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

[EdgeTrimmer]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ah, I see. It all becomes clear! 😎

what about you?

 

[jhmmd]

what about you?

just another edge trimming 'rent on SDN

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

just another edge trimming 'rent on SDN

Now you are a marked man/woman 😎

 

[jhmmd]

Now you are a marked man/woman 😎

Nah
I am a girl btw

 

[Goro]

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.

The bad interviewees we certainly remember, right Moko??

 

[DNAJB6]

The bad interviewees we certainly remember, right Moko??

@Goro @Moko

Please share. I hate to admit it, but I love adcom gossip.😆

 

[Goro]

@Goro @Moko

Please share. I hate to admit it, but I love adcom gossip.😆

Note: we do a group interview format
Me (to candidate A; Asks question):

Hyperacheiver B (with 4.0 GPA and high MCAT score): Oh, can I answer that???

Me: You'll get your turn.

My student interviewer: (To B): Describe yourself in three words only.

B: [dead silence]


Another interview:
Me: What does this activity (of yours) have to do with Medicine [activity had nothing to do with Medicine, but I was looking for the candidate to BS something].

C: [dead silence for a long time] I don't know.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I'm just another applicant so I don't claim to have any special insight, but I am really happy with how my cycle has gone so far, so maybe this will help a future applicant. I've received 20 II's, 13 of which are T20 schools according to UNSWR research list. Out of those, I've gotten 8 A's so far and otherwise waiting for them to tell me closer to March (a lot of the schools I interviewed at aren't rolling).

I think that I've received this many interviews because I have very strong stats, I have an activity on my app that is a recognizable award, and my app has a pretty strong narrative and it's clear (imo) that I'm really passionate about a specific cause/area of medicine and have demonstrated leadership and exploration of that field. I think that part's especially helpful for the schools that want to educate "future leaders of the field," etc. I think I'm also a strong writer and I put SO much time and effort into my application. Also, I think I would have gotten into med school if I'd gone straight through but taking a gap year probably made me much more competitive. But my app definitely isn't perfect, I had to report an IA (not academic-related at all) and I have an abstract but no publications. Also for what it's worth I have had a lot of opportunities in my life and am not underrepresented or disadvantaged at all. Anyways, I think the best thing I ever did for my application was not worry about what all the other premeds were doing and follow my own interests and passions even if they weren't totally medicine-focused because it really allowed me to carve out a unique narrative and more importantly helped me realize what kind of impact i want to make as a doctor! Hope this helps someone 🙂

What did you do during gap year?

 

[efle]

Here's the secret recipe:

1) have very high numbers, usually earned at a well-known feeder college
2) convincing evidence of interest in research/academia
3) come across as a normal person on paper and at interviews

Everything else comes way after that, at least at schools like mine. There are some big name programs that pay more attention to other areas like social justice (e.g. UCSF and UCLA). And there are always the wildcard students with amazing life stories or prior careers (e.g. I have classmates whose family fled warzone as refugees, multiple people that earned PhDs before med school, multiple people who worked wall street finance or the big consulting groups). But for the typical person, the ticket is to have great stats and research.

GPA interpretation is my personal soapbox so here's my rambling thoughts there:

Spoiler: does your school matter?

There's been several threads on SDN in recent years looking at data from different big-name schools that consistently show a huge skew. I think it's multifactorial: high achievers who will crush the MCAT and college coursework probably also crushed the SAT and AP coursework; research experiences are more plentiful and accessible; hundreds of students applying to med school every year means the premed committee/advising office is experienced and runs like a well oiled machine.

Plus, logically, one should be more impressed by straight A's when those grades are earned in a tough, deflating field like engineering or a tough, deflating college. A curved calculus test is going to be a very different experience at the local U of State satellite campus versus an Ivy League full of national merit kids. Regarding the surveys that previously showed private schools emphasizing selective undergrads, I think people misunderstand why it disappeared from the chart. It's not that dozens of admissions offices and faculty flipped a switch overnight and stopped caring. It's that in the old surveys the divergence between private school preference and public school lack of preference reached significance and was thus reported as two separate bullet points. Now, it no longer reaches significance and is no longer reported as two bullets. Everyone here knows enough stats to know that's not the same thing as the preference ceasing to exist. Maybe in 20 years it really will be gone, but for the moment, you're still better off with a 3.9 from Berkeley than CalState Fresno.

Regarding scholarships/aid: Sometimes people talk about financially needy kids being forced to attend U of State on aid instead of "top 20" at sticker price, but that's not how it works. The need-based aid from the top ranking schools is fantastic and considerably more generous. Most have even signed pledges to meet all demonstrated need. If someone has to take a merit scholarship instead of attending an Ivy, for example, it's not because they were low income, it's because they were high-income and their parents weren't willing to foot the bill. Favoring the Ivy isn't such an injustice in that light.

 

[KnightDoc]

GPA interpretation is my personal soapbox so here's my rambling thoughts there:

Regarding the surveys that previously showed private schools emphasizing selective undergrads, I think people misunderstand why it disappeared from the chart. It's not that dozens of admissions offices and faculty flipped a switch overnight and stopped caring. It's that in the old surveys the divergence between private school preference and public school lack of preference reached significance and was thus reported as two separate bullet points. Now, it no longer reaches significance and is no longer reported as two bullets. Everyone here knows enough stats to know that's not the same thing as the preference ceasing to exist. Maybe in 20 years it really will be gone, but for the moment, you're still better off with a 3.9 from Berkeley than CalState Fresno.

Regarding scholarships/aid: Sometimes people talk about financially needy kids being forced to attend U of State on aid instead of "top 20" at sticker price, but that's not how it works. The need-based aid from the top ranking schools is fantastic and considerably more generous. Most have even signed pledges to meet all demonstrated need. If someone has to take a merit scholarship instead of attending an Ivy, for example, it's not because they were low income, it's because they were high-income and their parents weren't willing to foot the bill. Favoring the Ivy isn't such an injustice in that light.

In general I am a huge fan of yours, but in this case I'd like to address a few of your rambling thoughts.

Your observation regarding statistics is spot on, but it misses the point. The point is not merely that the divergence disappeared. It's that the survey now reports UG selectivity is of lowest importance for both public and private. That literally means the preference ceases to exist, unless you are saying a factor being of lowest importance, in the exact same category as a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, still constitutes a meaningful preference.

With respect to your point regarding scholarships and Ivy schools, again, your point is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the larger point, which has nothing to do with lower income students receiving generous packages from Ivies. Plenty of middle/upper middle income families simply don't have an extra $300K+ burning a hole in their pocket even though they are ineligible for need based aid. Some can easily afford to be full pay, but don't see the value in a name brand UG degree when they still have grad school to pay for.

The point isn't med schools solving for injustice. It's them recognizing that many superlative candidates who would have attended an Ivy in years past are now opting for generous scholarships at lower tier schools. The candidates are exactly the same in many cases as their Ivy peers, and med schools recognize this. As a result, the bias towards highly selective UGs has diminished over time to the point that today, it is ranked as important as UG major! It has nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with a recognition of the fact that while awesome candidates are disproportionately found at top schools, there is a critical mass of them spread among all tiers of UGs, and the med schools want to identify and enroll them, wherever they happen to attend UG.

 

[jhmmd]

In general I am a huge fan of yours, but in this case I'd like to address a few of your rambling thoughts.

Your observation regarding statistics is spot on, but it misses the point. The point is not merely that the divergence disappeared. It's that the survey now reports UG selectivity is of lowest importance for both public and private. That literally means the preference ceases to exist, unless you are saying a factor being of lowest importance, in the exact same category as a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, still constitutes a meaningful preference.

With respect to your point regarding scholarships and Ivy schools, again, your point is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the larger point, which has nothing to do with lower income students receiving generous packages from Ivies. Plenty of middle/upper middle income families simply don't have an extra $300K+ burning a hole in their pocket even though they are ineligible for need based aid. Some can easily afford to be full pay, but don't see the value in a name brand degree when they still have grad school to pay for.

The point isn't med schools solving for injustice. It's them recognizing that many superlative candidates who would have attended an Ivy in years past are now opting for generous scholarships at lower tier schools. The candidates are exactly the same in many cases as their Ivy peers, and med schools recognize this. As a result, the bias towards highly selective UGs has diminished over time to the point that today, it is ranked as important as UG major! It has nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with a recognition of the fact that while awesome candidates are disproportionately found at top schools, there is a critical mass of them spread among all tiers of UGs, and the med schools want to identify and enroll them.

1. Do you have any evidence for this point?
2. Attrition of "top candidates" at upper tier schools for lower tier schools is nothing new. Offer them a generous scholarship and there you go. It is hardly earth shattering news.
3. I didn't think that efle's post was "rambling." It seemed quite on point. But to each his own.

 

[KnightDoc]

1. Do you have any evidence for this point?
2. Attrition of "top candidates" at upper tier schools for lower tier schools is nothing new. Offer them a generous scholarship and there you go. It is hardly earth shattering news.
3. I didn't think that efle's post was "rambling." It seemed quite on point. But to each his own.

1. Yes. Look up the 2015 AAMC survey on the use and importance of data in admissions decision-making.

2. Nobody said it was earth shattering. All I, and admission statistics from across the country, am suggesting is that these students are not less desirable to med schools because they don't attend T10 or T20 UGs. Whatever bias toward prestigious UGs existed in years past, when top tier students turning down Ivies for state schools was less of a thing, no longer exists, at least according to the survey and admissions data from the schools.

People who think otherwise confuse cause and effect. Yes, top UGs are disproportionately represented in med school admissions, particularly at top schools. This is because they have a ton of great candidates. Not because merely okay candidates who happen to go there receive a boost by virtue of doing so.

I personally know PLENTY of people over the past few years who turned down T10 and T20 UGs due to money or location, and they have done very well in med school admissions. The so-called "holistic" process identifies them as the superstars they are, even though they don't have UG degrees from HYPSM, because the very qualities that made them attractive to prestigious UGs also make them attractive to med schools, even absent the pedigree of having attended the prestigious UG.

3. I didn't say he was rambling; he did! 😎

 

[Moko]

@Goro @Moko

Please share. I hate to admit it, but I love adcom gossip.😆

There are some applicants whose application and interviews are so horrifyingly bad that the committee's consensus is that those students should never be accepted to any medical school. Think 'sociopath' and 'unhinged'. Fortunately it is very rare to see these types of applications that fall so many standard deviations below the mean, but when they come, they are memorable. I can't divulge any details though as I don't kiss and tell 😉 . I also rather enjoy living and not being stalked.

 

[efle]

In general I am a huge fan of yours, but in this case I'd like to address a few of your rambling thoughts.

Your observation regarding statistics is spot on, but it misses the point. The point is not merely that the divergence disappeared. It's that the survey now reports UG selectivity is of lowest importance for both public and private. That literally means the preference ceases to exist, unless you are saying a factor being of lowest importance, in the exact same category as a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, still constitutes a meaningful preference.

With respect to your point regarding scholarships and Ivy schools, again, your point is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the larger point, which has nothing to do with lower income students receiving generous packages from Ivies. Plenty of middle/upper middle income families simply don't have an extra $300K+ burning a hole in their pocket even though they are ineligible for need based aid. Some can easily afford to be full pay, but don't see the value in a name brand degree when they still have grad school to pay for.

The point isn't med schools solving for injustice. It's them recognizing that many superlative candidates who would have attended an Ivy in years past are now opting for generous scholarships at lower tier schools. The candidates are exactly the same in many cases as their Ivy peers, and med schools recognize this. As a result, the bias towards highly selective UGs has diminished over time to the point that today, it is ranked as important as UG major! It has nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with a recognition of the fact that while awesome candidates are disproportionately found at top schools, there is a critical mass of them spread among all tiers of UGs, and the med schools want to identify and enroll them.

Take this as an example. Two groups of 50 are surveyed about how they value something on a 5 point scale, and they report averages of 1.5 and 3.2, respectively. This significantly differs, and so they are reported as one group with low valuation (<2.5) and one group with high valuation (>3.0)

The next year, the same two groups are surveyed and this time the averages come out 1.5 and 3.0. Due to the poor power, this narrowly misses significance. The two are reported as a single entry at a total average of 2.25, and placed in low valuation (<2.5).

That is what I think is most likely happening.

Regarding scholarships, I have to disagree just from my own personal experience. I was from California and got into Berkeley and UCLA, but couldn't attend, because they offered terrible need aid packages. Meanwhile the private t20s offered me full tuition. If a multi-billion endowed university that has pledged full need aid tells you it will be $300k to attend, it's because your parents do have that much. It may not be because they have high salary - maybe they're just very financially responsible on a typical white collar career or dual incomes - but they must have it in some asset or investment that they could liquidate for your education or the school wouldn't ask.

Do some big fish go to small ponds because they, or their parents, value the cash more? Yes.
Are they still big fish? Yes.
Could they be just as big as the fish in the lake? Yes.
But, is the title of Biggest in the Pond equivalent to Biggest in the Lake? Not really, since even the median fish in the lake is a bigass fish. And if that led the pickiest fishermen to primarily fish from the lake instead of local ponds, I'd call that pretty rational on their part.

Thankfully we have the MCAT as a sort of county fair to measure everyone's biggest catch. Reasonably sized fish who got their ass kicked in the lake can still impress enough that way, and a freak of nature from the local pond will still win best catch if they deserve it. I know two different people in just my year who went to satellite state campuses but scored perfect MCATs. If they saved $300k and still had their pick of med schools, they're the real winners.

 

[efle]

1. Do you have any evidence for this point?
2. Attrition of "top candidates" at upper tier schools for lower tier schools is nothing new. Offer them a generous scholarship and there you go. It is hardly earth shattering news.
3. I didn't think that efle's post was "rambling." It seemed quite on point. But to each his own.

Haha I called myself rambling, thank you for disagreeing. And getting my tag right!

 

[KnightDoc]

Take this as an example. Two groups of 50 are surveyed about how they value something on a 5 point scale, and they report averages of 1.5 and 3.2, respectively. This significantly differs, and so they are reported as one group with low valuation (<2.5) and one group with high valuation (>3.0)

The next year, the same two groups are surveyed and this time the averages come out 1.5 and 3.0. Due to the poor power, this narrowly misses significance. The two are reported as a single entry at a total average of 2.25, and placed in low valuation (<2.5).

That is what I think is most likely happening.

Regarding scholarships, I have to disagree just from my own personal experience. I was from California and got into Berkeley and UCLA, but couldn't attend, because they offered terrible need aid packages. Meanwhile the private t20s offered me full tuition. If a multi-billion endowed university that has pledged full need aid tells you it will be $300k to attend, it's because your parents do have that much. It may not be because they have high salary - maybe they're just very financially responsible on a typical white collar career or dual incomes - but they must have it in some asset or investment that they could liquidate for your education or the school wouldn't ask.

Do some big fish go to small ponds because they, or their parents, value the cash more? Yes.
Are they still big fish? Yes.
Could they be just as big as the fish in the lake? Yes.
But, is the title of Biggest in the Pond equivalent to Biggest in the Lake? Not really, since even the median fish in the lake is a bigass fish. And if that led the pickiest fishermen to primarily fish from the lake instead of local ponds, I'd call that pretty rational on their part.

Thankfully we have the MCAT as a sort of county fair to measure everyone's biggest catch. Reasonably sized fish who got their ass kicked in the lake can still impress enough that way, and a freak of nature from the local pond will still win best catch if they deserve it. I know two different people in just my year who went to satellite state campuses but scored perfect MCATs. If they saved $300k and still had their pick of med schools, they're the real winners.

I'd like to take the second point first, because, while we are talking past each other, it seems as though we agree. Yes, you had need that was met by well endowed private T20s, so it made sense for you to go there. Others don't have need, but their parents, who might not have an extra $300K sitting in the money market earmarked for this purpose, or might actually have the money but not value the theoretical boost in med school admissions, so they send their kids to state schools, where they thrive.

Going to a prestigious UG is an easy decision when you are doing so on someone else's dime. It's not such a no-brainer when you have to write the check, no matter how much money you have. Most people with money didn't get there by pissing it away. There is a huge middle ground between people with financial need, as defined by the schools, and those with so much money that hundreds of thousands of dollars are meaningless.

Med schools recognize this for what it is, and don't take a mediocre applicant from Harvard over a stud from Penn State. Harvard has more studs than Penn State, so it does better in the aggregate, but not because regular folks who happen to find themselves at Harvard get a boost. FWIW, Harvard, and every other top UG, has more than a few candidates each year who are rejected, go DO, go Caribbean, etc. It's not a golden ticket. It's just a magnet for great students who disproportionately become great candidates. Cause and effect. Great candidates choose Harvard. Harvard doesn't make great candidates. Great candidates can be found anywhere, and the holistic admission process is designed to allow schools to identity them.

Which brings us to the first point. We don't need your hypothetical, because we have an actual survey, scored on a 4 point scale. In 2013, private schools were above 3.0, and they were reported as such. In 2015, apparently, both private and public scored below 2.5, and that was reported in the survey.

What basis do you have to surmise that divergences converged, and that's why there is no distinction between the two? I am pretty sure, based on recent admissions data, that private schools really don't give a preference to prestigious UGs, and that both public and private are now below 2.5, as opposed to your conjecture regarding averages being averaged to report as one number disproportionately weighted toward the public schools.

If private schools really did consider UG selectivity important, that preference would drive out the vast majority of matriculants from less prestigious schools, just like it did in past generations. I'm pretty sure this is explained by the push for more diversity at all schools, not just the public ones. Not just racial, ethnic and economic. Also to provide access to regular people whose parents don't have a million dollars in liquid assets available to fund a UG and med school education. JMHO. If I'm wrong, I guess I won't be a doctor, since I turned down several T20 UGs so that my parents would be in a financial position to help me with med school.

 

[borrawin95]

There are some applicants whose application and interviews are so horrifyingly bad that the committee's consensus is that those students should never be accepted to any medical school. Think 'psychopath' and 'unhinged'. Fortunately it is very rare to see these types of applications that fall so many standard deviations below the mean, but when they come, they are memorable. I can't divulge any details though as I don't kiss and tell 😉 . I also rather enjoy living and not being stalked.

Is there a way to flag these applicants to the AAMC or does your team just trust that other schools will also notice these features and reject them at their institutions?

Also as an aside: Do their casper scores always reflect their alarming personalities?

 

[efle]

I'd like to take the second point first, because, while we are talking past each other, it seems as though we agree. Yes, you had need that was met by well endowed private T20s, so it made sense for you to go there. Others don't have need, but their parents, who might not have an extra $300K sitting in the money market earmarked for this purpose, or might actually have the money but not value the theoretical boost in med school admissions, so they send their kids to state schools, where they thrive.

Going to a prestigious UG is an easy decision when you are doing so on someone else's dime. It's not such a no-brainer when you have to write the check, no matter how much money you have. Most people with money didn't get there by pissing it away. There is a huge middle ground between people with financial need, as defined by the schools, and those with so much money that hundreds of thousands of dollars are meaningless.

Med schools recognize this for what it is, and don't take a mediocre applicant from Harvard over a stud from Penn State. Harvard has more studs than Penn State, so it does better in the aggregate, but not because regular folks who happen to find themselves at Harvard get a boost. FWIW, Harvard, and every other top UG, has more than a few candidates each year who are rejected, go DO, go Caribbean, etc. It's not a golden ticket. It's just a magnet for great students who disproportionately become great candidates. Cause and effect. Great candidates choose Harvard. Harvard doesn't make great candidates. Great candidates can be found anywhere, and the holistic admission process is designed to allow schools to identity them.

Which brings us to the first point. We don't need your hypothetical, because we have an actual survey, scored on a 4 point scale. In 2013, private schools were above 3.0, and they were reported as such. In 2015, apparently, both private and public scored below 2.5, and that was reported in the survey.

What basis do you have to surmise that divergences converged, and that's why there is no distinction between the two? I am pretty sure, based on recent admissions data, that private schools really don't give a preference to prestigious UGs, and that both public and private are now below 2.5, as opposed to your conjecture regarding averages being averaged to report as one number disproportionately weighted toward the public schools.

If private schools really did consider UG selectivity important, that preference would drive out the vast majority of matriculants from less prestigious schools, just like it did in past generations. I'm pretty sure this is explained by the push for more diversity at all schools, not just the public ones. Not just racial, ethnic and economic. Also to provide access to regular people whose parents don't have a million dollars in liquid assets available to fund a UG and med school education. JMHO. If I'm wrong, I guess I won't be a doctor, since I turned down several T20 UGs so that my parents would be in a financial position to help me with med school.

Spoiler: textwall

I don't think the huge middle ground is real - schools do not ask parents to draw from retirement funds, their home, or significantly enough from salary to reduce quality of life. They'll even factor in other family members in schooling, debts, assets, all of it. As a case in point, if your parents tell you that you have $300k cash money to put towards either med school or undergrad, there's a good chance they could have paid for both by the standards used at these colleges. We can disagree on whether those standards are fair, I suppose, if you feel like impeding early retirement should be off-limits in the eyes of financial aid offices too.

I completely agree that a famous institution does not impart any special magic onto it's students, they just pick winners to begin with. But I think that's exactly the logic driving private med school preferences (at least in 2013!) - students who excel at top colleges have demonstrated they're cream-of-the-cream-of-the-crop in a way that cannot be demonstrated elsewhere.

In 2013 they printed the bullet point twice because the average scores between public and private were significantly different. In 2015 they were combined, because they were not significantly different. Do you believe that across the nation, dozens of admissions committees with long histories of inbreeding from brand-name institutions changed their mind together, from high importance to low importance, in 2014? The alternative that they narrowly hit significance the first time and narrowly missed it the second time makes a lot more sense to me. That's how such a table would be designed in a study - test each metric for significant difference along the public vs private boundary and report those that differ as separate bullets. And if you're wondering where they state that they double-print for significant differences, it's in the footnotes on both! They continued double printing the others like state residency preference. I am assuming here that "significant" in their footnote means the same thing as "significant" does in most scientific literature (p<.05, not a different bin on their 0-2.5, 2.5-3.0, 3+ system)

I will warn you, the SES diversity at top medical schools is crap. Like, complete crap. I cannot overstate how shockingly wealthy so many of my classmates turned out to be. I'm talking stuff like going down to someone's million dollar Jersey shore house only to find out that's their vacation home, not their main one. Having parent(s) that are MD, JD, professor or similar is like some kind of unofficial minimum. Undergrad diversity is not much of a different story. Take Lucca's beautiful post on Yale data as an example. ~70% of their students came from t20 colleges and the number, if it's changing, is declining only a fraction of a percent per year. (You'll note the data spans the 2013 to 2015 range...). No doubt you'll be in the 30%, but be prepared to be surrounded by mostly "ivy plus" when you get there.

We can spare the thread from more of us - feel free to PM me !

 

[Moko]

Is there a way to flag these applicants to the AAMC or does your team just trust that other schools will also notice these features and reject them at their institutions?

Also as an aside: Do their casper scores always reflect their alarming personalities?

Schools don't get to flag applicants just because a student submitted a trashy thoughtless application. Applicants, like any other members of society, are also free to hold and express views that may fall outside widely-accepted cultural and social norms (e.g exhibiting strong antisocial tendencies, or making discriminatory statements, etc.). We live in a free country. As an adcom though, we can certainly decide that we want nothing to do with such a candidate, but as far as I know, it's up to other schools to reach their own conclusions. Now, if a student lied or violated AMCAS's rules, that would be a different story, but that's not what happened in these isolated cases. Common sense, self-awareness and intelligence do not always go hand in hand.

 

[Goro]

Is there a way to flag these applicants to the AAMC or does your team just trust that other schools will also notice these features and reject them at their institutions?

Also as an aside: Do their casper scores always reflect their alarming personalities?

Interesting question.

At my school, the only time the Admissions Dean has mentioned reporting an interviewee to AACOMAS is due to lying on an application. And yes, we've rejected people for being "scary". I didn't interview those people, so I'm not privy to all details. I think one person stared into the eyes of one of my colleagues on the interview panel and never stopped until the next interviewer asked a question.

 

[borrawin95]

Schools don't get to flag applicants just because a student submitted a trashy thoughtless application. Applicants, like any other members of society, are also free to hold and express views that may fall outside widely-accepted cultural and social norms (e.g exhibiting strong antisocial tendencies or making discriminatory statements based on race, sex, etc.). We live in a free country. As an adcom though, we can certainly decide that we want nothing to do with such a candidate, but as far as I know, it's up to other schools to reach their own conclusions. Now, if a student lied or violated AMCAS's rules, that would be a different story, but that's not what happened in these isolated cases. Common sense, self-awareness and intelligence do not always go hand in hand.

Not just a thoughtless application—if there was a student who your team legitimately considered to be a danger to future patients. I might’ve taken your fear of being stalked a little too literally, haha.

Interesting question.

At my school, the only time the Admissions Dean has mentioned reporting an interviewee to AACOMAS is due to lying on an application. And yes, we've rejected people for being "scary". I didn't interview those people, so I'm not privy to all details. I think one person stared into the eyes of one of my colleagues on the interview panel and never stopped until the next interviewer asked a question.

Awkward! I wouldn’t know what to do as an interviewer except grit my teeth and bear it.

 

[Moko]

I might’ve taken your fear of being stalked a little too literally, haha.

Haha yes, that was written with tongue in cheek. 🙂

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

So we went from superstars to super scary? 🙂

 

[jhmmd]

1. Yes. Look up the 2015 AAMC survey on the use and importance of data in admissions decision-making.

2. Nobody said it was earth shattering. All I, and admission statistics from across the country, am suggesting is that these students are not less desirable to med schools because they don't attend T10 or T20 UGs. Whatever bias toward prestigious UGs existed in years past, when top tier students turning down Ivies for state schools was less of a thing, no longer exists, at least according to the survey and admissions data from the schools.

People who think otherwise confuse cause and effect. Yes, top UGs are disproportionately represented in med school admissions, particularly at top schools. This is because they have a ton of great candidates. Not because merely okay candidates who happen to go there receive a boost by virtue of doing so.

I personally know PLENTY of people over the past few years who turned down T10 and T20 UGs due to money or location, and they have done very well in med school admissions. The so-called "holistic" process identifies them as the superstars they are, even though they don't have UG degrees from HYPSM, because the very qualities that made them attractive to prestigious UGs also make them attractive to med schools, even absent the pedigree of having attended the prestigious UG.

3. I didn't say he was rambling; he did! 😎

1. No one is going to say that data is not important in decision making. Like what? That was not my point. My point is that when you say something like, "bias towards highly selective UGs has diminished over time to the point that today, it is ranked as important as UG major!", it sounds like you are pulling this statement out of your a$$ and you should cite your source (if any).
2. "All I, and admission statistics from across the country, am suggesting is that these students are not less desirable to med schools because they don't attend T10 or T20 UGs. Whatever bias toward prestigious UGs existed in years past, when top tier students turning down Ivies for state schools was less of a thing, no longer exists, at least according to the survey and admissions data from the schools." See #1--you should cite your source for this, cuz the name "Ivy league" is still a thing and like it or not these schools will continue to be perceived as "prestigious," despite what people think on SDN
3. "Yes, top UGs are disproportionately represented in med school admissions, particularly at top schools. This is because they have a ton of great candidates." You contradicted yourself; see #1 (cite your sources)
4. My points are merely common sense: 1) Cite your sources if you are suggesting something that is not common knowledge, and 2) Ivy league universities are prestigious. Nuff said.

 

[KnightDoc]

1. No one is going to say that data is not important in decision making. Like what? That was not my point. My point is that when you say something like, "bias towards highly selective UGs has diminished over time to the point that today, it is ranked as important as UG major!", it sounds like you are pulling this statement out of your a$$ and you should cite your source (if any).
2. "All I, and admission statistics from across the country, am suggesting is that these students are not less desirable to med schools because they don't attend T10 or T20 UGs. Whatever bias toward prestigious UGs existed in years past, when top tier students turning down Ivies for state schools was less of a thing, no longer exists, at least according to the survey and admissions data from the schools." See #1--you should cite your source for this, cuz the name "Ivy league" is still a thing and like it or not these schools will continue to be perceived as "prestigious," despite what people think on SDN
3. "Yes, top UGs are disproportionately represented in med school admissions, particularly at top schools. This is because they have a ton of great candidates." You contradicted yourself; see #1 (cite your sources)
4. My points are merely common sense: 1) Cite your sources if you are suggesting something that is not common knowledge, and 2) Ivy league universities are prestigious. Nuff said.

1. As I said in my previous post, MY SOURCE IS A 2015 AAMC SURVEY ON THE USE AND IMPORTANCE OF DATA IN ADMISSIONS DECISION MAKING, COMPLETED BY ADMISSIONS OFFICERS AT 130 MEDICAL SCHOOLS!!!!!!! What is this, a research paper??? 😎 Do you have sources for anything you say???? Do you ever cite to them??????

3. No, saying top schools have a lot of top candidates is not inconsistent with saying mere attendance at those schools does not make someone a top candidate!

4. Sure, Ivy League schools are not only perceived as prestigious, they ARE prestigious. And that is an academic metric of "lowest importance" in making admissions decisions, according the above cited survey, right alongside a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, whether or not that is consistent with your version of common sense!!!!!

And by the way, the existence of the survey, which is now over 5 years old, is pretty common knowledge to anyone who claims to be engaged in this process. I stumbled across it within about a month of beginning my deep dive into the process nearly two years ago.



Now, nuff said!!! 😎

 

[jhmmd]

1. As I said in my previous post, MY SOURCE IS A 2015 AAMC SURVEY ON THE USE AND IMPORTANCE OF DATA IN ADMISSIONS DECISION MAKING, COMPLETED BY ADMISSIONS OFFICERS AT 130 MEDICAL SCHOOLS!!!!!!! What is this, a research paper??? 😎 Do you have sources for anything you say???? Do you ever cite to them??????

3. No, saying top schools have a lot of top candidates is not inconsistent with saying mere attendance at those schools does not make someone a top candidate!

4. Sure, Ivy League schools are not only perceived as prestigious, they ARE prestigious. And that is an academic metric of "lowest importance" in making admissions decisions, according the above cited survey, right alongside a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, whether or not that is consistent with your version of common sense!!!!! Your points are not "merely common sense." They are nothing more than a product of your own opinion and biases. And by the way, the existence of the survey, which is now over 5 years old, is pretty common knowledge to anyone who claims to be engaged in this process.

This is once again starting to feel a little like College Confidential, with ORM parents attempting to impose their preconceptions, biases and will on the community. How close am I? Are you a premed? Med student? Adcom? Doctor? Or just another uninformed, well meaning, overbearing parent with opinions????

Now, nuff said!!! 😎

1. Your post is not a research paper, but SDN is for students as well as doctors, and you are posting in the pre-med forum where people are here to learn. If you say something that isn't commonly known, it's best practice to cite your sources so that people don't think you're blowing smoke up their a$$.
2. Correlation is not causation
3. Your third argument is a straw man in its entirety
4. It would serve you well to learn that you don't always have to have the last word. This a debate, not an argument. No hard feelings and let's agree to disagree.

 

[KnightDoc]

1. Your post is not a research paper, but SDN is for students as well as doctors, and you are posting in the pre-med forum where people are here to learn. If you say something that isn't commonly known, it's best practice to cite your sources so that people don't think you're blowing smoke up their a$$.
2. Correlation is not causation
3. Your third argument is a straw man in its entirety
4. It would serve you well to learn that you don't always have to have the last word. This a debate, not an argument. No hard feelings and let's agree to disagree.

2. Correlation is not causation -- This is exactly what I am saying!!!!! The fact that top schools happen to have a lot of great candidates does not mean they create those candidates by virtue of their attendance.

3. Your third argument is a straw man in its entirety -- Huh??? I am citing to a survey of people who actually make admission decisions. You are citing to your own opinion. And I'm the one making straw man arguments??

4. True, and the same goes for you!! 😎

 

[jhmmd]

2. Correlation is not causation -- This is exactly what I am saying!!!!! The fact that top schools happen to have a lot of great candidates does not mean they create those candidates by virtue of their attendance.

3. Your third argument is a straw man in its entirety -- Huh??? I am citing to a survey of people who actually make admission decisions. You are citing to your own opinion. And I'm the one making straw man arguments??

4. True ,and the same goes for you!! 😎

This in itself is a straw man. I will do my best not to respond to this thread anymore.
🚎

 

[deleted1025488]

Plenty of middle/upper middle income families simply don't have an extra $300K+ burning a hole in their pocket even though they are ineligible for need based aid. Some can easily afford to be full pay, but don't see the value in a name brand UG degree when they still have grad school to pay for.

This is funny and implies a misguided notion that higher education isn't here to just make money. Do you ever wonder why plenty of schools are need-aware and only take internationals who can pay in full despite being worse candidates?

I guess it'll hit you if you're ever the only low-income Latino at a top med school interview w/ a med student panel and literally every single other applicant is having their parents, who are mostly doctors, pay (in full) for their med school education, so when you end up asking a question about financial aid, no one knows how to answer and they tell you to email the dean because none of them even had to worry about financial aid.

 

[efle]

1. As I said in my previous post, MY SOURCE IS A 2015 AAMC SURVEY ON THE USE AND IMPORTANCE OF DATA IN ADMISSIONS DECISION MAKING, COMPLETED BY ADMISSIONS OFFICERS AT 130 MEDICAL SCHOOLS!!!!!!! What is this, a research paper??? 😎 Do you have sources for anything you say???? Do you ever cite to them??????

3. No, saying top schools have a lot of top candidates is not inconsistent with saying mere attendance at those schools does not make someone a top candidate!

4. Sure, Ivy League schools are not only perceived as prestigious, they ARE prestigious. And that is an academic metric of "lowest importance" in making admissions decisions, according the above cited survey, right alongside a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, whether or not that is consistent with your version of common sense!!!!! Your points are not "merely common sense." They are nothing more than a product of your own opinion and biases. And by the way, the existence of the survey, which is now over 5 years old, is pretty common knowledge to anyone who claims to be engaged in this process.

This is once again starting to feel a little like College Confidential, with ORM parents attempting to impose their preconceptions, biases and will on the community. How close am I? Are you a premed? Med student? Adcom? Doctor? Or just another uninformed, well meaning, overbearing parent with opinions????

Now, nuff said!!! 😎

Bruh I cannot emphasize enough that the only difference for 2013 vs 2015 was meeting vs missing significance for the t-test on that bullet point. It's written in the footnote, "Overall mean importance ratings for public and private institutions were significantly different from one another". The other things that continued to meet significance kept getting double reported. I don't understand where you got the idea that "significant" meant "lands in a different box on our grid." If that was their criteria for double reporting, that's what they would have said in the footnote instead.

 

[Goro]

Trolls gotta troll, you know.

 

[KnightDoc]

This is funny and implies a misguided notion that higher education isn't here to just make money. Do you ever wonder why plenty of schools are need-aware and only take internationals who can pay in full despite being worse candidates?

I guess it'll hit you if you're ever the only low-income Latino at a top med school interview w/ a med student panel and literally every single other applicant is having their parents, who are mostly doctors, pay (in full) for their med school education, so when you end up asking a question about financial aid, no one knows how to answer and they tell you to email the dean because none of them even had to worry about financial aid.

I don't know why you think it implies a misguided notion??? I know exactly what higher education is all about.

I am not so cynical as to believe it is only here to make money, but I am very well aware of the fact that bills need to be paid, and that social justice requires that the well off subsidize the less well off. It hit me applying to UG.

My family is not "rich" by any definition, other than that used by universities to determine need based aid! Like many others similarly situated, a tough decision regarding possible greater opportunity and certain greater prestige and connections had to be weighed against potentially crippling debt. This wasn't the case a generation ago, when an Ivy education cost a fraction of what it does today, and was much more obtainable for an average middle/upper middle lass family.

 

[deleted1025488]

@KnightDoc Fair enough. I mean at the end of the day, arguing about something like this is completely futile. This topic comes up like once every two weeks, in some form or another, and you're always very fervent about it. It kind of just seems like you want confirmation to support your decision or placement at a non elite UG school; you WILL do great in medical school admissions so PLEASE stop fretting over this! It's completely out of your control!

We are all at college probably and will all do our best wherever we are, so there is no point in trying to find disparities between admissions rate among prestigious vs normal schools. Rich people always have an unfair advantage. Rich people are mostly the ones sending their kids to elite UG's in the first place and this transitions into medical schools. It is what it is. Arguing about it just makes us upset because the playing field will never be fair as long as universities and med schools are structured the way they are in regards to financials and stuff.

Just focus, do your best, ignore the noise...stuff like this will just make you upset for literally no reason.

 

[KnightDoc]

Bruh I cannot emphasize enough that the only difference for 2013 vs 2015 was meeting vs missing significance for the t-test on that bullet point. It's written in the footnote, "Overall mean importance ratings for public and private institutions were significantly different from one another". The other things that continued to meet significance kept getting double reported. I don't understand where you got the idea that "significant" meant "lands in a different box on our grid." If that was their criteria for double reporting, that's what they would have said in the footnote instead.

Yes, I see the footnote. Now check out "state residency" and "U.S. citizenship/permanent residency," where they fall into different categories for public and private. Why wouldn't they continue to break that out for UG selectivity, if indeed the "significant differences" put them in different categories????? FWIW, the same footnote exists in the 2013 survey. I honestly don't think the footnote has any greater significance than to inform the reader that there are significant differences between public and private. I don't think it implies they are using a t-test to lump them together in categories.

 

[efle]

Yes, I see the footnote. Now check out "state residency" and "U.S. citizenship/permanent residency," where they fall into different categories for public and private. Why wouldn't they continue to break that out for UG selectivity, if indeed the "significant differences" put them in different categories????? FWIW, the same footnote exists in the 2013 survey. I honestly don't think the footnote has any greater significance than to inform the reader that there are significant differences between public and private. I don't think it implies they are using a t-test to lump them together in categories.

I feel like a broken record. In 2013, imagine the two cohorts had a t-test p = .03 and in 2015 the two cohorts had a t-test p = 0.06 due to a slight convergence.

How would that show up? In 2013 it would be double reported as two averages - one higher, one lower. In 2015 it would be reported as a single overall average.

For future reference, any time you read scientific or med ed literature that describes a "significant difference between means", that's what you're meant to assume they're talking about. Nobody refers to crossing arbitrary bin boundaries as statistical significance.

 

[KnightDoc]

Trolls gotta troll, you know.

Apparently your discipline in using the ignore function leaves something to be desired!!!!

Your wisdom and valuable contribution to the conversation, however, is always deeply appreciated.

 

[KnightDoc]

I feel like a broken record. In 2013, imagine the two cohorts had a t-test p = .03 and in 2015 the two cohorts had a t-test p = 0.06 due to a slight convergence.

How would that show up? In 2013 it would be double reported as two averages - one higher, one lower. In 2015 it would be reported as a single overall average.

For future reference, any time you read scientific or med ed literature that describes a "significant difference between means", that's what you're meant to assume they're talking about. Nobody refers to crossing arbitrary bin boundaries as statistical significance.

I actually get what you are saying now. I still respectfully disagree with your conclusion, but I see where you are coming from now!

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

In general I am a huge fan of yours, but in this case I'd like to address a few of your rambling thoughts.

Your observation regarding statistics is spot on, but it misses the point. The point is not merely that the divergence disappeared. It's that the survey now reports UG selectivity is of lowest importance for both public and private. That literally means the preference ceases to exist, unless you are saying a factor being of lowest importance, in the exact same category as a degree from a graduate or professional program, the completion of challenging nonscience courses, and the undergraduate major, still constitutes a meaningful preference.

With respect to your point regarding scholarships and Ivy schools, again, your point is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the larger point, which has nothing to do with lower income students receiving generous packages from Ivies. Plenty of middle/upper middle income families simply don't have an extra $300K+ burning a hole in their pocket even though they are ineligible for need based aid. Some can easily afford to be full pay, but don't see the value in a name brand UG degree when they still have grad school to pay for.

The point isn't med schools solving for injustice. It's them recognizing that many superlative candidates who would have attended an Ivy in years past are now opting for generous scholarships at lower tier schools. The candidates are exactly the same in many cases as their Ivy peers, and med schools recognize this. As a result, the bias towards highly selective UGs has diminished over time to the point that today, it is ranked as important as UG major! It has nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with a recognition of the fact that while awesome candidates are disproportionately found at top schools, there is a critical mass of them spread among all tiers of UGs, and the med schools want to identify and enroll them, wherever they happen to attend UG.

One thing to think about here, IMO. While UG institution "selectivity" is now showing in the lowest category, I think indirectly UG institution is likely a factor in admissions as part of some of the criteria in the high and middle categories. For example, when GPA is evaluated, I imagine some med schools look at where you did your undergraduate work. Same for "rigor of upper division science courses" that appears in the "middle category." Here, again, med schools may be looking at UG institution in order to evaluate "rigor." Then, also, there is the inherent (unconscious ?) bias that admissions people may have for prestigious institutions. UG school is probably more of a factor than the referenced table might suggest.

 

[HopeP]

 

[KnightDoc]

One thing to think about here, IMO. While UG institution "selectivity" is now showing in the lowest category, I think indirectly UG institution is likely a factor in admissions as part of some of the criteria in the high and middle categories. For example, when GPA is evaluated, I imagine some med schools look at where you did your undergraduate work. Same for "rigor of upper division science courses" that appears in the "middle category." Here, again, med schools may be looking at UG institution in order to evaluate "rigor." Then, also, there is the inherent (unconscious ?) bias that admissions people may have for prestigious institutions. UG school is probably more of a factor than the referenced table might suggest.

I never meant to suggest it is no factor. GPA is GPA, no matter where you go to school, and low tier schools also have upper level, rigorous classes. If the adcoms responding to that survey were looking at some GPSAs differently than others, the place to express that would be in the question regarding UG selectivity. It means what it says. They care about GPA, not so much where it comes from. But keep in mind, the survey doesn't literally say they don't care about UG. It only says it is a factor of lowest importance, not zero importance!!! 🙂

Again, there is no denying that prestigious UGs attract a disproportionate number of top tier candidates, and that is reflected in their rates of success. But looking at how many people at those top schools are not successful, and how many people, in the aggregate attend med school, including T5 and T10 and T20, who don't come from top UGs, should provide objective evidence that this is not the single data point in that survey that is BS.

 

[efle]

Here's some back of the envelope math I find interesting.

Total student enrollment in 4-year American colleges in 2020: 14.0 million
Total student enrollment in the t20 colleges: 160,000

So, ~1% of the nation's 4-year college students attend the t20 colleges.
Then look at the Yale data and see that 70% of their students came from t20 colleges.

Once more for the folks in the back: Yale is drawing 70% of its class from the top ranked 1% of student bodies.

I cannot imagine that is fully explained by higher stud density.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I came to this thread late. Superstar applicant.....An upperclassmen when I was in undergrad developed and patented a surgical stapler. Sold the patent to Johnson and Johnson BEFORE entering med school. Superstar!

 

[SChocoholic]

Just a note from someone applying now....while I know that we are still in middle of the cycle, it has been very slow for me and I don’t see anything changing as of right now. I have 520+ MCAT (with a 131 CARS), 3.98+ GPA, thousands of hours of volunteering over the past 10+ years in various organizations and many hundreds of hours of research with pubs. The two recommendation letters of mine that I did see (the writers sent them to me for some reason) had one that was very good and one that was both detailed and “gushing” to quote those above. My essays were (at the very worst) average and most of them would be considered very good. I also applied to a decent range of schools, although it was slightly skewed towards Top 20. Nonetheless, I only had one interview and that was at a school with someone who knew me on the admissions committee.
Not trying to bring the mood down, but realistically this year has been difficult to get in due to the overwhelming number of applicants. I may get in to that school I interviewed at and maybe I’ll get another last minute interview, but just remember that there is no guarantee. Make sure you enjoy the process because otherwise the stress makes it almost not worth it. Love what you study in undergrad, do research and volunteer with what you love and not what you think others want, and don’t forget to live life.

 

[Boson12]

The more I read through this, the more I start to understand LESS about this process. I’m starting to understand why people just simply do their best and leave the mysteries of acceptances alone.

 

[r2med]

Just a note from someone applying now....while I know that we are still in middle of the cycle, it has been very slow for me and I don’t see anything changing as of right now. I have 520+ MCAT (with a 131 CARS), 3.98+ GPA, thousands of hours of volunteering over the past 10+ years in various organizations and many hundreds of hours of research with pubs. The two recommendation letters of mine that I did see (the writers sent them to me for some reason) had one that was very good and one that was both detailed and “gushing” to quote those above. My essays were (at the very worst) average and most of them would be considered very good. I also applied to a decent range of schools, although it was slightly skewed towards Top 20. Nonetheless, I only had one interview and that was at a school with someone who knew me on the admissions committee.
Not trying to bring the mood down, but realistically this year has been difficult to get in due to the overwhelming number of applicants. I may get in to that school I interviewed at and maybe I’ll get another last minute interview, but just remember that there is no guarantee. Make sure you enjoy the process because otherwise the stress makes it almost not worth it. Love what you study in undergrad, do research and volunteer with what you love and not what you think others want, and don’t forget to live life.

Wishing you good luck for this cycle. It would be interesting to hear from adcoms on SDN about why you may have not received enough love with your stats and ECs!

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

The more I read through this, the more I start to understand LESS about this process. I’m starting to understand why people just simply do their best and leave the mysteries of acceptances alone.

^^^ Exactly. No one can say with certainty. How do you explain schools like UCLA not even getting interviews to in-state candidates while every other top school gives interviews to same candidate and i see it every year.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Wishing you good luck for this cycle. It would be interesting to hear from adcoms on SDN about why you may have not received enough love with your stats and ECs!

Unless adcoms see PS, secondary responses and LORs how can they say with a certainty? Each school has their own criteria and they keep changing it.

 

[r2med]

Unless adcoms see PS, secondary responses and LORs how can they say with a certainty? Each school has their own criteria and they keep changing it.

No one can say with certainty, but I am sure there can be some generic observations made. It is one thing if some schools did not respond, but interesting that most schools did not show love.

 

[efle]

Just a note from someone applying now....while I know that we are still in middle of the cycle, it has been very slow for me and I don’t see anything changing as of right now. I have 520+ MCAT (with a 131 CARS), 3.98+ GPA, thousands of hours of volunteering over the past 10+ years in various organizations and many hundreds of hours of research with pubs. The two recommendation letters of mine that I did see (the writers sent them to me for some reason) had one that was very good and one that was both detailed and “gushing” to quote those above. My essays were (at the very worst) average and most of them would be considered very good. I also applied to a decent range of schools, although it was slightly skewed towards Top 20. Nonetheless, I only had one interview and that was at a school with someone who knew me on the admissions committee.
Not trying to bring the mood down, but realistically this year has been difficult to get in due to the overwhelming number of applicants. I may get in to that school I interviewed at and maybe I’ll get another last minute interview, but just remember that there is no guarantee. Make sure you enjoy the process because otherwise the stress makes it almost not worth it. Love what you study in undergrad, do research and volunteer with what you love and not what you think others want, and don’t forget to live life.

4.0/520+ with papers, extensive service, and a broad list - and you got only 1 interview through an inside connection? You have a red flag hiding in there somewhere.

If you have a prehealth office that handles your letter packet, you should go sit down with them to have them read your essays and confirm for you that your LoRs are all good.

 

[joshuamarcus]

4.0/520+ with papers, extensive service, and a broad list - and you got only 1 interview through an inside connection? You have a red flag hiding in there somewhere.

If you have a prehealth office that handles your letter packet, you should go sit down with them to have them read your essays and confirm for you that your LoRs are all good.

They conveniently left out that the 520 was a retake late into the cycle