission into medical schools? Starting ECs in first semester of UG is not enough? The whole medical training itself is too long. Here is an opinion piece I read couple of years back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-simplest-way-to-solve-our-doctor-shortage/2018/08/13/ddb344f4-91c3-11e8-9b0d-749fb254bc3d_story.html

If I was looking at someone who volunteered at a hospital all through college versus someone who did that but also worked a full time research position for 2 years before applying, the second one would win out every time. Nothing wrong with the first one, but the second one is a better candidate. And unfortunately, at least at the top schools, they only have the space to interview the best. Which is why gap years and non-trads are starting to become the norm.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

If I was looking at someone who volunteered at a hospital all through college versus someone who did that but also worked a full time research position for 2 years before applying, the second one would win out every time. Nothing wrong with the first one, but the second one is a better candidate. And unfortunately, at least at the top schools, they only have the space to interview the best. Which is why gap years and non-trads are starting to become the norm.

How about someone who did meaningful research all 4 years of UG? do you still prefer one with 2 years of full-time research? Again varies from school to school and UMich seems to be an extreme case for gap year preference. Fortunately there are still some top tier schools taking without gap years or looking at age

 

[deleted555445]

How about someone who did meaningful research all 4 years of UG? do you still prefer one with 2 years of full-time research? Again varies from school to school and UMich seems to be an extreme case for gap year preference. Fortunately there are still some top tier schools taking without gap years or looking at age

Still the 2 years easily. In my opinion, no one should have residency as their first full-time job. There is a lot to be said for the maturity and life skills that come with working after college before you apply.

UMich may appear to value gap years, but that's just a correlation. What they really value is experience and maturity. Students can definitely have those qualities without taking a gap year. And if you took a gap year and sat in your apartment watching TV the whole time you would not get any consideration. But I think its incorrect to look at gap years as the boogeyman that are preventing hard-working undergrads from getting interviews.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Still the 2 years easily. In my opinion, no one should have residency as their first full-time job. There is a lot to be said for the maturity and life skills that come with working after college before you apply.

UMich may appear to value gap years, but that's just a correlation. What they really value is experience and maturity. Students can definitely have those qualities without taking a gap year. And if you took a gap year and sat in your apartment watching TV the whole time you would not get any consideration. But I think its incorrect to look at gap years as the boogeyman that are preventing hard-working undergrads from getting interviews.

Gap years appears to be a recent phenomena, so what changed? Medicine became more complex or kids are maturing slowly? Also, I don't think residency is considered as a full-time job.

 

[Banco]

It's more or less a scam that people defend because they have their identities and pride tied to going to certain programs. Especially college students as its usually the first major accomplishment in many peoples' adult lives. But the arbitrary nature of rankings has always been clear.

 

[deleted555445]

While I agree that it isn’t ideal for residency to be someone’s first job, I think the prospect of the already long training path becoming longer is worse.

I guess that’s if you focus on the end, rather than the journey. I think people have a tendency to believe their lives don’t start until they're an attending, so the idea of having to wait until they're 35 or 40 until that happens is terrible. If you instead view the whole path as a journey, it starts to matter less how long the training path is, especially if it’s something you really enjoy.

But to each their own. There’s nothing wrong in my opinion with going straight in, I just think the med student who has spent a few years working is stronger than the one who hasn’t. But I think this thread is more about undergrad rankings lol so I’ll stop derailing

Edit: my grammar sucks when on my phone

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I guess that’s if you focus on the end, rather than the journey. I think people have a tendency to believe their lives don’t start until their an attending, so the idea of having to wait until theyre 35 or 40 until that happens is terrible. If you instead view the whole path as a journey, it starts to matter less how long the training path is, especially if it’s something you really enjoy.

But to each their own. There’s nothing wrong in my opinion with going straight in, I just think the med student who has spent a few years working is stronger than the one who hasn’t. But I think this thread is more about undergrad rankings lol so I’ll stop derailing

hard to enjoy when you are getting hit with ton of debt and then you see your CS/wall street buddies make lot of money right after 4 years of UG.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

This is an argument I see all the time on SDN, but it ignores the fact that the extremely lucrative positions in CS/finance are commensurately competitive and reserved for the elite few. For the average person deciding between medicine and CS/finance, medicine is the better financial choice in the long run.

number of lucrative CS/finance positions are not reserved for elite few anymore (at least based on stock market performance for last 10+ years).

 

[deleted555445]

hard to enjoy when you are getting hit with ton of debt and then you see your CS/wall street buddies make lot of money right after 4 years of UG.

Why is that hard to enjoy?

 

[deleted555445]

I agree with what you’re saying here, but I’m more concerned about the bigger picture. Our society spends a lot of resources to train physicians, so it makes sense to maximize the amount of value that each creates by giving them more working years.

I can see being concerned about the bigger picture, but I would be interested to see if non-trads actually work less a physicians. I feel like a lot of people set financial goals for retirement, rather than decide they will retire at 65 no matter the situation. So that non-trad may have to work a few extra years, or maybe they invested well from their job before med school and so they can just work part time a little longer. Or maybe they're less prone to burnout because they don't suffer from "grass is greener" phenomenon, seeing that all jobs suck in their own way.

Either way, I'm more concerned about the effect on the individual. I think things like residency spot caps have more of an effect on the physician shortage, and I also think the physician shortage is more of a geographical allocation issue rather than an absolute shortage. But I can see your point.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Why is that hard to enjoy?

financial and social pressures. Anyway, let's get back to rankings discussion.

 

[sunshinefl]

Gap years appears to be a recent phenomena, so what changed? Medicine became more complex or kids are maturing slowly? Also, I don't think residency is considered as a full-time job.

You’re right. It’s a 2X FTE job.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

You’re right. It’s a 2X FTE job.

it's 2X or 3X harder than FTE job but don't have the luxuries of a job.

 

[LizzyM]

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

First of all, we know that ~95% of all matriculants graduate within 5 years. We use 5 years rather than 4 not only to account for students who need to repeat a year but also to allow for those who choose to take an extra year to do research in order to qualify for highly competitive residencies.

We also know that MCAT is correlated with likelihood of advancing from M1 to M2 but even those with so-so scores are very likely to advance.
See How well does the MCAT® exam predict success in medical school? for much more about the MCAT.

And what of afterwards? Which applicants are most likely to fill the positions we have open in the next 40 years. We need physician-scientists, medical school deans and academic triple threats (teaching/research/clinical) but we also have a tremendous need for primary care physicians in rural and suburban settings.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

How well does the MCAT® exam predict success in medical school?

Given that data, do you recommend making MCAT also pass/fail (with 500 or 505 as pass score)?

 

[deleted1025488]

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 fascination for Harvard )

Not sure where your kid got in but we all know rather underwhelming apps (low volunteering, low clinical, no pubs, etc.) can get into the stat loving schools as long as you have ultra high stats. If they got into nyu, washU, JHU, and nothing else, that's probably why. Not saying thats the case though.

Also MCATs probably brings aamc too much money for them to ever drop it or make it P/F imagine....nonprofit remember

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Not sure where your kid got in but we all know rather underwhelming apps (low volunteering, low clinical, no pubs, etc.) can get into the stat loving schools as long as you have ultra high stats. If they got into nyu, washU, JHU, and nothing else, that's probably why. Not saying thats the case though.

Also MCATs probably brings aamc too much money for them to ever drop it or make it P/F imagine....nonprofit remember

for the sake of privacy I am not disclosing where my kid got but you can see the outcomes in my signature. I (and premed advisor) didn't think there were any deficiencies with ECs and recommended him to apply to T20s only (except in-state) but one of the adcoms here thought his clinical hours (100+) are too low and stated that my kid was aiming high.

I don't think NYU/WashU/JHU purely goes by stats.

Yeah, I don't see AAMC changing and they also probably get lobbied by all test prep companies.

 

[LizzyM]

When the switch was made from the two digit test scores based on 3 sections to the three digit scores over 4 sections and pegged to an average of 125 in each section with an average of 500 overall, the cut off of 500 was supposed to be "good enough" but we know that in practice, for most applicants, anything less than 510 is considered "weak". With the boards going to pass/fail and with GRE being dropped by so many grad schools, it is only a matter of time before the MCAT undergoes another change in how it is scored or how it is used, if it is used at all.

 

[deleted1025488]

When the switch was made from the two digit test scores based on 3 sections to the three digit scores over 4 sections and pegged to an average of 125 in each section with an average of 500 overall, the cut off of 500 was supposed to be "good enough" but we know that in practice, for most applicants, anything less than 510 is considered "weak". With the boards going to pass/fail and with GRE being dropped by so many grad schools, it is only a matter of time before the MCAT undergoes another change in how it is scored or how it is used, if it is used at all.

I'll believe it when I see it....the way AAMC treated the MCAT (and us) over the course of COVID has already told me enough about where their priorities lie.

 

[KnightDoc]

I'll believe it when I see it....the way AAMC treated the MCAT (and us) over the course of COVID has already told me enough about where their priorities lie.

This is very true, as it is for all incumbents, such as the College Board with the SAT, etc. @LizzyM is on the front lines, however, and is reporting, based on her insider's view and years of experience, that it is only a matter of time before external forces overwhelm the inertia you are observing, and force changes on the system we all know and love so much.

None of this is going to help any of us in the short term, but I think I see what she sees.

 

[LizzyM]

I don’t think getting rid of the MCAT is the answer given how strongly it correlates with performance on not just board exams (Step 1 and Step 2 CK), but also clerkship performance:

https://www.aamc.org/media/38496/download

In my opinion, it should just continue being refined so that its correlations with these assessments is strengthened.

Correct, but for a given GPA stratum, the subset that scored 502-505 were as likely to pass the boards as someone scoring in the 518+ range. Yet we have schools that won't touch anyone in the 502-505 range.

Time and again it comes back to the idea that rich people, and rich people's children, make better [fill in the blank] than those who are poor. We have a systemic classism in admissions, it pains me to say.

 

[Alexxxxx]

Correct, but for a given GPA stratum, the subset that scored 502-505 were as likely to pass the boards as someone scoring in the 518+ range. Yet we have schools that won't touch anyone in the 502-505 range.

Time and again it comes back to the idea that rich people, and rich people's children, make better [fill in the blank] than those who are poor. We have a systemic classism in admissions, it pains me to say.

I absolutely agree!! The highest scorers have the most time (i.e. no outside commitments like work, which lower-income people need to do but children of rich people don't), the most expensive resources like prep courses, parents who are doctors and can guide them through a lot of the process, etc., which all definitely favors the rich over the poor.

 

[Alexxxxx]

Correct, but for a given GPA stratum, the subset that scored 502-505 were as likely to pass the boards as someone scoring in the 518+ range. Yet we have schools that won't touch anyone in the 502-505 range.

Time and again it comes back to the idea that rich people, and rich people's children, make better [fill in the blank] than those who are poor. We have a systemic classism in admissions, it pains me to say.

Also, something random and kind of off-topic, I hate how if you drop a lot from your FLs the ADCOMs will never see it. Of course, this isn't an issue that can be fixed and doesn't make the process unfair, but I personally dropped from 520 FLs to a 513 (which I am still happy with and won't lower my chances of getting into med school). It made me really bummed out for a few weeks though that I put all of the work in to get to that level, then regressed basically an entire month of full-time studying in terms of my score. Again though, nothing can really be done about this and it isn't necessarily unfair to applicants.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Correct, but for a given GPA stratum, the subset that scored 502-505 were as likely to pass the boards as someone scoring in the 518+ range. Yet we have schools that won't touch anyone in the 502-505 range.

Time and again it comes back to the idea that rich people, and rich people's children, make better [fill in the blank] than those who are poor. We have a systemic classism in admissions, it pains me to say.

won't rich people also get better grades? Also, what income is considered as being rich? every time politicians wants to tax the rich they lower the income threshold.

 

[Alexxxxx]

won't rich people also get better grades? Also, what income is considered as being rich? every time politicians wants to tax the rich they lower the income threshold.

I think that the income that is considered rich has not changed a lot over the past 20 years when adjusting for inflation, as the income tax has not fluctuated radically: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/LibRepository/34553ea0-e37a-4da5-abe0-aa5b1af39862.JPG

Too many individual factors decide what being "rich" is, so nobody can give you an answer to that.

Also yeah, rich people get better grades on average but based on my personal experiences, I would guess (I have no evidence to back this up) that there is a stronger correlation between MCAT score and wealth than there is between GPA and wealth. The reason I say this is because many resources for succeeding on the MCAT are locked behind money (like MCAT prep courses which run $3-4k), whereas free tutors exist at every university I have ever heard of for undergraduate classes.

 

[LizzyM]

Let's say the top 4% of the population, income above $200,000 is "rich". At least half, or more, of the people I interviewed last year fell into that for their parents' household income (my estimate based on education, profession, permanent address).

Rich people get better grades but does that make them better doctors? better medical students? How do we define "better"?

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Let's say the top 4% of the population, income above $200,000 is "rich". At least half, or more, of the people I interviewed last year fell into that for their parents' household income (my estimate based on education, profession, permanent address).

Rich people get better grades but does that make them better doctors? better medical students? How do we define "better"?

I did not claim better grades make them better doctors (or even engineers). The claim is rich people get better standardized test scores.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

The reason I say this is because many resources for succeeding on the MCAT are locked behind money (like MCAT prep courses which run $3-4k).

Not sure how many really spend that much on MCAT prep now a days. My kid spent around $600 (one book set, 6 months UWorld and AAMC FLs). Also there are lot of free resources for MCAT prep including free tutoring for low income students.

 

[LizzyM]

I did not claim better grades make them better doctors (or even engineers). The claim is rich people get better standardized test scores.

The point is, once we've defined a minimum capacity needed to achieve competency given adequate training, can we select at random from the pool of capable candidates rather than make the assumption that the highest grades or highest test scores will produce the most highly desired results.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Let's say the top 4% of the population, income above $200,000 is "rich". At least half, or more, of the people I interviewed last year fell into that for their parents' household income (my estimate based on education, profession, permanent address).

$200K is not rich in most major cities (NYC/SF/Boston/LA etc..)

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

The point is, once we've defined a minimum capacity needed to achieve competency given adequate training, can we select at random from the pool of capable candidates rather than make the assumption that the highest grades or highest test scores will produce the most highly desired results.

I agree on that i.e. above certain GPA an MCAT it won't make much difference. The issue is once you come up with that limit you are back to the so called "holistic" process with different groups fighting for their "fair" share.

 

[LizzyM]

$200K is not rich in most major cities (NYC/SF/Boston/LA etc..)

It is still in the top 4% of the population. The median household income in Brooklyn is $60K. Median household income in San Francisco if $116K. We could go on all day. Many people spend so much time in the top quintile that they forget that the other 80% of the population even exist and if they do think about them, they wonder how they manage to exist.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

It is still in the top 4% of the population. The median household income in Brooklyn is $60K. Median household income in San Francisco if $116K. We could go on all day. Many people spend so much time in the top quintile that they forget that the other 80% of the population even exist and if they do think about them, they wonder how they manage to exist.

Don't they manage due to government programs and need based financial assistance by colleges for education? BTW, my living expenses were $200 (30 years back) when I was a grad student. No cell phone/no internet/no car/no tv etc. Used school resources fully. Tuition per quarter was $600 since I went to a state school. Now everything is out of control.

 

[LizzyM]

Don't they manage due to government programs and need based financial assistance by colleges for education? BTW, my living expenses were $200 (30 years back) when I was a grad student. No cell phone/no internet/no car/no tv etc. Used school resources fully. Tuition per quarter was $600 since I went to a state school. Now everything is out of control.

Listen to the Revisionist History podcast about Dillard. Also see the financial aid vs need info here:

Dillard University Tuition | CollegeData

Quickly find details on the $33,982 annual cost of Dillard University tuition to help you weed out potential colleges that best fit your budget and needs!

www.collegedata.com

And let's dispense with the n=1 personal anecdotes as they are not helpful in moving this conversation forward.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Listen to the Revisionist History podcast about Dillard. Also see the financial aid vs need info here:

Dillard University Tuition | CollegeData

Quickly find details on the $33,982 annual cost of Dillard University tuition to help you weed out potential colleges that best fit your budget and needs!

www.collegedata.com

And let's dispense with the n=1 personal anecdotes as they are not helpful in moving this conversation forward.

Every time we give personal examples, it becomes n=1 anecdote or flaunting. Anyway, I believe in "Where there's a will there's a way" works for most especially once you reach undergrad or grad school level. I have nothing further to add to this thread, thanks for the debate.

 

[Alexxxxx]

It is still in the top 4% of the population. The median household income in Brooklyn is $60K. Median household income in San Francisco if $116K. We could go on all day. Many people spend so much time in the top quintile that they forget that the other 80% of the population even exist and if they do think about them, they wonder how they manage to exist.

Yeah, 200k would still be a lot in the major cities that EdgeTrimmer mentioned by my standards (coming from a household of 4 where the household income was just under 50k for most of my childhood...)

 

[Alexxxxx]

Listen to the Revisionist History podcast about Dillard. Also see the financial aid vs need info here:

Dillard University Tuition | CollegeData

Quickly find details on the $33,982 annual cost of Dillard University tuition to help you weed out potential colleges that best fit your budget and needs!

www.collegedata.com

And let's dispense with the n=1 personal anecdotes as they are not helpful in moving this conversation forward.

I strongly agree with the anecdote statement you said

 

[Alexxxxx]

Not sure how many really spend that much on MCAT prep now a days. My kid's spent around $600 (one book set, 6 months UWorld and AAMC FLs). Also there are lot of free resources for MCAT prep including free tutoring for low income students.

Yes, you don't need the prep courses to excel on the MCAT. I hit 520s in my Fls using the same exact materials you mentioned, but an individualized prep course would certainly make it a lot easier and I never had that option. Also, it is more than just prep courses/materials - the time to study itself is in short supply for those that have to work to support themselves.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

Don't they manage due to government programs and need based financial assistance by colleges for education? BTW, my living expenses were $200 (30 years back) when I was a grad student. No cell phone/no internet/no car/no tv etc. Used school resources fully. Tuition per quarter was $600 since I went to a state school. Now everything is out of control.

...households with $60k or $100k incomes, even in SF or NYC, are incredibly unlikely to be requiring government programs to manage to survive (and generally would be above the financial cutoffs for such programs)

 

[DNAJB6]

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.

So 3.80-3.89 or lower is now considered suboptimal for GPA?

 

[DNAJB6]

So 3.80-3.89 or lower is now considered suboptimal for GPA?

That's actually a little disturbing since the vast majority of pre-meds I've met heavily engage in GPA padding, and this practice would only encourage it further. Rather than taking challenging, more intellectually stimulating courses, many pre-meds will opt for easier classes to artificially inflate GPAs. Students that want to take more challenging course work (e.g. hard sciences and engineering) will suffer as a result.

 

[LizzyM]

So 3.80-3.89 or lower is now considered suboptimal for GPA?

Sad but true. It knocks you out of the pinnacle group to a second tier on that metric. I blame USNooze.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Sad but true. It knocks you out of the pinnacle group to a second tier on that metric. I blame USNooze.

I blame the school administrators who are more interested in rankings than spend time trying to review the applications in detail. Their excuse is they get too many applications.

 

[doomer_md]

Meh. I'm fine with how schools use the MCAT as it is and standardized tests in general (except Casper, if that even counts). Regardless of household income it takes some combination of intelligence and work ethic to get a high score and I think that should be rewarded. There's a lot of things in the application process that are unnecessary to being a "good" doctor, like hundreds of hours of cleaning glassware research or cleaning beds clinical volunteering. These extracurriculars which are often unpaid also favors rich applicants because they are less concerned for money, but no one complains about these like they do the MCAT because doing bad on the MCAT hurts the ego much more than not having enough time to volunteer.