What separates applicants to top schools from those to lower ones?

[NiceDr]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi all,

What separates applicants to elite medical schools from those to little-known state schools/lower-mid-tiered schools? How do pre-med students know what league they're in?

Although I do plan to apply to some better-known schools, I don't necessarily have any expectations about attending an elite school. Recently, however, I've had several connections mention helping me to network with their faculty friends at various top medical schools, and so it got me wondering: What exactly qualifies a student to be a worthy applicant at these schools?

I'm not necessarily narrowing down my list of schools based on their rankings, of course. Still, it would be helpful to know whether or not I can realistically consider more prestigious institutions, or if it'd be a waste of time to focus primarily on them. It'd also be helpful to see, incase I'm not already a competitive applicant, what it is that I'm missing and whether it could be feasibly fixed.

There's obviously a difference between the student who applies to top schools and considers lower-ranked ones their "safety", and the student who applies to lower-ranked schools and considers top schools their "reach."

How do you know how to frame your expectations?

 

[Toutie]

Your GPA, MCAT, and EC's will dictate where you should apply.

 

[LizzyM]

ECs are important but being average or above average in comparison to current students (or even better: applicants offered admission) at a given school will give you an idea of whether or not you are in the ball park. Most schools have information on current first year students on their website. The MSAR has information on this as well and is the best money you'll spend in this whole process.

 

[NiceDr]

Thank you both very much for your replies.

It still seems a bit nuanced, though. I can easily compare income class profiles, which I've done, but, for example, Feinberg and Harvard have virtually identical incoming profiles (3.8, 36) and yet admission to Feinberg is assumedly much less competitive than Harvard. What gives? Similarly, Wayne State comes in at 3.6 and 32. There are Feinberg/Harvard students out there who are average at Wayne State, and vice versa. What caused the the 3.6 students to apply to Feinberg/Harvard, and the 3.8 to Wayne State? Is it more so ECs that guide the league in which you perceive yourself to be? Undergrad institution?

Could either of you give me examples of differences in the EC profiles between students at elite and non-elite medical schools? Is it research? Cross-cultural experience? More volunteer or shadowing hours?

I have a 3.95 GPA at a well-respected, private college, but it's not a national elite. I have volunteer, shadowing, and cross-cultural experience, and I have published research that will hopefully be presented at regional and national conferences. I'm also a non-science major with additional humanities-related resume fodder, and so I'm fairly well-rounded.

Based on the above, it seems that I might maybe be a competitive applicant to top schools. But I've always perceived myself to be somewhat average -- simply a good student with a good resume like the rest of my pre-med peers.

 

[LizzyM]

Thank you both very much for your replies.

It still seems a bit nuanced, though. I can easily compare income class profiles, which I've done, but, for example, Feinberg and Harvard have virtually identical incoming profiles (3.8, 36) and yet admission to Feinberg is assumedly much less competitive than Harvard. What gives? Similarly, Wayne State comes in at 3.6 and 32. There are Feinberg/Harvard students out there who are average at Wayne State, and vice versa. What caused the the 3.6 students to Feinberg/Harvard, and the 3.8 to Wayne State? Is it more so ECs that guide the league you perceive yourself to be in? Undergrad institution?

Could either of you give me examples of differences in the EC profiles between students at elite and non-elite medical schools? Is it research? Cross-cultural experience? More volunteer or shadowing hours?

I have a 3.95 GPA at a well-respected, private college, but it's not a national elite. I have volunteer, shadowing, and cross-cultural experience, and I have published research that will hopefully be presented at regional and national conferences. I'm also a non-science major with additional humanities-related resume fodder, and so I'm fairly well-rounded.

Based on the above, it seems that I might maybe be a competitive applicant to top schools. But I've always perceived myself to be somewhat average -- simply a good student with a good resume like the rest of my pre-med peers.

You would be wrong to assume that Feinberg is much less competitive than Harvard. My old MSAR with data from 2010-2011 tells me that Feinberg got 6400 applications to fill 170 seats and Harvard had ~6300 to fill 165 seats. If they had about the same number of applicants and ended up with classes that are similar with regard to MCAT and GPA how would it be "easier" to be admitted to Feinberg?

Wayne State is public right? Some people who could get into an elite private will choose a less expensive school which often means going to their state school.

Most of the time, the applicants with lesser stats who get admitted anyway have something in their experience that gave them an edge. It could be military service, full-time volunteer service (such as Peace Corps), athletic participation at the elite level, some other "hook" or even being born into certain circumstances (legacy, URM). Sometimes it can be the novelty of having an applicant from a state that sends very few applicants to that school (look! an applicant from Wyoming, we don't see those very often!) Research is so ubiquitous that for research experience to be the tipping point for an otherwise "below average" applicant, it would have to be something really special.

 

[MaxPlancker]

I'd say for top schools, the single most important factor would be the ECs/story. While you cannot get into top schools without good stats, top schools will go far to get you if you have something they really want. Think of top schools as rare item collectors.

While numerically Feinberg vs Harvard seems comparable in terms of how difficult it is to get in, it is likely much easier comparatively to be accepted to Feinberg for a number of reasons ranging from the yield (HMS has the highest yield of any school, almost 80%), applicant pool, what the school's specific wants are, etc.

Edit: To expand/clarify, generally stats is the biggest separator of schools/applicants from the lowest school up until maybe the top 20 schools. Then as you go up the ladder, ECs probably matter more and more, particularly for the big 5. In fact, a few years ago, the Dean of Admissions for Stanford said that after determining interviews, stats are not considered "AT ALL" (just used as a means of assessing whether you can handle the rigors of the school). Perhaps another reason why you see a larger 10-90th percentile range for the tip top schools compared to other top schools.

 

[NiceDr]

Thank you all for your input -- very helpful.

@MaxPlancker, you confirmed what I assumed; thank you! Especially re: Feinberg v. Harvard -- I figured that, despite similar stats, submitted applications, and available seats, the pool of applicants at Harvard might be a tougher crowd to beat in non-stat measures. As I see it, which you seem to echo, is that, as you climb up the ladder, everyone becomes roughly identical in terms of academic capabilities and so they are differentiated by unique ECs, compelling personal stories, legacy, demographic oddities like LizzyM mentioned (Wyoming!) -- basically, the X-factor.

So I suppose, since stats are so similar up at the top, they'll get your application in the door. From there, the amount of special-sauce you bring to the table will largely determine just how high you can go.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Successful applicants to top schools generally have all or most of:

• High MCAT and GPA
• Strong research experience
• Above adequate clinical experience/exposure
• Leadership, teaching, or roles that place them in positions of responsibility
• Strong interpersonal skills
• Effective written and verbal communication
• Excellent letters of recommendation
• +/- other "standout" experiences, honors, or other things

 

[LizzyM]

I'd say for top schools, the single most important factor would be the ECs/story. While you cannot get into top schools without good stats, top schools will go far to get you if you have something they really want. Think of top schools as rare item collectors.

While numerically Feinberg vs Harvard seems comparable in terms of how difficult it is to get in, it is likely much easier comparatively to be accepted to Feinberg for a number of reasons ranging from the yield (HMS has the highest yield of any school, almost 80%), applicant pool, what the school's specific wants are, etc.

At least for the year included in my old MSAR, it was easier to get an interview at Harvard (15.6%) than Feinberg (11.6%). Once you manage that hurdle, it is likely easier to get an offer from Feinberg (low yield, many offers made from interview pool) than Harvard. Both are chasing the same small pool of applicants and Harvard wins in head to head competition more often.

 

[Goro]

To update
Feinberg:6955 apps; 727 IIs; matriculated 164 (2.4%)

Harvard: 7015 apps; 813 IIs; matriculated 165 (2.4%)

And by comparison:
Gtown: 12697 apps; 1115 IIs; matriculated 196 (1.5%) !!

Based upon a very small n of my SDN advisees, one trend I've noticed is that people who have gotten into Really Good Schools (JHU, WashU, Duke) all have patient contact experience in the high 100s of hours, and some > 1000.

The research powerhouses seem to have a fondness for people with publications and/or lots of posters or presentations (ie, evidence of research productivity).

You would be wrong to assume that Feinberg is much less competitive than Harvard. My old MSAR with data from 2010-2011 tells me that Feinberg got 6400 applications to fill 170 seats and Harvard had ~6300 to fill 165 seats. If they had about the same number of applicants and ended up with classes that are similar with regard to MCAT and GPA how would it be "easier" to be admitted to Feinberg?

Wayne State is public right? Some people who could get into an elite private will choose a less expensive school which often means going to their state school.

Most of the time, the applicants with lesser stats who get admitted anyway have something in their experience that gave them an edge. It could be military service, full-time volunteer service (such as Peace Corps), athletic participation at the elite level, some other "hook" or even being born into certain circumstances (legacy, URM). Sometimes it can be the novelty of having an applicant from a state that sends very few applicants to that school (look! an applicant from Wyoming, we don't see those very often!) Research is so ubiquitous that for research experience to be the tipping point for an otherwise "below average" applicant, it would have to be something really special.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Lol those numbers look so depressing!

 

[aldol16]

The reason why top schools might appear to have lower GPAs and MCATs than expected is because that's not really what they're looking for. Don't you think that Harvard could fill its class completely with 4.0s and 40 MCATs if it wanted to? The reason its average GPA and MCAT are lower than that is because those are not the only metrics it looks at. GPA and MCAT, while appearing to be so important on here and constantly in the back of pre-meds' minds, is only meant to indicate whether you can handle medical coursework. I don't think anybody here would disagree that there is very little difference between a guy with a 3.7 GPA and one with a 4.0 GPA in terms of being able to handle medical coursework, ceteris paribus. Similarly with, say, a 36 MCAT and 40 MCAT. Compound this with the fact that elite undergrad schools are overrepresented at the top med schools and many of these elite schools deflate grades, you end up with a lower average GPA and MCAT - short of perfect, in other words.

What gets someone into Harvard isn't the fact that they have a 4.0 and 40 MCAT. That's why any numerical "predictors" based only on these metrics can only tell you if you're within range of, say, the top 20. On top of that, it all depends on what story you have to tell as an applicant.

 

[MaxPlancker]

The reason why top schools might appear to have lower GPAs and MCATs than expected is because that's not really what they're looking for. Don't you think that Harvard could fill its class completely with 4.0s and 40 MCATs if it wanted to? The reason its average GPA and MCAT are lower than that is because those are not the only metrics it looks at. GPA and MCAT, while appearing to be so important on here and constantly in the back of pre-meds' minds, is only meant to indicate whether you can handle medical coursework. I don't think anybody here would disagree that there is very little difference between a guy with a 3.7 GPA and one with a 4.0 GPA in terms of being able to handle medical coursework, ceteris paribus. Similarly with, say, a 36 MCAT and 40 MCAT. Compound this with the fact that elite undergrad schools are overrepresented at the top med schools and many of these elite schools deflate grades, you end up with a lower average GPA and MCAT - short of perfect, in other words.

What gets someone into Harvard isn't the fact that they have a 4.0 and 40 MCAT. That's why any numerical "predictors" based only on these metrics can only tell you if you're within range of, say, the top 20. On top of that, it all depends on what story you have to tell as an applicant.

Bingo! One of few pre-meds that realizes this 🙂 You will have a good cycle...