What makes one a "superstar" or "top" applicant?

[r2med]

1. MCAT of 520+ and GPA of 3.97+?
2. Curing cancer?
3. Huge donor parents?
4. Heisman level athlete?
5. 2+ pubs?
6. Nontrad medical experience?

Just trying to understand what would each of the experts use as a definition for a superstar / top applicant

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Med Ed]

Experiences (E), Attributes (A), Metrics (M) framework:

1. Longitudinal extracurriculars that mirror whatever the school values (e.g. research, community service, etc.) (E)
2. Gushing rec letters where the authors go into detail (A)
3. Gushing interview evaluations (A)
4. High stats (M)

Many applicants have some of these components, but few have all of them. Sometimes there is an extra oomph factor, like coming from an extremely disadvantaged background, founding an altruistic tech startup, Olympic athlete, Cell paper, etc.

 

[LizzyM]

Experiences (E), Attributes (A), Metrics (M) framework:

1. Longitudinal extracurriculars that mirror whatever the school values (e.g. research, community service, etc.) (E)
2. Gushing rec letters where the authors go into detail (A)
3. Gushing interview evaluations (A)
4. High stats (M)

Many applicants have some of these components, but few have all of them. Sometimes there is an extra oomph factor, like coming from an extremely disadvantaged background, founding an altruistic tech startup, Olympic athlete, Cell paper, etc.

Agree with the above.
With regard to extracurriculars:
I have observed that US military service, particularly in war zones, has been highly valued.
Full-time service work either paid (Teach for America) or covered with a small stipend (various serivice "corps") is highly valued.
Editied to add: Professional athlete or amateur athlete at an elite level

With regard to high stats:
While you can major in anything, some reviewers will give more weight to a high GPA in engineering than in other disciplines (considered a hard major with grade deflation).

 

[r2med]

With regard to high stats:
While you can major in anything, some reviewers will give more weight to a high GPA in engineering than in other disciplines (considered a hard major with grade deflation).

Thank you. Like this, is high GPA from one UG school considered better or worse from GPA from another school?

 

[LizzyM]

Thank you. Like this, is high GPA from one UG school considered better or worse from GPA from another school?

There will be some schools that will take the ranking of the school into account with the top 50 (public or private), next 50, and the rest in tiers. Sometimes, I try to counter that by identifying people who chose to go to Geographic Area State College rather than a big deal liberal arts college or research university because of a free ride. That said, the tier of university chosen can be an indicator of privilege and, as you know, we are trying to let that be less of a factor in admission decisions. You might like to think that the MCAT is the leveler but that is subject to access to study materials and the economic support needed to devote 400 hours to prep. AAMC's Fee Assistance Program (FAP) helps a bit by providing free study materials to eligible students but many students who lack resources are not deemed eligible for FAP.

 

[lacrossegirl420]

@Med Ed : just an applicant here, but from my understanding (1) and (4) are significantly more important than (2) and (3) (as long as they're still good/passable, respectively), is this true?

 

[r2med]

There will be some schools that will take the ranking of the school into account with the top 50 (public or private), next 50, and the rest in tiers. Sometimes, I try to counter that by identifying people who chose to go to Geographic Area State College rather than a big deal liberal arts college or research university because of a free ride. That said, the tier of university chosen can be an indicator of privilege and, as you know, we are trying to let that be less of a factor in admission decisions. You might like to think that the MCAT is the leveler but that is subject to access to study materials and the economic support needed to devote 400 hours to prep. AAMC's Fee Assistance Program (FAP) helps a bit by providing free study materials to eligible students but many students who lack resources are not deemed eligible for FAP.

I really did not know this. I am told an applicant from Ivies is considered better than an applicant with the same stats etc from a mid-tier. I know there is affirmative action stuff, but I am talking about all other things being equal. Are you saying that if you get two applicants - one from an Ivy and another from a mid-tier - you would choose the mid-tier? Or are you talking about applicants from a disadvantaged background?

 

[r2med]

@Med Ed : just an applicant here, but from my understanding (1) and (4) are significantly more important than (2) and (3) (as long as they're still good/passable, respectively), is this true?

Well (3) is pretty much a mute point. Without (1), (4), and (2) - you won't even get to (3). Once you get to that stage, (3) is probably important to clinch the seat.

 

[KnightDoc]

I really did not know this. I am told an applicant from Ivies is considered better than an applicant with the same stats etc from a mid-tier. I know there is affirmative action stuff, but I am talking about all other things being equal. Are you saying that if you get two applicants - one from an Ivy and another from a mid-tier - you would choose the mid-tier? Or are you talking about applicants from a disadvantaged background?

I really shouldn't speak for anyone, let alone @LizzyM , but I am pretty sure what she is saying is that with the push away from elitism and towards inclusion, giving a boost to a T20 UGs would really undermine that overall move. This has nothing to do with affirmative action.

Using her example, why penalize someone who choose a full ride at a state school over being full pay at an Ivy, when the person is exactly same and, presumably, would bring exactly the same qualities to the med school? So, yeah, some of the old timers some people worship on SDN cite to a 2013 AAMC survey showing UG selectivity is a factor of highest importance for private med school admissions, but later surveys indicate it's a factor of lowest importance.

Individual adcoms might be stuck in their ways, so advice given in places like SDN will probably evolve slowly over time, but school policies, as indicated by the survey, indicate where you attend UG is a factor of lowest importance. Believe it or not, I am convinced it's more than a BS PC response to a survey question, and the shift in the composition of med school classes over the past few years indicates the survey is accurate.

That said, in 2021 it's a bad look for med schools to use attendance at elite private UGs as a factor in admissions. It simply goes back to those schools being over represented, especially at top schools, because they have a disproportionate number of stellar candidates, and not because regular people receive a boost by virtue of going there. Aren't you experiencing this first hand??? You go to a pretty good UG, don't you? Do you think it has given you a boost anywhere, given the seemingly stellar quality of the rest of your application????

 

[r2med]

Aren't you experiencing this first hand??? You go to a pretty good UG, don't you? Do you think it has given you a boost anywhere, given the seemingly stellar quality of the rest of your application????

Wish it did!

 

[KnightDoc]

Wish it did!

This is exactly my point. You might not be impressed with where you go, but most people would be, and if Ivies received a boost, you would too!!

 

[deleted1025488]

This is exactly my point. You might not be impressed with where you go, but most people would be, and if Ivies received a boost, you would too!!

For what it's worth, the data provided by our healthcare advisor team (top 10 undergrad) shows that around 60% of ACCEPTED applicants (meaning at least 1 acceptance) with above a 3.75/519 get "3 or more acceptances; at least 1 at a top 15 school." For context, 89% of applicants get at least 1 acceptance That's probably just selection bias but yeah. This data is from 2018, 2019, and 2020. Also the data doesn't include those who got accepted after additional education, e.g. post-bacc or graduate work to possibly salvage a GPA; it does count gap years though.

edit: might as well add that in the same stat bracket, 20% get "1 or 2 acceptances; at least 1 at a top 15 school," 15% get 3 or more acceptances but none at T15 and then the remaining get 1-2 acceptances none at T15. Again this only counts people who got accepted in the first place so it sounds more impressive than it actually is.

 

[Goro]

1. MCAT of 520+ and GPA of 3.97+?
2. Curing cancer?
3. Huge donor parents?
4. Heisman level athlete?
5. 2+ pubs?
6. Nontrad medical experience?

Just trying to understand what would each of the experts use as a definition for a superstar / top applicant

In surveying SDNers who got into Really Top Schools, they had high stats and hundreds, if not even thousands of hours of nonclinical volunteering and/or clinical exposure, plus some research. Public health venues seemed to be a theme with a number of these people, like public health policy or needs of communities without adequate access to health care.

Another thing in common was that they were NOT box checkers; they did what they loved and loved what they did, including learning. Their passion came across even the electrons.

And no, they didn't have to have five first author Cell papers, cure AIDS, win the Nobel Peace Prize of Medal of Honor either.

Where they went to school was all over the place. Plenty went to public universities.

 

[LizzyM]

@Med Ed : just an applicant here, but from my understanding (1) and (4) are significantly more important than (2) and (3) (as long as they're still good/passable, respectively), is this true?

This thread is about superstars, the top 4-5% of the entire applicant pool. They have it all. Ninety percent of those admitted to medical school (18,000/20,000) are not superstars but are good enough to get in.

 

[deleted1080380]

@LizzyM: for example, let's say someone had very high stats (3.95+/522+ or something) and phenomenal EC's (for X top school) + good LORs, but maybe the interview was just meh (but not awful). in that case, wouldn't the "staircase" analogy come into play and they would still be admitted?

Just put in your best, always. A comment like this implies you're going to half-ass your interview or something. Or that you just had a bad day, in which **** happens but there's no point in trying to analyze what will happen, just wait! If your best isn't enough, even after practice and strenuous effort, then maybe you just weren't a right fit. A lot of these comments seem to outline applicants as just sheets of paper, yall gotta remember we are people too....and people have different personalities and values which impact whether you'll get admitted or not...look at what Goro said.

 

[Isomerase]

Wish it did!

It counts as long as you're not WRC or Jones

 

[deleted1063986]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and one person's trash is another person's treasure. Although there are some (somewhat) objective measures (i.e. stats), the rest is up for interpretation. Admissions committees will inevitably have different priorities and rank most candidates differently. Be the best applicant you can be and don't worry about being a "superstar" or whatever.

 

[r2med]

@LizzyM: for example, let's say someone had very high stats (3.95+/522+ or something) and phenomenal EC's (for X top school) + good LORs, but maybe the interview was just meh (but not awful). in that case, wouldn't the "staircase" analogy come into play and they would still be admitted?

Just put in your best, always. A comment like this implies you're going to half-ass your interview or something. Or that you just had a bad day, in which **** happens but there's no point in trying to analyze what will happen, just wait! If your best isn't enough, even after practice and strenuous effort, then maybe you just weren't a right fit. A lot of these comments seem to outline applicants as just sheets of paper, yall gotta remember we are people too....and people have different personalities and values which impact whether you'll get admitted or not...look at what Goro said.

This thread's discussion is about "top" applicant. Not an individual acceptance. Just FYI.

 

[lacrossegirl420]

@r2med : yup i'm also referring to top applicants specifically!

 

[LizzyM]

@LizzyM: for example, let's say someone had very high stats (3.95+/522+ or something) and phenomenal EC's (for X top school) + good LORs, but maybe the interview was just meh (but not awful). in that case, wouldn't the "staircase" analogy come into play and they would still be admitted?

There are always people who look great on paper including metircs, ECs and LORs but who are unimpressive at interview. Some of those folks will get rejected and some will get deep waitlisted. The superstars have all 4 items covered. Not being a superstar at the interview means you aren't a superstar.

 

[Gaius Diocletianus]

Just curious at what threshold do we consider someone a superstar? 4 A's? 10+ II?

 

[deleted1080380]

This thread's discussion is about "top" applicant. Not an individual acceptance. Just FYI.

What are you defining top applicants as? Getting into top schools? A rather significant number of applicants get into those schools with <3.75 and <516 MCATs and zero to minimal research. It's not as formulaic as you make it out to be especially at the higher-end schools. Of course the latter attributes help, significantly, but many have all of them and still get denied.

 

[r2med]

Just curious at what threshold do we consider someone a superstar? 4 A's? 10+ II?

13 IIs and 6 As = superstar

 

[r2med]

What are you defining top applicants as? Getting into top schools? A rather significant number of applicants get into those schools with <3.75 and <516 MCATs and zero to minimal research. It's not as formulaic as you make it out to be especially at the higher-end schools. Of course the latter attributes help, significantly, but many have all of them and still get denied.

This thread is about what do experts define superstars as. Time and again, we have heard of the ~2k superstars in every application cycle. And that's what has been discussed in this thread. We know there is no known formula for getting into any med school - top-tier or otherwise.

 

[Saturday’s Child]

Just curious at what threshold do we consider someone a superstar? 4 A's? 10+ II?

Can’t look at those numbers to determine “superstar” status. Where and to how many schools did that person apply?

Take someone with 11 interview invites and 4 A’s who applied to 40 schools, most of which were in the bottom third of the rankings people commonly refer to. Compare that to someone with 8 interview invites and 3 A’s who applied only to 15 T20 schools. I would definitely not call the first person a superstar based on their 11 II and 4A. The second person would be more likely to earn “superstar” status in my book.

 

[r2med]

The vast majority of my decisions (9) will be coming out between January & March but I think I can confidently say that I did something right on paper to get 16 IIs (including several T20s--the rest are between T20-T60). Hopefully this could provide some insight but very few applicants can replicate my story given the demographic of folks that get to apply and attend medical school.

Stats: 70.5 LM, URM, first-gen & low-income (grew up in a single-parent household)
I grew up with a significant lack of educational opportunity (full-year substitutes in all of my high school STEM classes--not an exaggeration). I managed to get into an Ivy undergrad with the help of college-access focused non-profit organizations that I then volunteered and took leadership positions in as an undergraduate. I then started exploring medicine and fell in love with it while maintaining a passion for education (I look to get involved with Med Ed in the future).

I think to expand upon what has already been said--it helps very much if you have a theme. I checked all of my 'boxes' but they all had a central theme of education that could be traced longitudinally, allowing me to "punch above my weight" when it comes down to stats.

Your story is awesome. Congrats and good luck for the 9.
I guess in addition to the 4 (EC, LOR, Interview, and Stats) - status (URM, First gen, LI etc) and story (personal, accomplishment etc) should also be considered for superstars @Med Ed @LizzyM ?

 

[gyngyn]

The "best" applicant in this year's pool has an MCAT of 517 and a gpa of 3.73 and went to a decent private school.

 

[LizzyM]

The "best" applicant in this year's pool has an MCAT of 517 and a gpa of 3.73 and went to a decent private school.

By this do you mean the person on the top step of the staircase after interviews? In otherwords, there might be applicants with higher GPA/MCAT but when the dust settles after interview and ECs, "the best" in the pool this year is that person described above.

 

[gyngyn]

By this do you mean the person on the top step of the staircase after interviews? In otherwords, there might be applicants with higher GPA/MCAT but when the dust settles after interview and ECs, "the best" in the pool this year is that person described above.

Theirs was the best application and after interview, it was confirmed that they were the best applicant.

 

[Goro]

Your story is awesome. Congrats and good luck for the 9.
I guess in addition to the 4 (EC, LOR, Interview, and Stats) - status (URM, First gen, LI etc) and story (personal, accomplishment etc) should also be considered for superstars @Med Ed @LizzyM ?

The road traveled is another form of EC, and we like underdogs and come from behind stories. This is also not limited to the top candidates either.

If you're looking for something quantifiable about all this, don't bother. This is a human process, because we Adcoms are not merely looking for good medical student, but for people who will make good doctors. No assessment or stat can come up with that yet, except maybe the MMI

 

[r2med]

R

The road traveled is another form of EC, and we like underdogs and come from behind stories. This is also not limited to the top candidates either.

If you're looking for something quantifiable about all this, don't bother. This is a human process, because we Adcoms are not merely looking for good medical student, but for people who will make good doctors. No assessment or stat can come up with that yet, except maybe the MMI

Thanks. Opportunity to come from behind is not for all and is beyond one's control. Definitely if someone has overcome such challenges, they should be treated as superstars. However, some just don't have this opportunity and can't create it either, and they should be measured using different yardstick, right?

 

[Moko]

Thanks. Opportunity to come from behind is not for all and is beyond one's control. Definitely if someone has overcome such challenges, they should be treated as superstars. However, some just don't have this opportunity and can't create it either, and they should be measured using different yardstick, right?

The things some people have had to overcome to get to where they are today.. I would keep my stable middle-class upbringing any day of the week rather than have that "opportunity" to prove myself. You should be very glad if you didn't have this "opportunity" either.

I/we evaluate all applicants using the same yardstick: one that values grades, scores, ECs, character, and diverse life experiences. Just my thoughts

The "best" applicant in this year's pool has an MCAT of 517 and a gpa of 3.73 and went to a decent private school.

Shame, I don't think this person applied to my school.

 

[r2med]

The things some people have had to overcome to get to where they are today.. I would keep my stable middle-class upbringing any day of the week rather than having that "opportunity" to prove myself. You should be very glad if you didn't have this "opportunity" either.

I/we evaluate all applicants using the same yardstick: one that values grades, scores, ECs, character, and diverse life experiences. Just my thoughts

Totallly agree that we need to take our hats off for people who have had to overcome such challenges. Very thankful for my personal situation. Just pointed out that life experiences are different. Apologies if I hurt anyone's feelings

 

[LizzyM]

Yeah, you might not want to wish that you were born to a teen mom, joined the military right out of HS to get out of a town where you had no future, and graduated college at 26 without having taken Biology I and II so that you have to play catch up after you decide on a career in medicine.

 

[r2med]

Yeah, you might not want to wish that you were born to with a teen mom, joined the military right out of HS to get out of a town where you had no future, and graduated college at 26 without having taken Biology I and II so that you have to play catch up after you decide on a career in medicine.

Don't want to wish that not just for myself but for no one. But we know life is not fair for several. Wish them all great luck

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Experiences (E), Attributes (A), Metrics (M) framework:

1. Longitudinal extracurriculars that mirror whatever the school values (e.g. research, community service, etc.) (E)
2. Gushing rec letters where the authors go into detail (A)
3. Gushing interview evaluations (A)
4. High stats (M)

Many applicants have some of these components, but few have all of them. Sometimes there is an extra oomph factor, like coming from an extremely disadvantaged background, founding an altruistic tech startup, Olympic athlete, Cell paper, etc.

Agree with this, but some adcoms says 2 and 3 are rarity and instead they say thousands of volunteering hours, gap years or military experience combined makes one super star.

 

[Med Ed]

Agree with this, but some adcoms says 2 and 3 are rarity and instead they say thousands of volunteering hours, gap years or military experience combined makes one super star.

They are wrong.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

They are wrong.

I agree since my kid meets your categorization and results so far prove that.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

I agree since my kid meets your categorization and results so far prove that.

You know your kid had gushing LOR's and gushing interview evaluations ? How would one know that ?

 

[Goro]

R

Thanks. Opportunity to come from behind is not for all and is beyond one's control. Definitely if someone has overcome such challenges, they should be treated as superstars. However, some just don't have this opportunity and can't create it either, and they should be measured using different yardstick, right?

That goes without saying.

Yeah, you might not want to wish that you were born to with a teen mom, joined the military right out of HS to get out of a town where you had no future, and graduated college at 26 without having taken Biology I and II so that you have to play catch up after you decide on a career in medicine.

Or get kicked out of the house because you came out to your family and then were homeless.

Or had to leave college to go help support your family after a parent died

Or were the victim of a sexual assault while a college student.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

You know your kid had gushing LOR's and gushing interview evaluations ? How would one know that ?

Interviewers from couple of T10s told my kid during the interview and received As despite having low clinical volunteering hours.

 

[jhmmd]

While we could sit here all day comparing top applicants to each other, why not carve out one's own path? What interviewers really are looking for is med students who are unique, fit the mission of their school, get along well with others, etc., but above all UNIQUE. You won't be that student if you sit around putting together a cookie cutter rubric based off of what someone else has done. Pursue what you are interested in and it should fall into place from there.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

While we could sit here all day comparing top applicants to each other, why not carve out one's own path? What interviewers really are looking for is med students who are unique, fit the mission of their school, get along well with others, etc., but above all UNIQUE. You won't be that student if you sit around putting together a cookie cutter rubric based off of what someone else has done. Pursue what you are interested in and it should fall into place from there.

True, but everyone including adcoms love to come up with definitions of superstar

 

[Moko]

While we could sit here all day comparing top applicants to each other, why not carve out one's own path? What interviewers really are looking for is med students who are unique, fit the mission of their school, get along well with others, etc., but above all UNIQUE. You won't be that student if you sit around putting together a cookie cutter rubric based off of what someone else has done. Pursue what you are interested in and it should fall into place from there.

I get the sentiment, but to be honest... after reviewing and deliberating on hundreds upon hundreds of applications each cycle, almost everyone blends in together, and nothing is truly unique in a positive way. Personally, I cannot recall any particular achievement that I would categorize as "unique".. Memorable, sure, but even then, I honestly can't tell you which of our applicants were the Rhodes or Fulbright scholars, former sport stars, or who set up a major national non-profit, led a symposium at a well-known international organization, or had a major authorship in a very high impact factor journal. These things all blend in together, have been done many times before, and do not automatically propel an applicant to the top.

"Superstars" by definition are impressive, but the vast majority of these applications are not unique. What they do have though is a consistent pattern of excellence, a good personality, a strong cohesive narrative, a breadth and depth of experiences that demonstrate their passion for *something*, and their ability to convey why these experiences will make them an excellent student, resident, and eventual colleague. Superstars just happen to do these things better than everyone else, and in doing so, create a memorable application despite each individual component not necessarily being that memorable.

So for those applying in the future: do pursue your passions, but don't fall into the mindset of needing to be "unique". The applicants who I remember as "unique" invariably are remembered for the wrong reasons. Just my humble thoughts.

 

[jhmmd]

I get the sentiment, but to be honest... after reviewing and deliberating on hundreds upon hundreds of applications each cycle, almost everyone blends in together, and nothing is truly unique in a positive way. Personally, I cannot recall any particular achievement that I would categorize as "unique".. Memorable, sure, but even then, I honestly can't tell you which of our applicants were the Rhodes or Fulbright scholars, former sport stars, or who set up a major national non-profit, led a symposium at a well-known international organization, or had a major authorship in a very high impact factor journal. These things all blend in together, have been done many times before, and do not automatically propel an applicant to the top.

"Superstars" by definition are impressive, but the vast majority of these applications are not unique. What they do have though is a consistent pattern of excellence, a good personality, a strong cohesive narrative, a breadth and depth of experiences that demonstrate their passion for *something*, and their ability to convey why these experiences will make them an excellent student, resident, and eventual colleague. Superstars just happen to do these things better than everyone else, and in doing so, create a memorable application despite each individual component not necessarily being that memorable.

So for those applying in the future: do pursue your passions, but don't fall into the mindset of needing to be "unique". The applicants who I remember as "unique" invariably are remembered for the wrong reasons. Just my humble thoughts.

Huh I guess YMMV

 

[jhmmd]

True, but everyone including adcoms love to come up with definitions of superstar

...While they should be working on their apps!

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

...While they should be working on their apps!

Even adcoms need breaks and this must be their break activity

 

[jhmmd]

Even adcoms need breaks and this must be their break activity

Are you on an adcom, @EdgeTrimmer ?

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Are you on an adcom, @EdgeTrimmer ?

No, edge trimming parent who uses free time on SDN

 

[jhmmd]

No, edge trimming parent who uses free time on SDN

Ah, I see. It all becomes clear!