What’s up with this?

[dramaqueenforlife]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I saw this post on reddit the other day and would really like to know what you guys out here think.



This student seems to have remarkable stats and better than average ECs. Not saying he should have gotten in everywhere but definitely curious as to why he has had zero response from other schools.

The narrative also seems to be a point of issue but I can’t imagine it being so large that it throws off their entire application.

What do you think the issue might be?

 

[AJS59]

I saw this post on reddit the other day and would really like to know what you guys out here think.



This student seems to have remarkable stats and better than average ECs. Not saying he should have gotten in everywhere but definitely curious as to why he has had zero response from other schools.

The narrative also seems to be a point of issue but I can’t imagine it being so large that it throws off their entire application.

What do you think the issue might be?

I think the applicant pointed it out well: insufficient non-clinical volunteering (150 hours very much needed), and also possibly poor writing. The leadership and research are likely lesser causes — those are nice bonuses to have but not critical.

 

[dramaqueenforlife]

I think the applicant pointed it out well: insufficient non-clinical volunteering (150 hours very much needed), and also possibly poor writing. The leadership and research are likely lesser causes — those are nice bonuses to have but not critical.

They have 200 + 60 hours non clinical right?

I’ll give you that writing is a possibility, but it seems like they didn’t completely botch it and that dome reasonable effort was put in. But why no iis? Those are less writing dependent and more stat/hours dependent right?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Let that person post here. Who knows if you are propagating a troll.

 

[AJS59]

They have 200 + 60 hours non clinical right?

I’ll give you that writing is a possibility, but it seems like they didn’t completely botch it and that dome reasonable effort was put in. But why no iis?

S&R depends on the role, could potentially be considered clinical (similar to an EMT). But my point is the standard is service work aimed at those different from yourself, and I don't think that work fits the mold.

We also don't know when they submitted, or if there was potentially an IA, or bad letters of rec. Any of those factors could contribute

 

[dramaqueenforlife]

Let that person post here. Who knows if you are propagating a troll.

Fair enough, that is always a possibility. The author seemed genuine enough in the comments but I guess one never truly knows on the internet.

 

[Goro]

I think the applicant pointed it out well: insufficient non-clinical volunteering (150 hours very much needed), and also possibly poor writing. The leadership and research are likely lesser causes — those are nice bonuses to have but not critical.

As this shows, stats aren't everything.

The candidate may have had bad LORs as well

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Fair enough, that is always a possibility. The author seemed genuine enough in the comments but I guess one never truly knows on the internet.

Certainly, I know there is cross-chatter with reddit users who post here wanting to compare responses. Encourage that person to post here. We have had our fair share of high-metrics no-offers WAMC's over the years.

Secondly, for many posters I have to ask (and it's a good mnemonic for conflict management, coaching, or advising) if the person wants advice, affirmation, or attention. I find many reddit posters would rather have attention than advice. Hence, the troll.

The person may have also listened to bad (often crowdsourced) advice or ignored good advice.

Dr. Gray has a few YT videos where he dissects the high-metrics no-offers candidates he has seen early in his consultancy. Those are entertaining but likely underscores the challenges we would see. In other words, the poster is not unique, and the advice has been out there, even from the for-profit admissions consultants.

 

[dramaqueenforlife]

As this shows, stats aren't everything.

The candidate may have had bad LORs as well

The LORs are naturally a possibility.

I get that stats aren’t everything which is most certainly true. But this student’s application has very respectable ECs in my eyes. Perhaps not stellar, but still amazing. A lack of any noise from any school just really surprises me.

 

[AJS59]

The LORs are naturally a possibility.

I get that stats aren’t everything which is most certainly true. But this student’s application has very respectable ECs in my eyes. Perhaps not stellar, but still amazing. A lack of any noise from any school just really surprises me.

It's a buyers market out here. 1 lousy LOR could absolutely sink an app

 

[Mr.Smile12]

It's a buyers market out here. 1 lousy LOR could absolutely sink an app

If the OP secured a lousy reference, that's bad gameplay on the part of the OP. I'll give that person the benefit of the doubt of picking good recommenders. Alternatively, the "lousy" references may speak truths about the OP's competencies as a future professional or academic.

Many experts here have talked about how we read LORs, including what is NOT mentioned in LORs. A person's inability to properly self-assess is a remarkable concern, and who knows if that is an issue for the OP. I don't know of any faculty member with the courage to deep-six a recommendation from a top-metrics candidate with a LOR; that reference should clearly say they cannot write a "strong" recommendation in the beginning and just refuse.

Assess against the rubrics. How do you think they did? Limitation: you don't have their entire application.

How to Assess Your Academic Competencies | SDN

Over a decade ago, I wrote a series of articles (here is Part 1) that heralded the growing importance of understanding “competency.” Over the last decade,

www.studentdoctor.net

How to Assess Your Pre-Professional Competencies | SDN

In 2023, AAMC revised the AAMC Premed Competencies to align with the PREview situational judgment test, incorporate changes in medical education after the

www.studentdoctor.net

School list determines success for getting II's. Mission fit is always the key.

Mission Fit: Key to Your Success | SDN

Every application cycle, applicants request expert reviews on the Student Doctor Network to help them assess “What Are My Chances” (WAMC) at getting

www.studentdoctor.net

Note that while I say 150 hours of service orientation activities is the usual threshold to avoid getting screened out at most schools, if the applicant applied to brand-name schools, they should have at least 250 hours at submission to keep up with the applicant pool "average" in those cohorts. Many applicants will have many more hours and better experience reflections to tie into their purpose.

Did this person journal?

Practicing the Art of Reflection with a Prehealth Journal (or Podcast, or Online Blog) | SDN

This article focuses on reflective practices for health professional education and training. This advice can apply to developing a prehealth journal,

www.studentdoctor.net

Remember we live in the genAI era now. You can't trust the "sincerity" of an anonymous internet post.

 

[AsclepiusAdvisingLLC]

The University of Michigan provides clear data regarding how many applicants they interview based off when the applicants submitted their secondary applications (attachment posted via link). Submitting a "late" secondary can be objective if you look at the right data, and according to the University of Michigan late secondaries do not see the same level of success as those submitted in early June. Even with high credentialling, other aspects of the admission cycle can affect an applicant as much as the application itself.

https://medschool.umich.edu/sites/default/files/2024-08/Five Year Admissions Snapshot 2020-2024.pdf

 

[LizzyM]

With a high GPA and in a major that values collaboration and creativity, a bad letter could indicate that the applicant was a grade-grubber and a perfectionist, a person who was not a team player but did all the work themself and/or someone who was good at mimicry but could not think creatively and/or who had poor communication skills and an ability to relate well to others.

This could all be written in a way that sounds positive but reading between the lines you see the red flags.

 

[pedneuro6894]

I don't have nearly those stats (3.96 sGPA and 520 MCAT), but I went whole 3 cycles with only a singular II. My non-clinical volunteering wasn't great, so that def played a factor, but it majorly had to do with my writing.

Writing changes everything. I excelled in school, specifically my science classes, because I could write a flawless 10 page lab report in 30 minutes because the stuff clicked for me and that's how my brain works. However, ask me to write a reflective essay on why I want to go into medicine and it comes out looking like a 2nd grader wrote it, or better yet, a sociopath lol.

I always say it's not about what you do, it's all about how you write about it. If this person is saying it's their writing, I can only imagine they're in a similar boat as me.

Also, I would say non-clinical volunteering is probably the most important aspect of applications now. I feel like it's such a major point of emphasis to be altruistic (which is obviously super important as a physician). I added a bunch of non-clinical stuff and improved my writing and I'm having a cycle I could have only dreamed about a few years ago.

 

[Goro]

I don't have nearly those stats (3.96 sGPA and 520 MCAT), but I went whole 3 cycles with only a singular II. My non-clinical volunteering wasn't great, so that def played a factor, but it majorly had to do with my writing.

Which is why I advise to always have multiple eyeballs vet your essays.

Also, to follow up the learned LizzyM's comment, LORs can also "damn by faint praise".