What percentage of applicants get rejected every year from MD programs?

[yellowcocopuffs]

What is the average?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NeuralNetwork]

What is the average?

About 43% got in last year, so that would mean 57% got rejected. Source: https://www.aamc.org/download/153708/data/charts1982to2012.pdf

 

[WhizoMD]

About 43% got in last year, so that would mean 57% got rejected. Source: https://www.aamc.org/download/153708/data/charts1982to2012.pdf

for some reason I thought it was ~60:40 in favor of applicants.

 

[yellowcocopuffs]

About 43% got in last year, so that would mean 57% got rejected. Source: https://www.aamc.org/download/153708/data/charts1982to2012.pdf

Whoa. Thanks for the info.

Anyway, do you think it's because many non-qualified people apply or because it is so competitive to get in?

 

[Aerus]

Whoa. Thanks for the info.

Anyway, do you think it's because many non-qualified people apply or because it is so competitive to get in?

Both, but less of the former and more of the latter. Remember that premed courses do a pretty nice job weeding out the majority of unqualified premeds and other interests play the role with the rest.

 

[Frazier]

Whoa. Thanks for the info.

Anyway, do you think it's because many non-qualified people apply or because it is so competitive to get in?

many non-qualified people drop out of the game before it's time to apply...

that said, it is the latter.

 

[Praefectus]

For school-specific acceptances/rejections, I'd assume that a good portion of denied applicants are rejected because of relatively poor stats. For example, I doubt that someone with a 3.4 and a 30 would get into Hopkins, but there's no barrier for him/her to still apply.

 

[AestheticGod]

About 43% got in last year, so that would mean 57% got rejected. Source: https://www.aamc.org/download/153708/data/charts1982to2012.pdf

Tell me if I'm thinking this the wrong way


So basically you're saying, from all the applicants that applied to medical schools in the USA(I know each applicant applies to at least 15 schools), 43% got accepted?


Hmm interesting, I figured the rejecting would be A LOT higher seeing how most med schools only accept 3-4% of applicants(i think) and that most of the applicants don't know what they're doing, besides the regular stuff their guidance councilors tell them.

 

[music2doc]

Whoa. Thanks for the info.

Anyway, do you think it's because many non-qualified people apply or because it is so competitive to get in?

Umm...

There are over 40,000 applicants per year and less than 20,000 MD seats. As a result, less than 50% can possibly be accepted somewhere each year.

Soooo... NEITHER.

 

[music2doc]

For school-specific acceptances/rejections, I'd assume that a good portion of denied applicants are rejected because of relatively poor stats. For example, I doubt that someone with a 3.4 and a 30 would get into Hopkins, but there's no barrier for him/her to still apply.

Going to have to disagree here. Sure, some are rejected purely on stats, but the median applicant has about a 3.5/28, which is clearly above the threshold for "able to pass medical school" and gives a 34% chance for non-URM and 74% chance for URM. To me, that says no one believes the median applicant could not finish medical school. Basically, low stats keep you out of the interview. Once at the interview stage, it is pretty much anything but stats that gets you in (or out).

 

[Knocked Up]

Going to have to disagree here. Sure, some are rejected purely on stats, but the median applicant has about a 3.5/28, which is clearly above the threshold for "able to pass medical school" and gives a 34% chance for non-URM and 74% chance for URM. To me, that says no one believes the median applicant could not finish medical school. Basically, low stats keep you out of the interview. Once at the interview stage, it is pretty much anything but stats that gets you in (or out).

Excusez-moi monsieur, pero no estoy de acuerdo con usted.

You see, the light at the beginning of the tunnel is the same light that shines at the end of the tunnel. In medical school admissions, the MCAT is the light that gets you in the tunnel. Everything is dark in the tunnel. It's all part of the "plan", you see the adcoms have plans, they're schemers, schemers trying to control your little world. You sit in agony for months, waiting, agitating for a call, thinking they are reading your application. You're confused. What's going on, what's taking so long? All of a sudden months later, you get an email, it's an interview invite. Wow, the plan is unfolding. You sit in the room and at the interview intro and the dean puts on a presentation of how they select candidates and how great the school is. All the talks begin to sound the same in a monotonous fashion, as you just want to learn the basic sciences and gain the clinical knowledge to move on to the next step in your life. You want to help people. But you have to go through the "plan" first.

So you interview in your monkey suit and you wait. Well, no one panics when things go according to the "plan" even if the "plan" is horrifying long winded. Why are taking so long after my interview to make a decision? Do my numbers factor in now, or were they merely a stepping stone to get that interview? We're meant to think that the MCAT is a simple screen to open the door to a more thorough inspection. But is it?

If the MCAT is the light that gets you in the abyss, why would it not be the light to pull to you out? There are so many ways you can shuffle a pile of 35+ MCAT applicants until you reach a pretty diverse group (factor in some sub 35s for political efficacy). So the piles shuffle. You wait, and your folder gets shuffled. The "plan" goes on. We think a holistic review was made, but was it? Did a 4.5 hour test really just decide everything?

Would schools ever tell us what really goes on behind closed doors? No, if they did they would introduce anarchy, upset the established order and the entire process would become chaos. The ironic thing here is that chaos is fair.

 

[Praefectus]

^ You almost sound like Tyler Durden. Me likey.

 

[Dr. Ducky]

^ You almost sound like Tyler Durden. Me likey.

I was thinking the same thing

 

[music2doc]

Excusez-moi monsieur, pero no estoy de acuerdo con usted.

You see, the light at the beginning of the tunnel is the same light that shines at the end of the tunnel. In medical school admissions, the MCAT is the light that gets you in the tunnel. Everything is dark in the tunnel. It's all part of the "plan", you see the adcoms have plans, they're schemers, schemers trying to control your little world. You sit in agony for months, waiting, agitating for a call, thinking they are reading your application. You're confused. What's going on, what's taking so long? All of a sudden months later, you get an email, it's an interview invite. Wow, the plan is unfolding. You sit in the room and at the interview intro and the dean puts on a presentation of how they select candidates and how great the school is. All the talks begin to sound the same in a monotonous fashion, as you just want to learn the basic sciences and gain the clinical knowledge to move on to the next step in your life. You want to help people. But you have to go through the "plan" first.

So you interview in your monkey suit and you wait. Well, no one panics when things go according to the "plan" even if the "plan" is horrifying long winded. Why are taking so long after my interview to make a decision? Do my numbers factor in now, or were they merely a stepping stone to get that interview? We're meant to think that the MCAT is a simple screen to open the door to a more thorough inspection. But is it?

If the MCAT is the light that gets you in the abyss, why would it not be the light to pull to you out? There are so many ways you can shuffle a pile of 35+ MCAT applicants until you reach a pretty diverse group (factor in some sub 35s for political efficacy). So the piles shuffle. You wait, and your folder gets shuffled. The "plan" goes on. We think a holistic review was made, but was it? Did a 4.5 hour test really just decide everything?

Would schools ever tell us what really goes on behind closed doors? No, if they did they would introduce anarchy, upset the established order and the entire process would become chaos. The ironic thing here is that chaos is fair.

LOL... First, let me congratulate you on over 400 troll posts without being banned!

Second, I agree with the Tyler Durden comment.

Third, some schools actually release their methods of admission (i.e., the scoring systems, etc.) and the ones I've seen generally place the MCAT (and GPA) quite below everything else post-interview. (This makes sense...) While there is certainly a strong positive correlation between the MCAT and GPA and chances of acceptance, it is neither perfect nor constant (and really is restricted in range, since very high MCAT scores become less and less effective at increasing admissions chances).

 

[TheShaker]

Excusez-moi monsieur, pero no estoy de acuerdo con usted.

You see, the light at the beginning of the tunnel is the same light that shines at the end of the tunnel. In medical school admissions, the MCAT is the light that gets you in the tunnel. Everything is dark in the tunnel. It's all part of the "plan", you see the adcoms have plans, they're schemers, schemers trying to control your little world. You sit in agony for months, waiting, agitating for a call, thinking they are reading your application. You're confused. What's going on, what's taking so long? All of a sudden months later, you get an email, it's an interview invite. Wow, the plan is unfolding. You sit in the room and at the interview intro and the dean puts on a presentation of how they select candidates and how great the school is. All the talks begin to sound the same in a monotonous fashion, as you just want to learn the basic sciences and gain the clinical knowledge to move on to the next step in your life. You want to help people. But you have to go through the "plan" first.

So you interview in your monkey suit and you wait. Well, no one panics when things go according to the "plan" even if the "plan" is horrifying long winded. Why are taking so long after my interview to make a decision? Do my numbers factor in now, or were they merely a stepping stone to get that interview? We're meant to think that the MCAT is a simple screen to open the door to a more thorough inspection. But is it?

If the MCAT is the light that gets you in the abyss, why would it not be the light to pull to you out? There are so many ways you can shuffle a pile of 35+ MCAT applicants until you reach a pretty diverse group (factor in some sub 35s for political efficacy). So the piles shuffle. You wait, and your folder gets shuffled. The "plan" goes on. We think a holistic review was made, but was it? Did a 4.5 hour test really just decide everything?

Would schools ever tell us what really goes on behind closed doors? No, if they did they would introduce anarchy, upset the established order and the entire process would become chaos. The ironic thing here is that chaos is fair.

I'm sorry, I just can't appreciate the eloquence of your speech with that avatar attached to it.

 

[LizzyM]

Going to have to disagree here. Sure, some are rejected purely on stats, but the median applicant has about a 3.5/28, which is clearly above the threshold for "able to pass medical school" and gives a 34% chance for non-URM and 74% chance for URM. To me, that says no one believes the median applicant could not finish medical school. Basically, low stats keep you out of the interview. Once at the interview stage, it is pretty much anything but stats that gets you in (or out).

I would wager that almost all schools have more "qualified" applicants than they can accomodate in the M1 class. So, at any given school, it is the competition that may keep most applicants from getting admitted and not an opinion that they are unqualified.

I think that perhaps 1/3 of the 60% who don't get in anywhere are unqualified. The rest are just unlucky.

Let's imagine we interview 300 applicants with the hope of making 100 offers: 200 with LizzyM scores of 75+ and 100 applicants with LizzyM scores of <68. 40% of the high LizzyM scorers did exceptionally well at interview and 50% of the low LizzyM scorers did exceptionally well at interview. How will we make 100 offers? It is likely that 80 offers will go to the high scorers who did well on the interview and 20 will go to low scorers who did well. If scores and grades didn't matter after interview we would expect that 100/130 exceptional interviewers would get offers and that would be proportionaly divided among high and low LIzzyM scorers with 39 low scorers and 61 high scorers getting offers of admission. But why would a school leave 19 high scorers with excellent interviews in the dust to pick up 19 low scorers with excellent interviews (having already chosesn 20 of them)? Do you really see this happening?

 

[iqe2010]

Medical schools have extremely high graduation rates, right? Like 95%+.

It's competitive for a reason. If I don't get in after my second time, I think it's safe to say it's not for me.

 

[UrshumMurshum]

It's likely the number of applicants are going to go down over the years for a variety of reasons.

Don't worry about statistics and chances and all that crap. If you believe in your ability to be a physician then you will be a physician.

 

[Frazier]

 

[Aerus]

Tell me if I'm thinking this the wrong way


So basically you're saying, from all the applicants that applied to medical schools in the USA(I know each applicant applies to at least 15 schools), 43% got accepted?


Hmm interesting, I figured the rejecting would be A LOT higher seeing how most med schools only accept 3-4% of applicants(i think) and that most of the applicants don't know what they're doing, besides the regular stuff their guidance councilors tell them.

You need to think of it like this. 57% of ALL applicants that APPLIED were rejected from EVERY med school they applied. Remember that those who apply would be pretty sure that they have a shot of getting in, so their stats wouldn't be incredibly terrible.

And some schools have higher than 3-4% acceptance rates.