Why apply to so many schools? Why not just a few?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

SUP360

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
66
Reaction score
25
When I applied undergrad, I just applied to 3 schools. Later, just one or two grad programs......

Now they're telling everyone "apply broadly"
Why?

If you fit a school's mission, have stellar ECs and are within their average GPA and MCAT, and you really want to go there, why should you apply to a bunch of other schools you don't really even know anything about.

On the one hand there is the "fit the mission" strategy, but seems like so many SDNers just apply to SO many schools, there is no way to fit all those missions and do diligence on researching like 20 schools.

What's the reason? 😵
 
Stats 101 bruh

EDIT. More schools you apply to, the increased probability you get accepted somewhere. You may have the stats and ECs for those 3 schools you apply to but doesn't guarantee an interview. But let's say you get 2 interviews, first interview you bomb because you're nervous as hell. Second interview, for whatever reason, one of the interviewers didn't like you, didn't really give you a chance. Bam you're 0/2. Welcome to reapplicant land. Hence, apply to a good amount of schools to increase the probability of you matriculating. You're welcome! 😉
 
Last edited:
Because it's a numbers game. Most schools average around 3-5k applicants and most medical schools matriculate around 120 students. Of the 120 schools, many are public and have state mandates to enroll 60-80% in-state applicants. So immediately you are limited by the those schools who may screen you selectively. Most private schools have higher application numbers in the 5-7K range because they are not geographically limiting. But now you are applying with 5000 for 100 spots - or a 2% change of matriculating.

So then you have to figure out what makes you special. Average GPA and MCAT for their class? Great, you and 600 other people have similar stats. That's still 6 times their class size. Stellar ECs? That's debatable. What makes yours more stellar than mine? I'll tell you, the mood of the AdCom reviewing your file. Maybe that other person has an incredible PS that totally made the reviewer smitten with them. There are so many intangibles that go into just getting an interview you can't make assumptions that your perception of your application is ideal for any specific school.

Finally, in the last 10 years, the number of applicants has increased by over 11,000, while the number of seats has not grown to match that. Except for those +/- 2 SDs from the average applicant, the rest of us are really just looking for as many opportunities as possible. I was in CA as an applicant which offers no real incentive for in-state applicants. I had strong ECs and middle of the road grades. Looking back I'm sure I could have only applied to the 4 schools that decided to interview me, but I had no real expectation that two of them would so they wouldn't have even been on my radar.

That's what jcorpsman meant by stats 101.
 
Right. My school can't interview more than 10% of the applicant pool. There just isn't room/time to do so. I find it hard to not grant interviews to worthy applicants so my list gets cut by someone else until we're down to a workable number. It isn't possible to admit everyone we interview so a large proportion end up waitlisted and there are years when not more than 2 students come off of the waitlist (or it could be >30, hard to predict).

Having many well selected irons in the fire is the best way to assure that you might get one that works out for you.
 
To put this in college terms -- Suppose your numbers are on par with Stanford and Harvard and you have lots of interesting ECs. Those two schools each have a roughly 5% admissions rate, so actually, much more generous than most medical schools which are more like 2-3%...

Even though you might want to go to just Harvard or Stanford, you wouldn't apply only to those two colleges because you know how incredibly selective they are... You'd probably add Yale, Cornell, Princeton, maybe a few more plus your state's flagship as a safety.

Med school admissions are similar. Too many well-qualified applicants, application review fatigue, human frailties and pet peeves and you're far better off safe than sorry.
 
Last edited:
A reviewer that I know has a major issue with people who use words like wherewithal, insofar, etc.
I heard a story on here once about an adcom member who had a major problem with students who interviewed with slip-on shoes. During an non-medical school interview, I was yelled at for asking to take a seat. You really never know what's going to happen at an interview.
 
This! :claps:👍

It's nearly impossible to write a personal statement that contains absolutely nothing that qualifies as "cringe-worthy" to someone and is yet also poignant and memorable.
Secondaries too. Those are even more formulaic. I feel bad for reviewers. I got a secondary in late November from one of the UC schools after I got my first acceptance and decided to play it fast and loose. Mind you, this was the 2nd consecutive year applying to 30+ schools, so I had already written over 130+ secondaries and was burnt out on trying to be thoughtful or different from the previous year. So I took my old essay and rewrote it in iambic pentameter. Got me an interview, to which the very first question was about that essay.
 
So I took my old essay and rewrote it in iambic pentameter. Got me an interview, to which the very first question was about that essay.
I actually love that idea. What reason did you give for writing it like that? I doubt "I'm recycling an essay, but want to make it fun" is an acceptable answer to the question.
 
I actually love that idea. What reason did you give for writing it like that? I doubt "I'm recycling an essay, but want to make it fun" is an acceptable answer to the question.

"I was just so da#ned bored with these and figured you probably were be too" ?
 
I actually love that idea. What reason did you give for writing it like that? I doubt "I'm recycling an essay, but want to make it fun" is an acceptable answer to the question.
I was totally honest and said that I didn't expect to get a secondary so late and rather than just restate what I wrote last year, I decided to have fun with it. He then asked if it was iambic pentameter and why I decided to write it like that. I said it was and told him that my wife named one of our pets after the king in MacBeth and that was my inspiration. He only sort of asked one question the rest of the 45 minutes (that should have bene 30) and we instead just chatted. I did get in off waitlist, but had already moved.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to do the same. I had the luxury of an acceptance under my belt and wasn't trying to put on airs or anything.
 
When I applied undergrad, I just applied to 3 schools. Later, just one or two grad programs......

Now they're telling everyone "apply broadly"
Why?

If you fit a school's mission, have stellar ECs and are within their average GPA and MCAT, and you really want to go there, why should you apply to a bunch of other schools you don't really even know anything about.

On the one hand there is the "fit the mission" strategy, but seems like so many SDNers just apply to SO many schools, there is no way to fit all those missions and do diligence on researching like 20 schools.

What's the reason? 😵

The acceptance rate across the entire cycle for students that got into at least one medical school is around 40%. The acceptance rate at each individual school is around 2-3%. Now, interviews at schools aren't mutually exclusive, but since most people only get a few interviews, we can just assume that the chance of getting an interview at a school is independent of getting an interview at another school. Thus, in order to maximize your chances, you need to apply to 15-20 schools.
 
Ok, I get it. Thanks for the replies.... Sigh...

It does just seem like a self perpetuating cycle that belabors applicants and ad coms while lining the pockets of AAMC (@$38/pop) & med school accounts (@~$60-$150/pop).........

If everyone HAD to choose, say, 5 schools to apply to, it would GREATLY decrease a lot of wasted resources and level the playing field......

And ad coms wouldn't have to sort through so many thousands of apps from people who are only vaguely interested in their school, local population, etc.

Also, poorer people (just above FAP) who can't afford to apply to 20+ schools during the application season wouldn't be at a statistical disadvantage.

It's annoying to have to apply to so many schools just because everyone else is applying to so many schools because everyone applies to so many schools....
 
If everyone HAD to choose, say, 5 schools to apply to, it would GREATLY decrease a lot of wasted resources and level the playing field......
This would be insane, you'd end up with lots of the best applicants finding no seats because top 10/20s are such a crapshoot.
 
When I applied undergrad, I just applied to 3 schools. Later, just one or two grad programs......
I'm gonna guess these undergrads and grad programs didn't have single digit admit rates!

The same system is at play with selective colleges, highly competitive high schoolers usually apply to most of the US News top ~20 now in order to get a handful of admits, if any. As the admit rates plummet the number of schools has to go up to keep your odds decent.
 
This would be insane, you'd end up with lots of the best applicants finding no seats because top 10/20s are such a crapshoot.

I see what you're saying and I can see how you would feel that way.
5 is probably too few.... maybe 10...
If schools had less applicants though, the admit rate would be higher at each one and it wouldn't be such a crapshoot because they would actually have time to look at your application that you actually had time to write really heartfelt essays for.

We'll probably never know, though...
The whole admissions process seems to have evolved into quite an expensive $&;!-show, though.
 
I see what you're saying and I can see how you would feel that way.
5 is probably too few.... maybe 10...
If schools had less applicants though, the admit rate would be higher at each one and it wouldn't be such a crapshoot because they would actually have time to look at your application that you actually had time to write really heartfelt essays for.

We'll probably never know, though...
The whole admissions process seems to have evolved into quite an expensive $&;!-show, though.
Depending on your state (if you live in a lucky one), just 5-6 applications can lead to an acceptance. But there are far more unlucky states than lucky states.
 
A reviewer that I know has a major issue with people who use words like wherewithal, insofar, etc.
What is their opinion on "whereas"? I use that a ton because I dislike how misused "while" is.
 
If everyone HAD to choose, say, 5 schools to apply to, it would GREATLY decrease a lot of wasted resources and level the playing field......

And ad coms wouldn't have to sort through so many thousands of apps from people who are only vaguely interested in their school, local population, etc.
From an applicant's perspective, schools are far more similar than they are different: they all grant MD degrees, and there's no other way to get one. The unique characteristics of any given school and its local population are of little concern to someone who needs an acceptance from just one school to become a doctor. People are highly interested in many schools simply because they are the gatekeepers.
 
About 10 years ago I tried to help applicants correctly target their applications by MCAT and GPA. The formula has had to change due to a change in MCAT scoring but the LizzyM score should make it possible to limit your list to 10-15 schools and still have a pretty good shot at admission (if your MCAT and GPA are close to the average for at least 10-15 schools that are appropriate for you given your state residence, language and interest in underserved communities. (See LizzyM score in the stickies up above).
 
Almost?

Who are the exceptions, if you don't mind?
Those with very low gpa's and high MCAT's.

Good applicants from CA. I see plenty of CA applicants apply as if their state schools were "safeties." This doesn't work.
There are 10 schools. No single applicant is a good candidate for more than 6 of them (and that's stretching it). One of them is really a bad bad choice for almost anybody. Only two of them have a preference for IS candidates (one of them only has 25 seats for those that didn't attend the undergrad). Nevertheless, the bulk of CA applicants apply to almost all of them! I know. I did the same thing when there were far fewer schools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on the reason for the disparity and if it has been clearly addressed and unlikely to recur.

So if it was a really off freshman year with extenuating circumstances and all other years were really good (and sharply increasing), that would be less of a gamble than someone who was consistently low or went down?

Side question, per OP's topic, if an average applicant applies to 10-15 schools, does that applicant typically receive acceptances to just one school? A few?




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
So if it was a really off freshman year with extenuating circumstances and all other years were really good (and sharply increasing), that would be less of a gamble than someone who was consistently low or went down?

Side question, per OP's topic, if an average applicant applies to 10-15 schools, does that applicant typically receive acceptances to just one school? A few?
It is unlikely that a weak freshman year could produce the kind of dissonance that I referred to.
A good applicant that applies to the right 15 schools should be fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love this! This made my day - such a great thing to have been able to do (since you had an acceptance already).

Secondaries too. Those are even more formulaic. I feel bad for reviewers. I got a secondary in late November from one of the UC schools after I got my first acceptance and decided to play it fast and loose. Mind you, this was the 2nd consecutive year applying to 30+ schools, so I had already written over 130+ secondaries and was burnt out on trying to be thoughtful or different from the previous year. So I took my old essay and rewrote it in iambic pentameter. Got me an interview, to which the very first question was about that essay.
 
I think the reason most everyone needs to apply to so many schools (in addition to the good application/acceptance stats listed above) is:
1) opportunity cost of having to reapply - apply once with the best application and not have to do it again, miss a year of attending salary, put your life on hold and endure the stress of an application season a second time. There are economies of scale applying to more than 5, and not just in dollars but in time, effort and stress.
2) The risk of being a reapplicant given most/many ADCOM's opinions about (or prejudice against) reapplicants.

Do it once, do it right. Things that hurt are poor school selection and late applications.
 
Top