What The Waitlist Actually Signifies

[malefraud]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."


MY POINT #1: This whole obsession with numbers/stats/money does not produce the MOST QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS (define qualify any way you like).

MY POINT #2: Interviews should be weighed more and more than one person should interview you per school. The interview should be weighed much more.

-MaleFraud

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wander]

I agree

 

[true blue]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."

These people don't suck as bad as some others we flat-out rejected.

 

[Dr. Donkey]

a lot of schools waitlist everyone or nearly everyone who does not get accepted. some without even a tiered waitlist.

 

[derzornhistolog]

So are we a forsaken, pitiable lot?

____________________________________________________________________
Wallowing in self-pity and, as always, advocating for the destruction of Carthage

 

[rockstar2525]

MY POINT #2: Interviews should be weighed more and more than one person should interview you per school. The interview should be weighed much more.

-MaleFraud

I totally agree. If I had a med school I would use stats as a determining factor in who would get interveiws only. Stats are useful, how else are you going to weed through 7,000 applicants? BUT after I granted the interview I would throw that part of the file away and make my decision solely on the quality of the interview. I know schools say they do this, but let's be real. . . they don't.

 

[PBR727]

Mayo does

I totally agree. If I had a med school I would use stats as a determining factor in who would get interveiws only. Stats are useful, how else are you going to weed through 7,000 applicants? BUT after I granted the interview I would throw that part of the file away and make my decision solely on the quality of the interview. I know schools say they do this, but let's be real. . . they don't.

 

[bigpinesman]

It wouldn't be that great if they decided just on the interview. You may get a feeling about a person and you may not in a one hour interview. Just feeling warm and fuzzy about someone doesn't necessarily mean that person would be a great doctor. Being a doctor requires years of rigorous study and knowing tons of information. You have to be organized, motivated and a dedicated, hard worker. These are all qualities which can better and more honestly be determined from someone's history, past experiences and performance. In my opinion, the best choices will be made when this information is used in conjunction with an idea of someone's personality, which you get from an interview.

 

[Ross434]

Personally, i want to get in based on my numbers alone. However, having it be based only on the interview would be cool, because then in med school i'd be competing against a bunch of people who got in because they were "nice".. a trait that isnt going to help them get good grades or ace the boards.

 

[vhawk]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."


MY POINT #1: This whole obsession with numbers/stats/money does not produce the MOST QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS (define qualify any way you like).

-MaleFraud

Prove it. Seriously, what does? The fact that they ate poo with a smile for a twenty minute interview with some decrepid old doc who doesnt even wanna be there, and some burnt-out fourth year who only showed up cause he needed a break from his plotting to burn down the school? Its so easy to sit and say "Numbers-whoring is wrong, numbers dont mean anything, its my soul that counts," but numbers do matter, and no, not everyone who makes the interview cutoff is identical. A 30/3.5 gets an interview and so does a 42/3.95, and if the 30 has a better interview, should they get in while the other doesnt? People would b*tch about that too, except those people get into any school they want and dont need to start threads whining about how the process should be tailored more to their specific talents.


Whew, that was mean. Oh well, you deserve it.

 

[patzan]

Consider this alternate possibility:

"This guy has great stats, ECs, and did well in his interview. He'd really help improve our overall MCAT/GPA average, but I think he'll get in at a higher ranked school and won't come here. If we accept him and he doesn't come, well get a lower selectivity ranking. Let's put him on the waitlist, and if he sends us a LOI, we'll let him in."

but most likely...

"He's a great candidate, but we've chosen other great candidates. Let's put him on the never-ending, never-moving waitlist so he doesn't feel totally rejected."

 

[Scarletbegonias]

I thought medical schools were supposed to be training physicians. Not everyone who could be successful at passing the tests make a good physician, as it is obvious that a lot of physicians and future physicians are lacking in the empathy/compassion department. They look at the interview and things other than gpa and mcat score to try to pick out those people that will make good physicians, and of course, passing medical school is one part of that.

 

[virilep]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."


MY POINT #1: This whole obsession with numbers/stats/money does not produce the MOST QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS (define qualify any way you like).

MY POINT #2: Interviews should be weighed more and more than one person should interview you per school. The interview should be weighed much more.

-MaleFraud

u know i read somewhere. that when the adcoms admit students they are the people that they report their average scores and stuff. the people that come off the waitlist don't affect these national score releases. i don't know where i read that... but for some reason i remember it. any one know?

 

[dopaminophile]

What I wan to know is how many different names for waitlists are there? I've been on each of the following post interview:

wait list
hold list
acceptable range list
continuing review list

and then, of course, the definitive

accept
reject

 

[Ross434]

What I wan to know is how many different names for waitlists are there? I've been on each of the following post interview:

wait list
hold list
acceptable range list
continuing review list

and then, of course, the definitive

accept
reject

What the heck's an acceptable range list

 

[vhawk]

I thought medical schools were supposed to be training physicians. Not everyone who could be successful at passing the tests make a good physician, as it is obvious that a lot of physicians and future physicians are lacking in the empathy/compassion department. They look at the interview and things other than gpa and mcat score to try to pick out those people that will make good physicians, and of course, passing medical school is one part of that.

Right, passing is part of what makes them a good doctor. There seems to be this notion that if you have great numbers, you automatically have terrible ECs and interview like Charles Manson or Randy Moss. In the span of a twenty minute interview, how much difference do you suppose there really is? Everyone has their canned answer for Why School X, Why Medicine. So, interviews are fun and eliminate any SERIOUS red-flags, but in the end they need something, and that something is the app and stats. Sorry.

 

[dopaminophile]

It's Tulane speak for wait list.

 

[PBMaxx]

What I wan to know is how many different names for waitlists are there? I've been on each of the following post interview:

wait list
hold list
acceptable range list
continuing review list

and then, of course, the definitive

accept
reject

Add "alternate list" and "accept when place available" limbo designations

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Right, passing is part of what makes them a good doctor. There seems to be this notion that if you have great numbers, you automatically have terrible ECs and interview like Charles Manson or Randy Moss. In the span of a twenty minute interview, how much difference do you suppose there really is? Everyone has their canned answer for Why School X, Why Medicine. So, interviews are fun and eliminate any SERIOUS red-flags, but in the end they need something, and that something is the app and stats. Sorry.

No, I don't think you understood what I meant. I wasn't implying nor have I ever thought that having great numbers means that you are lacking in the personality or EC department or anything like that. A lot of people have both, and I really admire that. There is a lot you can discover about a person from an interview, such as level of compassion for others, ability to empathize, ability to communicate well, sincerity, and humility. These are all "part" of what can make a person a good physician. (I don't know about all medical school interviews, but I thought their lengths are closer to 30 minutes to an hour than 20 minutes). Also, I wasn't saying that app. stats weren't important either. But in the long run, if I have to choose between two physicians that are both certified and practicing (passed boards, etc.) for the same amount of years, basically had the same residency training, what's going to make the difference to me is how they treat me as a person and a patient. And that is more related to things that can be assessed in an interview.

 

[civic4982]

No, I don't think you understood what I meant. I wasn't implying nor have I ever thought that having great numbers means that you are lacking in the personality or EC department or anything like that. A lot of people have both, and I really admire that.

The majority of applicants I've met in interviews and on other settings are exceptionally well rounded. I'd dare to say about 95% of applicants I've met are this way. The anti-socials rarely ever make it all the way to interview in my opinion. This is probably due ot the fact that people who didn't once have social skills learn them over the years of doing different types of EC activities that pad their app.

I never quite understood the complaints about judging upon numbers. I don't know any med students that won't go out and make good doctors nor many applicants even that are so assinine as to be unable to interact well with others.

I think I agree with the suggestion above that interviews are there to make sure you're not a phony on paper alone. They just want to make sure you're who your PS and ECs say you are.

What it boils down to is that you sit with 10,000 files, all of which are probably at the least somewhat charming and well spoken ambitious individuals. You sort throuh all that paperwork and only 1% of them are goign to fill your class. Stats seem to be the most useful to make that decision.

 

[Newman8r]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."


MY POINT #1: This whole obsession with numbers/stats/money does not produce the MOST QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS (define qualify any way you like).

MY POINT #2: Interviews should be weighed more and more than one person should interview you per school. The interview should be weighed much more.

-MaleFraud

Although you make good points.... almost anyone can sound good for an hour, they can either be honest about who they are or they can shovel BS....

People can't really 'BS' strong grades and extracurriculars for 4 years, or a high MCAT score. I think long term success in undergrad really shows that you want to be a doctor and that you are willing to work hard and make sacrifices to do it.

 

[dopaminophile]

Haha... totally off the topic of the thread, I really like your sig Newman. I'm still laughing. It takes someone that's flown under a hood or in clouds to really understand.... whew.

 

[freaker]

It's not all about numbers. Not even close.

I have a 3.75 and a 35 MCAT. I was a college athlete, have volunteered in a medical setting since high school, have participated in charity functions with since elementary school. I've lived and worked in foreign nations and across this country. Went to a top 20 undergrad.

I haven't been accepted into a medical school, yet. 7 interviews. Nada.

From what I've been able to gather it's because 1) I dropped out of law school to pursue medicine and 2) I haven't had any science courses in a few years (despite the fact that I took the MCAT this past April).

You want to get numbers based? How about law school?

I had a 3.75 170. I got into NYU, UVA, Michigan, Penn, Cornell, Northwestern, Duke, UCLA, and Georgetown. I earned large scholarships from Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. I was waitlisted at Columbia and Chicago. Rejected at Stanford, and that is it. I didn't even bother applying to schools outside the top 25 because I knew I was guaranteed a slot at a top school.

Now THAT is numbers-based. I knew exactly which schools would let me and which ones were going to give me money. I predicted it before all of that started. It was just a question of how much and whether I was going to get waitlisted at Stanford, Columbia, and Chicago (and to a lesser degree, NYU, Michigan, and UVA).

I hate to name and number drop, but I think it illustrates a point: medical school admissions are FAR more subjective than any other professional school program out there. Law? Business? I hope you have the numbers.

Honestly, someone can miss 50 more questions on the MCAT and be admitted over someone who the same GPA who didn't miss those 50 questions. That's hardly purely numbers-based.

In some ways, I like the way med school admissions are set up. It prevents some of the elitism that you see in law school, for instance. With that said, I hate the fact that value judgements are being placed on my background and that my motivation is being questioned simply based upon the fact that I went a non-traditional route and haven't taken any science courses in the last three years.

So I'm waiting just like the rest of you. Good luck. Waitlists start moving in May, and I have a feeling that if I don't hear soon, I may be pulling my hair out for the next few months with all the other frustrated applicants out there.

Have faith. Your odds are pretty good if you've already interviewed.

 

[Sanctuary]

Nicely stated in the above post! I must definitely concur. Medical schools admissions have been rather subjective for quite some time now. This is so for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that doctors are also expected to be community leaders, pioneers and comforting to those at the end of their lives. Lawyers and businessmen are not expected to do most of these, if any. A doctors role in life is much more inclusive than a lawyers in many respects. That is not to say one is more important than the other - merely that varying degrees of qualities are required of a physician. That being said, I have spoken with a assistant dean at my state medical school and she put it rather simply: most schools, including this one, have a certain threshold that EVERYONE must meet with respects to GPA and MCAT. Once this has been acheived, everyone is treated equally, thus ECs, research, etc. come into play heavily.

Hopefully that helps. Again, not ALL schools, but she said most.

 

[superdevil]

It's not all about numbers. Not even close.

You want to get numbers based? How about law school?

I had a 3.75 170. I got into NYU, UVA, Michigan, Cornell, Northwestern, Duke, UCLA, and Georgetown. I earned large scholarships from Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. I was waitlisted at Columbia and Chicago. Rejected at Stanford, and that is it. I didn't even bother applying to schools outside the top 25 because I knew I was guaranteed a slot at a top school.

Now THAT is numbers-based. I knew exactly which schools would let me and which ones were going to give me money. I predicted it before all of that started. It was just a question of how much and whether I was going to get waitlisted at Stanford, Columbia, and Chicago (and to a lesser degree, NYU, Michigan, and UVA).

excellent post. my friend just applied to law school, and, exactly as you've said, he was able to predict who would take him and who wouldn't (oh yeah, and there's no interview, adding even more emphasis to the numbers). med schools sure as hell don't work like that.

Originally Posted by Newman8r
...almost anyone can sound good for an hour, they can either be honest about who they are or they can shovel BS....

People can't really 'BS' strong grades and extracurriculars for 4 years, or a high MCAT score. I think long term success in undergrad really shows that you want to be a doctor and that you are willing to work hard and make sacrifices to do it.

EXACTLY!!! i can't believe people just gloss over this fact whilst endlessly crusading against the inherent evil of "numbers". the biggest douchebags in the universe can seem like the smoothest, most personable people (even to experienced interviewers, in some cases) for an hour if their life's dream hangs in the balance.

hell, i could pretend to listen to country music and eat pig's feet if it would get me into yale. wouldn't mean anything.

 

[DukeDoc08]

this is referring to a post on page 1.....
I am not really sure how much difference bw applicants schools get during an interview.....
I would bet that there are a few "antisocial" and a few people that somehow and someway come across as awesome people....90% of the total fall in the middle and you can't distinguish bw them....just my theory
PLUS, a good deal of your interview score is how you mesh with the interviewer, and since there are many different interviewers there is not a standard to which all interviewees can be compared....
I mean a lot of small or large things could really change the way someone feels about you....what if you went on tons of medical Christian mission trips but the interviewer was an atheist or had different theological views? what if you get the big question about stem cell research and cloning and your interviewer is firmly against them both? you better answer their way or at least not be over the top on your answer
POINT? too many uncertainties in the interview.....
weed out the people that you would rather bleed to death before seeing
accept the people that give you a feeling in your gut that he/she is going to make a great doctor
I go to Duke and I bet on interview day that ask EVERYONE, "why Duke" and I bet that EVERYONE says something about "3rd year".....they probably aren't getting a whole lot out of the question (accept to make sure you actually know how Duke runs its school)
PREFACE....THEORY: I think interviews make a difference when trying to get off the the waitlist...or should I say whom interviewed you....

HOWEVER, as one poster alluded to....at least we have interviews and at least at MOST schools actual people read our files to make decisions...at law school (I believe almost all) your #s get plugged into a computer and it spits out a list of people that will even be considered based utterly and solely on your LSAT and GPA....
with all of my theories and mumbo jumbo....I am glad that I got to sit down face to face with a person who was going to help decide my future...at least I could strive to be in the 5% that the interview made the difference.....a boy can dream!

Final thought: WAITLISTS SUCK! (until you get in....no they still sucked)

 

[curiouslygeorge]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."

I don't think this is true in a lot of cases. Have you seen the stats of some of the people rejected from so-called safety schools while others with more average stats get in to those schools with no problem. Look at the people from California who were rejected by Davis and UCI but got in to UCLA or UCSF. The only thing we know for certain is that none of this makes any sense.

 

[tacrum43]

AD COMS: "Well this guy/gal is ok, not quite up to our standards (MCAT, GPA's and by extension USMLE) if we hope to compete and raise our rank on The U.S. News Report, which translates into more money by the NIH and other private funds."

"You know what, let's put them on the waitlist (they seem personable according to the interviewer so let's not reject them)." If the candidates with higher MCAT/GPA's (i.e. the future indirect income-generators for the school) turn us down, we'll go to this lot."


MY POINT #1: This whole obsession with numbers/stats/money does not produce the MOST QUALIFIED PHYSICIANS (define qualify any way you like).

MY POINT #2: Interviews should be weighed more and more than one person should interview you per school. The interview should be weighed much more.

-MaleFraud

I think that a lot of times at rolling schools it's more a matter of who got there first. They would like to accept you, but they're currently full.

 

[plattinum9]

overall, BEING WAITLISTED AND NOT ACCEPTED SUCKS!

 

[10minutes]

Interview is necessary, but should be only a part of the admission process. As someone mentioned, it can be very subjective and a lot of people can fake it. In the other hand, interview is useful to get to know the candidates better. Overall, however, any admission process is not exactly fair even without the interviews. It's very easy to fake your extracurricular activities on the paper and I've seen people doing it.