when do most people get interview invites???

[aspiring20]

i will be applying in the next year or so, but many of my friends/classmates are applying this cycle.

One friend is an asian male from Johns Hopkins with a 3.3 GPA and a 38 MCAT along with good research and hospital volunteering. he applied early, broadly, and wisely, but so far, zero interviews.

Another friend is an asian female from a top 30 university. she's a double major with good MCAT (30-33) and decent GPA (around 3.4). she has great ECs including multiple major leadership roles, international health/service experience, honors thesis, and your typical hospital volunteering activities. She also worked a full time research job at a prestigious hospital during her gap years. as of five days ago, still no interviews. she also applied smartly and broadly (30 schools)

I understand that many on this board claims that those getting early interview invites and acceptances are those super applicants with 3.8 and 38. but many people on SDN who have received acceptances the middle of this month didn't have amazing stats. So i am wondering what is going on here. i can't wrap my head around why these two dont have a single interview yet....it seems that they did everything right and well...

someone told me that low GPA is the single greatest factor behind late interviews. but i dont see a relatively low GPA in the above two circumstances derailing an otherwise strong application.

any perspectives would be helpful

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[red7]

i will be applying in the next year or so, but many of my friends/classmates are applying this cycle.

One friend is an asian male from Johns Hopkins with a 3.3 GPA and a 38 MCAT along with good research and hospital volunteering. he applied early, broadly, and wisely, but so far, zero interviews.

Another friend is an asian female from a top 30 university. she's a double major with good MCAT (30-33) and decent GPA (around 3.4). she has great ECs including multiple major leadership roles, international health/service experience, honors thesis, and your typical hospital volunteering activities. She also worked a full time research job at a prestigious hospital during her gap years. as of five days ago, still no interviews. she also applied smartly and broadly (30 schools)

I understand that many on this board claims that those getting early interview invites and acceptances are those super applicants with 3.8 and 38. but many people on SDN who have received acceptances the middle of this month didn't have amazing stats. So i am wondering what is going on here. i can't wrap my head around why these two dont have a single interview yet....it seems that they did everything right and well...

someone told me that low GPA is the single greatest factor behind late interviews. but i dont see a relatively low GPA in the above two circumstances derailing an otherwise strong application.

any perspectives would be helpful

3.4/30-32 is pretty borderline for most MD schools - she would have to have amazing ECs and also put together a really stellar application to maximise her chances. 3.3/38 is a great MCAT but low GPA - tough to predict what schools will do with that.

Both of these applicants are fairly atypical in their stats, and their chances for interviews would really depend on how they presented themselves in their application.

 

[Goobs]

i will be applying in the next year or so, but many of my friends/classmates are applying this cycle.

One friend is an asian male from Johns Hopkins with a 3.3 GPA and a 38 MCAT along with good research and hospital volunteering. he applied early, broadly, and wisely, but so far, zero interviews.

Another friend is an asian female from a top 30 university. she's a double major with good MCAT (30-33) and decent GPA (around 3.4). she has great ECs including multiple major leadership roles, international health/service experience, honors thesis, and your typical hospital volunteering activities. She also worked a full time research job at a prestigious hospital during her gap years. as of five days ago, still no interviews. she also applied smartly and broadly (30 schools)

I understand that many on this board claims that those getting early interview invites and acceptances are those super applicants with 3.8 and 38. but many people on SDN who have received acceptances the middle of this month didn't have amazing stats. So i am wondering what is going on here. i can't wrap my head around why these two dont have a single interview yet....it seems that they did everything right and well...

someone told me that low GPA is the single greatest factor behind late interviews. but i dont see a relatively low GPA in the above two circumstances derailing an otherwise strong application.

any perspectives would be helpful

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

 

[aspiring20]

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

WTF????

this doesnt make sense...

you obviously understand my concern...can you explain the graph, especially how those with a 3.1/39 have a LOWER chance that a 3.1/35? what gives the sudden dip in acceptance chances (while MCAT is increasing) for those with lower GPAs????

 

[ShenanigansMD]

If we're talking about "when" and not "if"

Then it's really really really really really random. SDN could not possibly answer that question.

 

[music2doc]

i will be applying in the next year or so, but many of my friends/classmates are applying this cycle.

One friend is an asian male from Johns Hopkins with a 3.3 GPA and a 38 MCAT along with good research and hospital volunteering. he applied early, broadly, and wisely, but so far, zero interviews.

Another friend is an asian female from a top 30 university. she's a double major with good MCAT (30-33) and decent GPA (around 3.4). she has great ECs including multiple major leadership roles, international health/service experience, honors thesis, and your typical hospital volunteering activities. She also worked a full time research job at a prestigious hospital during her gap years. as of five days ago, still no interviews. she also applied smartly and broadly (30 schools)

I understand that many on this board claims that those getting early interview invites and acceptances are those super applicants with 3.8 and 38. but many people on SDN who have received acceptances the middle of this month didn't have amazing stats. So i am wondering what is going on here. i can't wrap my head around why these two dont have a single interview yet....it seems that they did everything right and well...

someone told me that low GPA is the single greatest factor behind late interviews. but i dont see a relatively low GPA in the above two circumstances derailing an otherwise strong application.

any perspectives would be helpful

Above avg stats get early interviews. Period. That's who gets them. ECs can help, but the early interviews I got were generally with people who had 35+/3.8+ and a few in the lower 30s (e.g., myself but I had ECs that stood out strongly from what I am told). 3.5/30 would be about the lowest I'd expect to be getting many interviews before Oct. 15. Standards begin to drop gradually after that as schools begin to look for more "diamond in the rough" types.

 

[music2doc]

WTF????

this doesnt make sense...

you obviously understand my concern...can you explain the graph, especially how those with a 3.1/39 have a LOWER chance that a 3.1/35? what gives the sudden dip in acceptance chances (while MCAT is increasing) for those with lower GPAs????

Take a stats class then come back and teach us what occurred here.

 

[aspiring20]

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

can someone please explain to me the inconsistensies of this graph???

a 3.1/35 mcat has 40 percent chance
a 3.1/39 mcat has 10 percent chance

no way this is random error; this doesnt make a lick of sense

 

[aspiring20]

Take a stats class then come back and teach us what occurred here.

i really dont understand....so please

 

[Goobs]

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

can someone please explain to me the inconsistensies of this graph???

a 3.1/35 mcat has 40 percent chance
a 3.1/39 mcat has 10 percent chance

no way this is random error; this doesnt make a lick of sense

This is just the average accepted percentages. Large sample size = more accurate. A 3.1/39 is rare so it has a small sample size (probably n=1) and that person failed to get in.

 

[aspiring20]

This is just the average accepted percentages. Large sample size = more accurate. A 3.1/39 is rare so it has a small sample size (probably n=1) and that person failed to get in.

i see. that makes sense. thanks

what about the follow hypothetical situation: 3.6+ cGPA, 3.3 sGPA, 39 MCAT???

according to the graph, which only looks at cGPA, that person's chance is excellent. but is that really the case?

 

[amad01]

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

can someone please explain to me the inconsistensies of this graph???

a 3.1/35 mcat has 40 percent chance
a 3.1/39 mcat has 10 percent chance

no way this is random error; this doesnt make a lick of sense

3.1/35 is more balanced. 33 on MCAT is good score, but not if you are 15 12 6. A balanced 30 (10,10,10) looks better than an unbalanced 33.
3.1/39 may show someone who can't really handle med school course load, but just studied really hard and got a good score on a test.

OR

90% of the applicants who had 3.1/39 did not matriculate because of reasons other than their numbers... (lack of volunteering, shadowing, etc.)

 

[TheShaker]

i see. that makes sense. thanks

what about the follow hypothetical situation: 3.6+ cGPA, 3.3 sGPA, 39 MCAT???

according to the graph, which only looks at cGPA, that person's chance is excellent. but is that really the case?

I'm not sure what you're asking. It's not all numbers, they'll have a great chance if they have those numbers. It's not 100% acceptance because a few of those applicants will have dealbreakers like zero EC's, criminal records, or letters of recommendation that claim that they are the next incarnation of Hitler.

 

[Goobs]

.

 

[Goobs]

i see. that makes sense. thanks

what about the follow hypothetical situation: 3.6+ cGPA, 3.3 sGPA, 39 MCAT???

according to the graph, which only looks at cGPA, that person's chance is excellent. but is that really the case?

Looked at independently:

A 3.3 sGPA has a ~25% chance of getting in.

A 39 MCAT has a ~95% chance of getting in.

A 3.6 cGPA has a ~45% chance of getting in.

You can refer to the graph from before for a combination of the cGPA and MCAT, but as far as I know theres nothing that looks at cGPA, sGPA, and MCAT.

Note: The numbers are just a rough approximation!

 

[aspiring20]

Out of ~8,000 applicants that apply with a 3.3 sGPA, <2,000 are accepted
If you want the more than a 50% chance you need to get the science GPA > 3.5

Out of ~300 applicants that apply with a 39 MCAT ~300 are accepted

Out of ~12,000 applicants that apply with a 3.6 cGPA, ~5,000 are accepted

You can refer to the graph from before for a combination of the cGPA and MCAT, but as far as I know theres nothing that looks at cGPA, sGPA, and MCAT.

Note: The numbers are just a rough approximation!

i see. so it seems that a very high MCAT can compesnate for quite a bit...according to what you told me , almost everyone with a 39 is accepted

 

[Goobs]

i see. so it seems that a very high MCAT can compesnate for quite a bit...according to what you told me , almost everyone with a 39 is accepted

No those numbers are when you only look at one factor. If you start combining stuff then stuff gets complicated.

 

[aspiring20]

No those numbers are when you only look at one factor. If you start combining stuff then stuff gets complicated.

i see. ahh..so confusing....

and would you regard a minor institutional action (no alcohol, drugs, cheating, or criminal activity - didn't result in probation or higher) a major red flag, or mostly a negligible thing?

 

[huskydock]

i see. ahh..so confusing....

and would you regard a minor institutional action (no alcohol, drugs, cheating, or criminal activity - didn't result in probation or higher) a major red flag, or mostly a negligible thing?

Mostly a negligible thing. What was the institutional action for? Skating in a no skating zone?

There could be several factors that are affecting the lack of their interview invites. Stats might only tell a small part of the story. Also, did your friends really apply as broadly and smartly as you think?

1. Their personal statement/secondary essays may not have been strong. Did they maybe come off as the prototypical Asian applicant who might be doing medicine because the parents said so?

2. I have a handful of Asian friends who have applied this cycle and are sitting on multiple acceptances. Granted, they're not at top-tier schools, but 2-3 acceptances at mid-tier schools is better than radio silence. BTW, their stats were not remarkable by any means, but pretty much in line with your 2nd friend's stats (3.4-3.6, 32-35 MCAT).

In the end, they might just need to exercise some patience. Some schools take longer to get around to "borderline" and "average" applicants. The interview season extends into February, so there is still hope! Just be a good friend and encourage them to continue doing what they do so that they are constantly strengthening their application just in case they have to reapply. Good luck to them!

 

[Corriefangirl]

so when can people with more average stats expect to hear back after they're complete (I was complete at most schools mid-September)? 2 months? 3?

 

[kpcrew]

That graph doesn't measure chances, it's telling you what happened in the past.

 

[1289]

meh i don't buy this "only high stats get early interviews" . i interviewed at 2 schools on their very first interview day this year and my stats certainly don't jump off the page.


op just apply early and broadly

 

[Tots]

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

can someone please explain to me the inconsistensies of this graph???

a 3.1/35 mcat has 40 percent chance
a 3.1/39 mcat has 10 percent chance

no way this is random error; this doesnt make a lick of sense

I think what is more likely happening is that as the MCAT went up, those applicants were more selective about the schools they applied to, probably to their detriment.

 

[kpcrew]

meh i don't buy this "only high stats get early interviews" . i interviewed at 2 schools on their very first interview day this year and my stats certainly don't jump off the page.


op just apply early and broadly

Compelling argument. I'm convinced.

 

[1289]

Compelling argument. I'm convinced.

lol I realize I'm just one person. just my experience tho.

 

[music2doc]

That graph doesn't measure chances, it's telling you what happened in the past.

True, although history tends to predict future trends.

meh i don't buy this "only high stats get early interviews" . i interviewed at 2 schools on their very first interview day this year and my stats certainly don't jump off the page.


op just apply early and broadly

It's all relative to where you apply. It's also a matter of overall strength of application and how early you were complete. Stats are an important determining factor in strength of overall application in the pre-interview phase. They tend to lose value significantly later; however, even post-interview your MCAT score and/or GPA can be the deciding factor b/c so many people have such similar ECs, great LORs, solid interviews, etc.

 

[Narmerguy]

I think what is more likely happening is that as the MCAT went up, those applicants were more selective about the schools they applied to, probably to their detriment.

I actually doubt that is the main reason for this. I think this is part of the trouble with people posting links to Sector9's thread without actually referencing the thread where he explains his methodology and data source. I think Goobs had the right idea where this is simply a case of limited data. There were 48 total applicants with a GPA above a 39 and a 3.0-3.2 GPA (https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf). There's simply too little data for this to be generalizable, and we could be capturing all kinds of crazy effects (were 5-10 of these people super awkward? Did 5-10 of them apply late? Did 5-10 of them apply to selective schools like you say? Did 5-10 of them have otherwise empty applications? With only 50 applicants over that entire range, there's way too much random variation to get a good clean trend.

Here's Sector's thread in the What Are My Chances forum and it has a lot of good data in there and a great explanation of what he did.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=888650

 

[Tots]

I actually doubt that is the main reason for this. I think this is part of the trouble with people posting links to Sector9's thread without actually referencing the thread where he explains his methodology and data source. I think Goobs had the right idea where this is simply a case of limited data. There were 48 total applicants with a GPA above a 39 and a 3.0-3.2 GPA (https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf). There's simply too little data for this to be generalizable, and we could be capturing all kinds of crazy effects (were 5-10 of these people super awkward? Did 5-10 of them apply late? Did 5-10 of them apply to selective schools like you say? Did 5-10 of them have otherwise empty applications? With only 50 applicants over that entire range, there's way too much random variation to get a good clean trend.

Here's Sector's thread in the What Are My Chances forum and it has a lot of good data in there and a great explanation of what he did.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=888650

Yeah ok, I understand and agree. Look at the data for asians(which is what the graph above uses if I am not mistaken)
https://www.aamc.org/download/157598/data/table25-a-mcatgpa-grid-asian.pdf

19/35 in the 3.2-3.4/39+ which is tiny. And then no one in the 3.1/39+ was accepted. Fun.

 

[music2doc]

That graph doesn't measure chances, it's telling you what happened in the past.

I actually doubt that is the main reason for this. I think this is part of the trouble with people posting links to Sector9's thread without actually referencing the thread where he explains his methodology and data source. I think Goobs had the right idea where this is simply a case of limited data. There were 48 total applicants with a GPA above a 39 and a 3.0-3.2 GPA (https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf). There's simply too little data for this to be generalizable, and we could be capturing all kinds of crazy effects (were 5-10 of these people super awkward? Did 5-10 of them apply late? Did 5-10 of them apply to selective schools like you say? Did 5-10 of them have otherwise empty applications? With only 50 applicants over that entire range, there's way too much random variation to get a good clean trend.

Here's Sector's thread in the What Are My Chances forum and it has a lot of good data in there and a great explanation of what he did.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=888650

QFT. Consider sample sizes or go look up the data source yourself. That data is taken from a very low number of applicants.

As a side note, a study done at Mayo showed that VERY HIGH Step 1 scores are correlated with a decrease in resident performance. It would be interesting to run a study on MCAT scores with a similar question (i.e., are 40+ MCAT scores correlated with a decrease in 3rd & 4th yr performance?). For all who believe the interview screens these people effectively, it's helpful but people slip through. Let's be honest here, any sociopath who can score a 40 on the MCAT is far too smart to slip up in an interview setting. (Most intelligent people can pull off a few hours of BS to fool everyone into thinking they are socially normal, emotionally well-adjusted, psychologically stable, etc.)

 

[music2doc]

Yeah ok, I understand and agree. Look at the data for asians(which is what the graph above uses if I am not mistaken)
https://www.aamc.org/download/157598/data/table25-a-mcatgpa-grid-asian.pdf

19/35 in the 3.2-3.4/39+ which is tiny. And then no one in the 3.1/39+ was accepted. Fun.

Honestly, people of Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indian descent are way overrepresented. Caucasians and the traditional URMs are underrepresented. If anything, I'd support a stronger URM push with an added ORM, non-trad & international student reduction to help with the deficit. Of course, none of that would be particularly popular amongst the powers that be....

 

[Narmerguy]

Yeah ok, I understand and agree. Look at the data for asians(which is what the graph above uses if I am not mistaken)
https://www.aamc.org/download/157598/data/table25-a-mcatgpa-grid-asian.pdf

19/35 in the 3.2-3.4/39+ which is tiny. And then no one in the 3.1/39+ was accepted. Fun.

So there may be a new trend where Asian kids tell their parents that they can't study too much or else it'll hurt It's cold, hard math.

 

[pasiley]

Honestly, people of Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indian descent are way overrepresented. Caucasians and the traditional URMs are underrepresented. If anything, I'd support a stronger URM push with an added ORM, non-trad & international student reduction to help with the deficit. Of course, none of that would be particularly popular amongst the powers that be....

Wow, you're just offending everyone today.

 

[pasiley]

i will be applying in the next year or so, but many of my friends/classmates are applying this cycle.

One friend is an asian male from Johns Hopkins with a 3.3 GPA and a 38 MCAT along with good research and hospital volunteering. he applied early, broadly, and wisely, but so far, zero interviews.

Another friend is an asian female from a top 30 university. she's a double major with good MCAT (30-33) and decent GPA (around 3.4). she has great ECs including multiple major leadership roles, international health/service experience, honors thesis, and your typical hospital volunteering activities. She also worked a full time research job at a prestigious hospital during her gap years. as of five days ago, still no interviews. she also applied smartly and broadly (30 schools)

I understand that many on this board claims that those getting early interview invites and acceptances are those super applicants with 3.8 and 38. but many people on SDN who have received acceptances the middle of this month didn't have amazing stats. So i am wondering what is going on here. i can't wrap my head around why these two dont have a single interview yet....it seems that they did everything right and well...

someone told me that low GPA is the single greatest factor behind late interviews. but i dont see a relatively low GPA in the above two circumstances derailing an otherwise strong application.

any perspectives would be helpful

I feel for your friend from Johns Hopkins, that is a major grade deflation school. Unfortunately, med schools care more about subjective GPAs that are affected by things such as institution, major, luck of draw in professors, hours worked, etc than something that is a little more objective in measurement such as the MCAT.

Your friend needs to raise his GPA. In his case, he needs to go to a different school for a post-bacc where grade deflation is not an issue. Also, don't try to work during their post-bacc. A friend couldn't afford a post-bacc without working full time and she ended up ruining her GPA. Take your time and do it right, once.

 

[kpcrew]

So there may be a new trend where Asian kids tell their parents that they can't study too much or else it'll hurt It's cold, hard math.

haha
Unfortunately the nash equilibrium leads to everyone studying as much as they can anyway.

 

[sector9]

WTF????

this doesnt make sense...

you obviously understand my concern...can you explain the graph, especially how those with a 3.1/39 have a LOWER chance that a 3.1/35? what gives the sudden dip in acceptance chances (while MCAT is increasing) for those with lower GPAs????

http://i41.tinypic.com/k21yzn.jpg

can someone please explain to me the inconsistensies of this graph???

a 3.1/35 mcat has 40 percent chance
a 3.1/39 mcat has 10 percent chance

no way this is random error; this doesnt make a lick of sense

As others have pointed out, the graphs are not displaying chances. They display the historical acceptance percentage averaged over the past 3 years. Some of the data points, especially at the extremes and even more dramatically in the graphs for race/ethnicity, have very low support in terms of number of applicants. Some of them look very funky and counterintuitive. I did not attempt to "fix" the data in any way so that all of the curves would make sense.

The graphs are simply a more convenient way to look at the raw data table produced by AAMC.

An explanation of the graphs can be found in the thread http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=888650
The useful raw data can be found here https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/

 

[music2doc]

Wow, you're just offending everyone today.

haha...equal opportunity. What I am saying is that medical school classes should roughly match the demographics of the community they serve. At my school, our community served is southern VA, with a special emphasis on the urban poor. Our ethnic distribution in this region is roughly 45% black/45% white/5% Latino/5% everything else. My estimate of our class would be roughly 35% white/20% Middle Eastern/20% Indian/10% Asian/10% Asian/5% Hispanic/4% Black/1% other.

As others have pointed out, the graphs are not displaying chances. They display the historical acceptance percentage averaged over the past 3 years. Some of the data points, especially at the extremes and even more dramatically in the graphs for race/ethnicity, have very low support in terms of number of applicants. Some of them look very funky and counterintuitive. I did not attempt to "fix" the data in any way so that all of the curves would make sense.

The graphs are simply a more convenient way to look at the raw data table produced by AAMC.

An explanation of the graphs can be found in the thread http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=888650
The useful raw data can be found here https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/

I really don't get how people don't understand this already. Isn't it common sense?

It's not like they have quotas for each MCAT & GPA combination...

...OR DO THEY?!?
​

 

[aspiring20]

I feel for your friend from Johns Hopkins, that is a major grade deflation school. Unfortunately, med schools care more about subjective GPAs that are affected by things such as institution, major, luck of draw in professors, hours worked, etc than something that is a little more objective in measurement such as the MCAT.

Your friend needs to raise his GPA. In his case, he needs to go to a different school for a post-bacc where grade deflation is not an issue. Also, don't try to work during their post-bacc. A friend couldn't afford a post-bacc without working full time and she ended up ruining her GPA. Take your time and do it right, once.

are you saying that as a general rule, GPA is more important than MCAT? I've heard mostly opposite things.

I also recall a recent SDN poll and most people (by a pretty clear majority) claim that MCAT is mroe important. I've also read somewhere that slightly more medical schools place MCAT as the number one factor, while every school places GPA and MCAT as their top two.

thanks

 

[music2doc]

are you saying that as a general rule, GPA is more important than MCAT? I've heard mostly opposite things.

I also recall a recent SDN poll and most people (by a pretty clear majority) claim that MCAT is mroe important. I've also read somewhere that slightly more medical schools place MCAT as the number one factor, while every school places GPA and MCAT as their top two.

thanks

This is nothing but conjecture. They are both important. You can calculate these things from AAMC data but it isn't really useful. Just have both high and balanced. Period.

 

[Goobs]

This is nothing but conjecture. They are both important. You can calculate these things from AAMC data but it isn't really useful. Just have both high and balanced. Period.

+1 a high mcat won't save a ****ty gpa and a high gpa won't save a ****ty mcat. They might HELP balance it out, but it won't be the assurance you're looking for (nothings really assured anyhow in this process )

 

[pasiley]

It varies from school to school but some place more emphasis on GPA while others MCAT.

I just have an issue with giving a subjective measurement(GPA) the same weight or higher than an more objective measurement (MCAT).

Then again, I'm a numbers person and from a scientific perspective there are too many variables that are not controlled for in GPA to make it a good tool for measurement especially when we're talking about differences of 0.1 or 0.2 at times.

 

[aspiring20]

It varies from school to school but some place more emphasis on GPA while others MCAT.

I just have an issue with giving a subjective measurement(GPA) the same weight or higher than an more objective measurement (MCAT).

Then again, I'm a numbers person and from a scientific perspective there are too many variables that are not controlled for in GPA to make it a good tool for measurement especially when we're talking about differences of 0.1 or 0.2 at times.

good point, and i agree with you entirely

 

[PreMedOrDead]

That graph doesn't measure chances, it's telling you what happened in the past.

As others have pointed out, the graphs are not displaying chances. They display the historical acceptance percentage averaged over the past 3 years.

I'm pretty sure it's well understood that these graphs aren't displaying the literal chance of acceptance, but rather an informal term used for a model that best predicts your success as an average applicant with those statistics. Models, which measure a chance are essentially based off historical precedents, so calling it chance isn't necessarily incorrect. An applicant in the past with a certain MCAT/GPA has a very similar chanceof getting in as an applicant in the present with a certain MCAT/GPA, all else being the same.

Sorry, as a statistician it bothers me when people get all elitist about such literal terminology in a non-professional community. I don't understand why this colloquialism bothers people so much.

 

[music2doc]

It varies from school to school but some place more emphasis on GPA while others MCAT.

I just have an issue with giving a subjective measurement(GPA) the same weight or higher than an more objective measurement (MCAT).

Then again, I'm a numbers person and from a scientific perspective there are too many variables that are not controlled for in GPA to make it a good tool for measurement especially when we're talking about differences of 0.1 or 0.2 at times.

You're missing what they are measuring. GPA and MCAT measure two different things. Both are critical.

 

[sector9]

I'm pretty sure it's well understood that these graphs aren't displaying the literal chance of acceptance, but rather an informal term used for a model that best predicts your success as an average applicant with those statistics. Models, which measure a chance are essentially based off historical precedents, so calling it chance isn't necessarily incorrect. An applicant in the past with a certain MCAT/GPA has a very similar chanceof getting in as an applicant in the present with a certain MCAT/GPA, all else being the same.

Sorry, as a statistician it bothers me when people get all elitist about such literal terminology in a non-professional community. I don't understand why this colloquialism bothers people so much.

When people say "chances", some posters assume that we do have some exact mathematical model that will predict what percentage of applicants will be accepted. When they see illogical inconsistencies in the "chances", they wonder how the "model" could possibly show a decreased acceptance percentage as MCAT increases. In reality, we don't have such a model. If you want proof that people get confused, please reread this thread

It is well understood to you but not to everyone. I've had several conversations about this very issue as well to show that not everyone understands

The word "chances" also confuses some users because they start assuming that the rest of their application doesn't matter, which is of course false. Again, you understand it perfectly well but not all premeds do. And again, I've had multiple conversations about the issue that caused me to almost completely rewrite the thread I made from it's original version to the newer version so that it's more clear

Not sure where you're coming up with all this elitist garbage It's a source of confusion for people and so we're trying to explain what it means

 

[PreMedOrDead]

Not sure where you're coming up with all this elitist garbage It's a source of confusion for people and so we're trying to explain what it means

Ugh, that's what happens when I don't sleep enough and the hangover hasn't been flushed out yet. I multiquoted and misguided myself with the recollection of a thread a little while back where people were flaming each other over the use of 'chance' in describing those graphs. I'll go crawl back in my hole now.

 

[sector9]

Ugh, that's what happens when I don't sleep enough and the hangover hasn't been flushed out yet. I multiquoted and misguided myself with the recollection of a thread a little while back where people were flaming each other over the use of 'chance' in describing those graphs. I'll go crawl back in my hole now.