When do Extracurriculars Come into Play?

[chiapet874]

First off, I would like to thank everyone on SDN for helping me out so much with respect to increasing my understand on the application process. I've spent the past couple months reading through the threads and have learned a great deal


My question is: when do you think your extracurriculars really enter the playing field during the application/admissions process? At what step in the process does extracurriculars become the "make or break" aspect of your application?

From what I can gather, it seems that the AMCAs primaries focus more on quantifiable numbers (GPA, MCAT scores), while each schools' secondaries focus more on an individual's essays. So is it really during the interview when ECs come into their own? Is this a correct judgement?

I ask because, in terms of volunteer hours, shadowing hours, and the like, I am about average (at least in terms of SDN average haha). But I feel that I can actually really TALK about them- I just worry that I won't get the chance to talk about them if the schools focus too much on the actual hours dedicated to an activity and shun me before I even get the chance to talk about it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IPremed2010]

Generally speaking, GPA and MCAT are more important than ECs. In the case of you having an exceptional EC such as permanently resolving the political conflict in the Middle East, a medical school may consider your application even though you have a significantly lower GPA and MCAT score.

Do not sacrifice your time to do ECs. Focus on your GPA and MCAT first.


Good luck.

First off, I would like to thank everyone on SDN for helping me out so much with respect to increasing my understand on the application process. I've spent the past couple months reading through the threads and have learned a great deal


My question is: when do you think your extracurriculars really enter the playing field during the application/admissions process? At what step in the process does extracurriculars become the "make or break" aspect of your application?

From what I can gather, it seems that the AMCAs primaries focus more on quantifiable numbers (GPA, MCAT scores), while each schools' secondaries focus more on an individual's essays. So is it really during the interview when ECs come into their own? Is this a correct judgement?

I ask because, in terms of volunteer hours, shadowing hours, and the like, I am about average (at least in terms of SDN average haha). But I feel that I can actually really TALK about them- I just worry that I won't get the chance to talk about them if the schools focus too much on the actual hours dedicated to an activity and shun me before I even get the chance to talk about it.

 

[chiapet874]

Generally speaking, GPA and MCAT are more important than ECs. In the case of you having an exceptional EC such as permanently resolving the political conflict in the Middle East, a medical school may consider your application even though you have a significantly lower GPA and MCAT score.

Do not sacrifice your time to do ECs. Focus on your GPA and MCAT first.


Good luck.

I appreciate your response. I definitely already knew that GPA and MCATS came first, but I guess from my point of view, at a certain lvl, EVERYONE has high GPAS and MCAT scores- what really differentiates them is their ability to talk about their extra activities.

So my real question is not: "are ECs important" but really "how likely is a school going to reject you purely based on your listed hours (for say volunteering at a hospital) before even giving you the chance to discuss your experience?"

Hopefully that makes sense >_>.

 

[IPremed2010]

I appreciate your response. I definitely already knew that GPA and MCATS came first, but I guess from my point of view, at a certain lvl, EVERYONE has high GPAS and MCAT scores- what really differentiates them is their ability to talk about their extra activities.

So my real question is not: "are ECs important" but really "how likely is a school going to reject you purely based on your listed hours (for say volunteering at a hospital) before even giving you the chance to discuss your experience?"

Hopefully that makes sense >_>.

No, I don't school a school will reject you purely based on your listed hours. However, they might reject you based on your personal statement and(or) what kind and how many hours of ECs you have done.

 

[wolverinepwns]

to simply answer your question:

they come into play after GPA and MCAT clear the way!

 

[LizzyM]

No, I don't school a school will reject you purely based on your listed hours. However, they might reject you based on your personal statement and(or) what kind and how many hours of ECs you have done.

Many schools have ten or more applicants for each interview slot and grades and scores alone are not enough to whittle the list down to a managable size so LORs, PS, secondary essays and ECs will be used to distinguish applicants who look good on paper from those who don't.

Schools vary in the amount of clinical experience, volunteer work, reseach experience, etc that they expect an applicant to have. If I see less than 2 hours per week for less than 4 mos (and wink, wink, on an AMCAS application 4 months could be Sept 30 to December 1) then I'm going to need a very strong PS to convince me that the experience was of sufficient intensity.

 

[TommyJohnMD]

Do not sacrifice your time to do ECs.

I couldn't disagree more, and nothing pisses me off than nonsense like this.

Do your extracurricular activities if you enjoy them. You shouldn't be sacrificing your own interests just to focus solely on your studying and schoolwork. Too often I see pre-meds who do nothing but study, and they are some of the most socially awkward people around. They have a miserable 4 years to get their 4.0 and whatever score they may get on their MCAT. But they certainly didn't enjoy themselves.

Yes, we all go to college for the same reason, to get an education. But if you don't do anything outside of your work, and don't pursue your own interests and explore your campus opportunities, then you missed a once in as lifetime opportunity

 

[LizzyM]

Too often I see pre-meds who do nothing but study, and they are some of the most socially awkward people around. They have a miserable 4 years to get their 4.0 and whatever score they may get on their MCAT. But they certainly didn't enjoy themselves.

I don't buy the assumption that too much studying makes students socially awkward. And I don't buy the assumption that working hard to get a 4.0 and a high MCAT is why some students don't enjoy college.

I think that profound introverts are often socially awkward people but they enjoy working alone on their studies and they may be very successful academically in areas and at schools where working solo is acceptable (schools and programs that are big on teamwork are not a good fit for these folks). They may have outside interests that they enjoy on their own terms. Not being a party animal doesn't mean that one doesn't enjoy life. On the other hand, some students who feel ostricized throw themselves into their work as a way of avoiding relationships or avoiding rejection. Their academic performance is the result rather than the cause of their unhappiness although it does create a cycle of pulling away and being disconnected.

 

[OtoHNS]

Extracurriculars are important, but I would not describe them as "make or break." The only exception is that you really do need to have some exposure to clinical medicine. This will let medical schools know that you at least have some idea of what real doctors do everyday (as opposed to what you saw on last week's Greys Anatomy or House MD). There are a thousand ways to get this exposure including shadowing, hospital volunteering, working as a scribe/EMT/phlebotomist/etc, going on a medical mission, etc, etc, etc.

Your grades are important, but equally as important (for YOU, not for your application) is having an interesting life outside the classroom and study hall.

 

[iwantMD]

think about it this way. Both applicants have a 4.0 and 45 T. There is only one spot left. Who to interview? This is where the ECs come in.

 

[wanderer]

Extracurriculars are important, but I would not describe them as "make or break." The only exception is that you really do need to have some exposure to clinical medicine. This will let medical schools know that you at least have some idea of what real doctors do everyday (as opposed to what you saw on last week's Greys Anatomy or House MD). There are a thousand ways to get this exposure including shadowing, hospital volunteering, working as a scribe/EMT/phlebotomist/etc, going on a medical mission, etc, etc, etc.

Your grades are important, but equally as important (for YOU, not for your application) is having an interesting life outside the classroom and study hall.

I don't know, you hear of plenty of people with great MCAT/GPA along with some clinical experience get rejected everywhere because they don't have other things going on.

think about it this way. Both applicants have a 4.0 and 45 T. There is only one spot left. Who to interview? This is where the ECs come in.

lol

 

[NickNaylor]

IMO, more important than the actual ECs you participated in is the experiences you had while doing the ECs. If you focus on school and do nothing but get a 4.0/45, you'll have fantastic grades but likely be horribly dull and not know anything about the real world. With ECs, you get life experiences (which hold value beyond the med school application process) and critical life skills, e.g. working with others in teams, managing your time successfully, and leadership abilities, not to mention countless others.

I don't think the ECs themselves are important. It's what you get out of them and what you found to be significant that's important. Those things become part of you are as a person, and, thus, are incredibly important to the admissions process since they become part of your values, beliefs, etc..

Doing ECs simply to make a list of stuff you've done and to demonstrate "altruism," "a love for medicine," and "leadership ability" is missing the point entirely.

 

[OtoHNS]

I don't know, you hear of plenty of people with great MCAT/GPA along with some clinical experience get rejected everywhere because they don't have other things going on.

I agree. However, it is still very important to have some clinical exposure on your application. If I can borrow an old phrase from developmental bio class, clinical exposure is "necessary but not sufficient."

 

[TommyJohnMD]

IMO, more important than the actual ECs you participated in is the experiences you had while doing the ECs. If you focus on school and do nothing but get a 4.0/45, you'll have fantastic grades but likely be horribly dull and not know anything about the real world. With ECs, you get life experiences (which hold value beyond the med school application process) and critical life skills, e.g. working with others in teams, managing your time successfully, and leadership abilities, not to mention countless others.

I don't think the ECs themselves are important. It's what you get out of them and what you found to be significant that's important. Those things become part of you are as a person, and, thus, are incredibly important to the admissions process since they become part of your values, beliefs, etc..

Doing ECs simply to make a list of stuff you've done and to demonstrate "altruism," "a love for medicine," and "leadership ability" is missing the point entirely.

This.

You don't need a laundry list of ECs and they could be in anything. It matters and shows a lot they you were involved, what you learned, etc.

I've been/am the president of 2 organizations I am heavily involved in. There is a lot I have learned through these groups (from running a group, communication, responsibility, managing a budget/funds, motivating others, etc). I would argue that I have learned more from these groups than I did in some of my undergraduate classes. In my opinion, and I hope the opinions of some adcoms, these experiences help shape you as a person and define you, and ultimately, that is a big part of the application process.

It's not the list of ECs, it's the experiences and lesson derived from them that you discuss in your application and in the interview. In fact, they might be a crucial part of the interview.

 

[LizzyM]

think about it this way. Both applicants have a 4.0 and 45 T. There is only one spot left. Who to interview? This is where the ECs come in.

Nyet. Both of those applicants are at the top of the list to be interviewed, not at the bottom when there is one slot left. However, if they don't have some spark and sparkle at the interview, and if it obvious that they have nothing going on outside of academics they will also be at the bottom of the list when it comes time to make offers of admission.

 

[BrainBuff]

Nyet. Both of those applicants are at the top of the list to be interviewed, not at the bottom when there is one slot left. However, if they don't have some spark and sparkle at the interview, and if it obvious that they have nothing going on outside of academics they will also be at the bottom of the list when it comes time to make offers of admission.

Which sort of reaffirms the conviction that "scores" are what get an applicant invited for an interview.

(although I know of a couple of applicants from top 10 undergrads, 3.8s and high 30s MCATs getting rejected pre interviews by dear U Chicago..I can't figure it out..)

 

[TarHeelEMT]

I appreciate your response. I definitely already knew that GPA and MCATS came first, but I guess from my point of view, at a certain lvl, EVERYONE has high GPAS and MCAT scores- what really differentiates them is their ability to talk about their extra activities.

So my real question is not: "are ECs important" but really "how likely is a school going to reject you purely based on your listed hours (for say volunteering at a hospital) before even giving you the chance to discuss your experience?"

Hopefully that makes sense >_>.

Your listed ECs (and especially the specific number of hours) shouldn't matter too much for the initial screening. The ECs come into play during the interview - being able to speak convincingly and knowledgeably about them is the most important thing. Don't worry about hours.

 

[LizzyM]

There are a few cirumstances where a 3.8/38 won't get interviewed -- really bad PS, negative LOR, nothing of substance in the experience section, some schools might decline if a specific type of experience is missing (particularly clinical experience).

 

[TommyJohnMD]

There are a few cirumstances where a 3.8/38 won't get interviewed -- really bad PS, negative LOR, nothing of substance in the experience section, some schools might decline if a specific type of experience is missing (particularly clinical experience).

Lizzy, do applicants really have negative LORs? Or just letters that aren't anything special. I have a hard time seeing a professor agree to write a letter just to speak negatively about an applicant. Wouldn't they just deny writing the letter altogether?

 

[chiapet874]

Your listed ECs (and especially the specific number of hours) shouldn't matter too much for the initial screening. The ECs come into play during the interview - being able to speak convincingly and knowledgeably about them is the most important thing. Don't worry about hours.

That is definitely what I hope is the case- however, I recognize that even with the initial screenings, there will be tons of potential interviewees.

Still, it is good to know that it seems the general consensus is that as long as you meet a specific school's "general requirements", they will probably give you the chance to talk about it (def something that I think would help someone like me with average hours but significant gains from those hours).

 

[chiapet874]

Lizzy, do applicants really have negative LORs? Or just letters that aren't anything special. I have a hard time seeing a professor agree to write a letter just to speak negatively about an applicant. Wouldn't they just deny writing the letter altogether?

I suspect that with the hyper competition to get into med school now-a-days, a mediocre or bland LOR is a negative LOR

 

[LizzyM]

Lizzy, do applicants really have negative LORs? Or just letters that aren't anything special. I have a hard time seeing a professor agree to write a letter just to speak negatively about an applicant. Wouldn't they just deny writing the letter altogether?

You'd be surprised.... some professors will think that they are writing a nice letter but they include things that are somewhat negative like saying that the student is very quiet in class discussion but is among the best writers in the class. At a school that places an emphasis on class discussion (e.g. PBL) that is going to be considered a negative letter. I've even seen letters saying that the student obviously blew off the final knowing that he already had enough points for an A and chose to put his efforts elsewhere. (we'd like people who work hard because it is who they are, not just for the grade).
I've also seen letters that say essentially that the student was a grade grubber who asked for review and rescoring at every turn. Less aggregious is the letter that says that the student earned an A or A- but never attended office hours or spoke to the professor outside of class and who was relatively "unknown" to the faculty member. You can tell that these are faculty who are used to getting to know students outside of the classroom itself and they are surprised to be asked to write about someone they know only from the gradebook.

Granted theses type of letter is rare but they do happen. You have to wonder some times if some faculty don't want to get revenge on the rude, uncooperative, grade grubbing, ambitious pre-meds who litter their classrooms. I think it may be rare but don't discount it.

 

[chiapet874]

You'd be surprised.... some professors will think that they are writing a nice letter but they include things that are somewhat negative like saying that the student is very quiet in class discussion but is among the best writers in the class. At a school that places an emphasis on class discussion (e.g. PBL) that is going to be considered a negative letter. I've even seen letters saying that the student obviously blew off the final knowing that he already had enough points for an A and chose to put his efforts elsewhere. (we'd like people who work hard because it is who they are, not just for the grade).
I've also seen letters that say essentially that the student was a grade grubber who asked for review and rescoring at every turn. Less aggregious is the letter that says that the student earned an A or A- but never attended office hours or spoke to the professor outside of class and who was relatively "unknown" to the faculty member. You can tell that these are faculty who are used to getting to know students outside of the classroom itself and they are surprised to be asked to write about someone they know only from the gradebook.

Granted theses type of letter is rare but they do happen. You have to wonder some times if some faculty don't want to get revenge on the rude, uncooperative, grade grubbing, ambitious pre-meds who litter their classrooms. I think it may be rare but don't discount it.

Hmm, didn't even think about several of these pitfalls, good to know!