What makes a competitive applicant?

Get Your Med School Admissions Questions Answered!
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swaggDoc

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Title says it.
Members don't see this ad.
 
3 strong letters of recommendation from professors that have known you for years, amazing personal statement about the hardships you suffered, 1000 hours of shadowing with doctors from every specialty, 5000 hours of volunteer work (medical and nonmedical), president for 2 years of a club that does community service, 2 poster presentations, 3 publications in nature and science, 4 summers in africa working in a clinic for people with aids, 4.0 cumulative gpa, 4.0 science gpa, 45T
 
One that knows how to use the search function on sdn as this question and the like have been asked numerous times before. Lol just playing but it really has been asked a ton of times..
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You see swaggDoc, when a man and a women love each other very much...
 
4.0cGPA/sGPA. 45T. Cured Cancer AND AIDS with the SAME DRUG. Nobel prize, and a couple pubs should get you close
 
If you have money you will be competetive in Carribean Schools.
 
Sell your soul to the game.
 
having the common sense to use the SEARCH function
 
GPA + MCAT to get your app into the hands of a person then ECs (aka volunteering, working, research, tutoring) to seal the deal.

Only a difference of degree separates most pre-meds (eg 3.3/29 vs 3.6/32). The few exceptional stories are such outliers they shouldn't be considered by the vast majority of people.
 
kpcrew2oo2 said:
3 strong letters of recommendation from professors that have known you for years, amazing personal statement about the hardships you suffered, 1000 hours of shadowing with doctors from every specialty, 5000 hours of volunteer work (medical and nonmedical), president for 2 years of a club that does community service, 2 poster presentations, 3 publications in nature and science, 4 summers in africa working in a clinic for people with aids, 4.0 cumulative gpa, 4.0 science gpa, 45T
Click to expand...

This lol. :D
 
If you're from a non-tier 1 or 1.5 school, I'd argue that a GPA above 3.8, a MCAT score above 40, amazing LORs, the required 60 hours of shadowing/150 hours of clinical experience, and baller ECs will ensure admission into a top school.

If you're from a tier 1 (HYPMS) or 1.5 school, you'd probably get in with a 3.6 and a MCAT above 36 but you'd still need great LORs, clinical experience/shadowing, and ECs.
 
Last edited:
This thread will inevitably be locked, but let's say one was to take this question seriously. This whole forum is obsessed with your question. Truth is, be aware of the basics (strong grades, test scores, EC, recs, etc), but really just be true to yourself. Don't just do things to make yourself "competitive." You will be a much more cohesive applicant if you do things that interest you and fit who you are. Choose a major you enjoy and do well in it. Find a MCAT study strategy that works for you and follow through with it. There is a 3 month study strategy that is posted on this forum. I would NEVER attempt it. It is far too involved for me...I do not study like that. I used my own method and did very well. For EC, choose things you are passionate about. Don't work at a soup kitchen every week if that bores you. You get the point.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Not that I am even close in statistics to a lot of people on SDN, but I believe my application cycle has been pretty successful (by my standards). I think the main thing that really helped me stand out from the huge number of applicants with my stats is the result of taking a year off and teaching at a bilingual school in Central America. I have other good activities, but I do not doubt that my time in Central America got me the interviews to Mayo and possibly Duke.

Doing something meaningful for a year or two after college is great for an application, whether it is teaching in Central America, working a full-time job, or performing research.
 
varsityblue said:
If you're from a non-tier 1 or 1.5 school, I'd argue that a GPA above 3.8, a MCAT score above 40, amazing LORs, the required 60 hours of shadowing/150 hours of clinical experience, and baller EC's will ensure admission into HMS.

If you're from a tier 1 (HYPMS) or 1.5 school, you'd probably get in with a 3.6 and a MCAT above 36 but you'd still need great LORs, clinical experience/shadowing, and ECs.
Click to expand...
So much of this is wrong.
 
gettheleadout said:
So much of this is wrong.
Click to expand...

A part of having baller ECs includes doing research of some kind as well as doing 2-3 activities that makes one stand out, obviously. If someone is packaging themselves as "dedicated to reducing disparities in global health," they better have a few internships abroad under their belt by the time they apply to medical school. Similarly, if another person is packaging themselves as "a future physician-scientist in X field" then they should have a few publications or at least hypothesis testing done. I've said it before and I'll say it again: examining these boards+MDApps has made me realize that medical school admissions are a more meritocratic version of college admissions in that if you do everything right, you'll get rewarded with the best white coat in the room.
 
Last edited:
ZsaZsaM said:
This thread will inevitably be locked, but let's say one was to take this question seriously. This whole forum is obsessed with your question. Truth is, be aware of the basics (strong grades, test scores, EC, recs, etc), but really just be true to yourself. Don't just do things to make yourself "competitive." You will be a much more cohesive applicant if you do things that interest you and fit who you are. Choose a major you enjoy and do well in it. Find a MCAT study strategy that works for you and follow through with it. There is a 3 month study strategy that is posted on this forum. I would NEVER attempt it. It is far too involved for me...I do not study like that. I used my own method and did very well. For EC, choose things you are passionate about. Don't work at a soup kitchen every week if that bores you. You get the point.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I did what I enjoyed and got in. Do you think it might hurt applicants when they do so many activities to fill up section on the AMCAS, that it would be obvious to ADCOMs that the applicant is full of ****? It may show through the descriptions and at interview that the applicant did not do activities out of genuine interest.
 
varsityblue said:
A part of having baller ECs includes doing research of some kind as well as doing 2-3 activities that makes one stand out, obviously. If someone is packaging themselves as "dedicated to reducing disparities in global health," they better have a few internships abroad under their belt by the time they apply to medical school. Similarly, if another person is packaging themselves as "a future physician-scientist in X field" then they should have a few publications or at least hypothesis testing done. I've said it before and I'll say it again: examining these boards+MDApps has made me realize that medical school admissions are a more meritocratic version of college admissions in that if you do everything right, you'll get rewarded with the best white coat in the room.
Click to expand...

No. It's mostly a crap shoot.
 
kpcrew2oo2 said:
3 strong letters of recommendation from professors that have known you for years, amazing personal statement about the hardships you suffered, 1000 hours of shadowing with doctors from every specialty, 5000 hours of volunteer work (medical and nonmedical), president for 2 years of a club that does community service, 2 poster presentations, 3 publications in nature and science, 4 summers in africa working in a clinic for people with aids, 4.0 cumulative gpa, 4.0 science gpa, 45T
Click to expand...

:lock:
 
NickNaylor said:
It's only a crapshoot in that you don't see a lot of what happens behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I'm not really sold. There are so many variables that come into play for each applicant that it seems impossible to ever predict how an application is going to be received. A solid rubric has to be impossible. Some decisions seem earned, while other decisions seem completely from left field (good and bad). Don't get my wrong; I'm not bitter about the crap shoot nature. It absolutely helped my application. But, at the end of the day, these are decisions made by people... and people are rarely logical beings... whether it's intentional or not.
 
Ebola4Breakfast said:
Maybe. I'm not really sold. There are so many variables that come into play for each applicant that it seems impossible to ever predict how an application is going to be received. A solid rubric has to be impossible. Some decisions seem earned, while other decisions seem completely from left field (good and bad). Don't get my wrong; I'm not bitter about the crap shoot nature. It absolutely helped my application. But, at the end of the day, these are decisions made by people... and people are rarely logical beings... whether it's intentional or not.
Click to expand...

:confused: People are logical beings all the time. You would find most research impossible if we were incapable of being logical.

Just because it's difficult to predict your success does not mean that it is a crapshoot. We're not privy to the discussions that go on behind closed doors, so to us decisions may seem arbitrary or random. But this is not necessarily the case. It may be that we don't know what they value, and how they compare various attributes. We makes guesses ("they like research", "they like leadership", "high MCAT> low MCAT") that probably have some truth behind them. But each school is free to decide what they consider most important, and how they hope to see this represented in their students. That doesn't necessarily make it random or a crapshoot, as a very real system of preferences and weights could be used to decide these sorts of things.

Saying it is a crapshoot is a cop-out that makes us feel better when we don't succeed because it takes the responsibility out of our hands. Some dude that has an awesome application that then proceeds to arrogantly sleepwalk through every interview might walk away and explain his subsequent rejections as a result of the random, crapshoot nature of this process...he does this instead of looking at what he did that was wrong or acknowledging that there are other applicants that simply had better things to offer (i.e. not being an arrogant prick).
 
Narmerguy said:
:confused: People are logical beings all the time. You would find most research impossible if we were incapable of being logical.

Just because it's difficult to predict your success does not mean that it is a crapshoot. We're not privy to the discussions that go on behind closed doors, so to us decisions may seem arbitrary or random. But this is not necessarily the case. It may be that we don't know what they value, and how they compare various attributes. We makes guesses ("they like research", "they like leadership", "high MCAT> low MCAT") that probably have some truth behind them. But each school is free to decide what they consider most important, and how they hope to see this represented in their students. That doesn't necessarily make it random or a crapshoot, as a very real system of preferences and weights could be used to decide these sorts of things.

Saying it is a crapshoot is a cop-out that makes us feel better when we don't succeed because it takes the responsibility out of our hands. Some dude that has an awesome application that then proceeds to arrogantly sleepwalk through every interview might walk away and explain his subsequent rejections as a result of the random, crapshoot nature of this process...he does this instead of looking at what he did that was wrong or acknowledging that there are other applicants that simply had better things to offer (i.e. not being an arrogant prick).
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should be more specific: interaction dynamics between people are not always based on logic. You either like someone or your don't. Chalk it up to whatever you like. But, in the context of an interview, it has the potential to shape everything downstream, including the admissions decision. It's the same for any kind of interview, not just medical school interviews. For better or worse it is what it is. I'm sure just as many good outcomes occur as bad outcomes. That's kind of the definition of a crap shoot, not what you're describing. That's not to say that it is ENTIRELY a crap shoot, because that isn't what I said. I still think there is a lot of sheer dumb luck in the whole process.
 
Ebola4Breakfast said:
Perhaps I should be more specific: interaction dynamics between people are not always based on logic. You either like someone or your don't. Chalk it up to whatever you like. But, in the context of an interview, it has the potential to shape everything downstream, including the admissions decision. It's the same for any kind of interview, not just medical school interviews. For better or worse it is what it is. I'm sure just as many good outcomes occur as bad outcomes. That's kind of the definition of a crap shoot, not what you're describing. That's not to say that it is ENTIRELY a crap shoot, because that isn't what I said. I still think there is a lot of sheer dumb luck in the whole process.
Click to expand...

Luck is when 99% of your preparation meets 1% of opportunity. Ebola, you were a VERY uncompetitive applicant by SDN standards and barely got in a state school for med school. You clearly don't understand the behaviors and characteristics that lead to admission at the TOP med schools and are thus unqualified to state that admission is a "crapshoot." If a person is qualified, they're going to be admitted to a school.
 
for an average applicant, though, it certainly is a crap shoot. all schools have different missions, and it is impossible to fit into each one as an average applicant. if you don't fit the school's mission, it's game over.

it's not that you won't get accepted if you have good stats, but it is just really hard to predict where.
 
ReptarBar said:
for an average applicant, though, it certainly is a crap shoot. all schools have different missions, and it is impossible to fit into each one as an average applicant. if you don't fit the school's mission, it's game over.

it's not that you won't get accepted if you have good stats, but it is just really hard to predict where.
Click to expand...

This thread is directed at those who wish to be competitive applicants at the very best schools.
 
varsityblue said:
People who say admissions are a crap shoot are uncompetitive applicants themselves. OP, there are active steps you can take to ensure a brighter future for yourself from day 1.
Click to expand...

Remind me again of how many medical school acceptances that you have as of right now? Just a tip, but you might want to keep your unearned arrogance to a minimum before you prove yourself.
 
varsityblue said:
A part of having baller ECs includes doing research of some kind as well as doing 2-3 activities that makes one stand out, obviously. If someone is packaging themselves as "dedicated to reducing disparities in global health," they better have a few internships abroad under their belt by the time they apply to medical school. Similarly, if another person is packaging themselves as "a future physician-scientist in X field" then they should have a few publications or at least hypothesis testing done. I've said it before and I'll say it again: examining these boards+MDApps has made me realize that medical school admissions are a more meritocratic version of college admissions in that if you do everything right, you'll get rewarded with the best white coat in the room.
Click to expand...
This doesn't even begin to address all of the problems in your previous post.

Edit: And to be specific, that includes the significance and definition of "tiers" of undergrad with regard to medical admissions, the extreme arbitrariness of the GPA, MCAT, and shadowing/clinical experience hour amounts you've specified, the "required" nature of such hour amounts, and the idea that anything will ensure admission to any specific school.
 
Last edited:
varsityblue said:
Luck is when 99% of your preparation meets 1% of opportunity. Ebola, you were a VERY uncompetitive applicant by SDN standards and barely got in a state school for med school. You clearly don't understand the behaviors and characteristics that lead to admission at the TOP med schools and are thus unqualified to state that admission is a "crapshoot." If a person is qualified, they're going to be admitted to a school.
Click to expand...

:laugh: You mad, brah?
 
Last edited:
varsityblue said:
Luck is when 99% of your preparation meets 1% of opportunity. Ebola, you were a VERY uncompetitive applicant by SDN standards and barely got in a state school for med school. You clearly don't understand the behaviors and characteristics that lead to admission at the TOP med schools and are thus unqualified to state that admission is a "crapshoot." If a person is qualified, they're going to be admitted to a school.
Click to expand...


lol this is coming from some 19 year old "future dermatologist" that has yet to apply and hasn't even taken the MCAT as far as we know.
 
gettheleadout said:
Oh no it's okay, he/she apparently got into "17 of the top 20" undergrads in the U.S., despite not attending any of them.
Click to expand...

Having read her posts in many different threads, I am more and more certain that she is a troll because the only other option is that she has no idea how the real world works and lives in a fantasy world up on the high horse.. and no one can be that naive, ignorant and arrogant.
 
StoicJosher said:
Having read her posts in many different threads, I am more and more certain that she is a troll because the only other option is that she has no idea how the real world works and lives in a fantasy world up on the high horse.. and no one can be that naive, ignorant and arrogant.
Click to expand...

I just hope people realize this before following her "advice."
 
if you got into 17 out of 20 top schools, then you certainly would have gotten a fat scholarship to at least one of them. she is clearly set to leave canada for med school, so what stopped her from going to college here?
 
I would guess being a competitive applicant would be having better stats than the average matriculant lol
 
DrCaliBoy said:
I would guess being a competitive applicant would be having better stats than the average matriculant lol
Click to expand...

We have a winner.

To answer this question, we need a definition of success as well: is it a top 20 acceptance, a top 10 acceptance, a top 5 acceptance, or multiple acceptances, scholarships, ect.? Each person's view is different, changing the answer.
 
varsityblue said:
Luck is when 99% of your preparation meets 1% of opportunity. Ebola, you were a VERY uncompetitive applicant by SDN standards and barely got in a state school for med school. You clearly don't understand the behaviors and characteristics that lead to admission at the TOP med schools and are thus unqualified to state that admission is a "crapshoot." If a person is qualified, they're going to be admitted to a school.
Click to expand...

I know quite a few people who were "qualified" but had no acceptances. One friend went to a lower-level first tier school. He had a 37 MCAT and around a 3.9 GPA. Plenty of research ans typical volunteering. He acted as if he was God's gift to the adcoms. He applied to a few top schools. Rejected from all and was grateful to get into his one backup that had no intention of attending. He actually wanted to contact Feinberg to demand the reasons why rejected. He was more than qualified by SDN standards.

I know someone else with similar stats whp was rejected from many schools. Reasons unknown. She gave up and is doing fulltime research.

As for my first example, what he did not realize was many more students have the same stats and activities or better. Plenty from better undergraduate schools too. I wished I had stats like him initially, but got in better school. Yes, it is a crapshoot.
 
he is not qualified enough for a guarantee. your friend is simply crazy. as said, if you have great stats, you will definitely get into a top school, but you can never predict which ones. if he had 1-2 publications and a 40+ mcat, then yes, i think he would have been OK.
 
raltima07 said:
We have a winner.

To answer this question, we need a definition of success as well: is it a top 20 acceptance, a top 10 acceptance, a top 5 acceptance, or multiple acceptances, scholarships, ect.? Each person's view is different, changing the answer.
Click to expand...

Success = getting into medical school and becoming a doctor.

Varsityblue = biggest tool on SDN since "once"

I have no freaking idea why I am on SDN on my phone while being piss drunk on New Years eve on my phone while multiple good looking ladies around?!?!?!
 
^ I was wondering the same thing, and I'm i Hawaii no less.

Also, success is relative. I agree that becoming a doctor is one end goal, but some people have specific aspirations such as researching X or creating an impact on health in some underprivileged place that shift the criteria. Admissions officers understand this and will also change the criteria by which they judge applicants based on this.
 
gettheleadout said:
Oh no it's okay, he/she apparently got into "17 of the top 20" undergrads in the U.S., despite not attending any of them.
Click to expand...

Calm down, buddy. It would have been easier for me to get involved had I matriculated as a freshman instead of as a transfer at any top school. I repeat: I'm happy with my college choice.
 
Last edited:
varsityblue said:
Ebola, the quality of my ECs and current GPA creams yours in the f-ing face. My MCAT score will likely brutally rape yours. No need to get jealous because you're headed to f-ing Bama as a non-trad.

At least I'm an attractive tool, you proles. :mad:
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha. I'd rather have Ebola as a doctor than you. I hope you get banned, you suck! :thumbdown:
 
varsityblue said:
Ebola, the quality of my ECs and current GPA creams yours in the f-ing face. My MCAT score will likely brutally rape yours. No need to get jealous because you're headed to f-ing Bama as a non-trad.

At least I'm an attractive tool, you proles. :mad:
Click to expand...

I dislike you. Very much. More than gingers dislike the sun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

R
What % of applicants are considered “competitive”
Replies
5
Views
2K
LizzyM
LizzyM
T
What gpa would you say makes a URM competitive for Texas MD and top 25 schools ?
Replies
16
Views
2K
TxMed55
T
T
Noob Qs: what makes a match list insane/ok?
Replies
4
Views
529
Med Ed
Med Ed
L
  • Locked
What is a competitive amount of hours (working with patients) to apply to med schools?
Replies
1
Views
574
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
D
Are there "tiers" to clinical experience? What makes clinical experience "strong"?
Replies
15
Views
1K
LindaAccepted
LindaAccepted
Top