Why are silent rejections an acceptable practice? False hope is worse than no hope.

[3108]

I'm not asking about silence in October...I'm asking about silence in February and later, when many schools are already completely done with interviews. One example for me is NYU. I know they finished interviews in December, yet I've only received silence from them since July. Do schools feel like it's acceptable to ignore certain applicants, even though we've already thrown secondary fees at them? Are admissions offices so understaffed that they can't send out rejection emails to all the applicants? Or are schools just holding onto extraneous applications, just in case accepted students drop out?

So many questions about this application process, but my questions about silent rejections are the most bothersome. I would much rather have a rejection from my dream school than hold onto a false hope all the way through August that by some miracle, I'll find a way to get in. I've seen so many other applicants here express their frustration with silence. Yet, no one seems to be criticizing schools for leaving a bunch of us in the dark. I was just reading a thread yesterday about applicants holding onto too many acceptances, and how some med school officials hate those type of applicants. In the same way, some med schools seem to be holding onto too many applicants, despite knowing that some won't be interviewed/accepted.

Is there a good reason for complete silence from a school throughout the entire application process, or should med schools be held to a higher level of communication and transparency?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

I'm not asking about silence in October...I'm asking about silence in February and later, when many schools are already completely done with interviews. One example for me is NYU. I know they finished interviews in December, yet I've only received silence from them since July. Do schools feel like it's acceptable to ignore certain applicants, even though we've already thrown secondary fees at them? Are admissions offices so understaffed that they can't send out rejection emails to all the applicants? Or are schools just holding onto extraneous applications, just in case accepted students drop out?

So many questions about this application process, but my questions about silent rejections are the most bothersome. I would much rather have a rejection from my dream school than hold onto a false hope all the way through August that by some miracle, I'll find a way to get in. I've seen so many other applicants here express their frustration with silence. Yet, no one seems to be criticizing schools for leaving a bunch of us in the dark. I was just reading a thread yesterday about applicants holding onto too many acceptances, and how some med school officials hate those type of applicants. In the same way, some med schools seem to be holding onto too many applicants, despite knowing that some won't be interviewed/accepted.

Is there a good reason for complete silence from a school throughout the entire application process, or should med schools be held to a higher level of communication and transparency?

There is no good excuse, other that they hold all the power. Probably bad computer systems, and rely too much on people power, so they streamline processes, and wait until May/June to reject folks. Last year, my brother got rejections as late as June from a few schools after minimal communication (looking at you U of Cincinnati, Oregon and Indiana). Fortunately he already had a couple of acceptances, otherwise, that would be just cruel to hold out hope.

U of Michigan has a great reputation, as they announce how many interviews they give, the split between IS and OOS, how may acceptances they give out. They do a mass rejection in Feb once all the interview spots are taken. Rolling admission too, so you have feedback within 5-6 weeks. They are known for transparency and quick feedback. Other schools should take note.

 

[TheLionheart]

UA-Phx is also similarly transparent, with decisions (IIs, rejections, etc.) occurring regularly, and an Admissions Dean participating in the school specific thread to answer questions and provide updates.

Adcoms have said in the past 1 of the reasons is to not reject someone "important" prematurely. For example, some not so stellar applicant turns out to be related to a big donor or someone else of significant influence, and the committee needs to offer him an interview out of courtesy. It'd be hard to do that smoothly if they have already rejected said applicant.

 

[LizzyM]

Frankly, I suspect that many schools don't want to deal with the flurry of calls and letters (electronic and paper) that they'd receive from rejected candidates, their parents and their supporters if rejections were communicated while the admission season was still open. Sure, some do but a rejection is forever (no turning back and changing that decision) and yet people will want to know "why?" and "what could I do better?" and "why was someone with a GPA and MCAT less than mine interviewed but I was not?" Schools just don't want to deal with that sh-t, particularly if they are still making interview decisions and focusing on recruiting the next class.

Also, and this is a tail wagging the dog, some schools, having not made a final decision, will issue an invite to an applicant late in the season if someone very high on the food chain points out that they have a special interest in a candidate. If the candidate has not been rejected, then an interview invite can be issued but, as I said, a rejection can't be undone in order to issue an interview invitation to save face with a VIP.

 

[gyngyn]

Every batch of rejections brings with it a wave of blow-back.
No school has enough staff to deal with the needs of both the active applicants and the dismay of the disgruntled ones.
Add the continuous requests for counseling and you can see that spacing out denials is to insure a smooth work flow to meet the needs of the many.

I do agree that rejecting no one until the very end is unnecessarily cruel.

 

[breakintheroof]

Every batch of rejections brings with it a wave of blow-back.
No school has enough staff to deal with the needs of both the active applicants and the dismay of the disgruntled ones.
Add the continuous requests for counseling and you can see that spacing out denials is to insure a smooth work flow to meet the needs of the many.

I do agree that rejecting no one until the end is unnecessarily cruel.

These windows into the admissions office are fascinating and much appreciated.

It makes schools that reject instantly as they go along seem brave. (Pritzker comes to mind.)

Does the risk of blowback also contribute to the unfortunate habit schools get into of avoiding post-interview rejections? So many schools seem to want to put everyone on a waitlist, presumably even those whose interviews were horror shows.

 

[TheLionheart]

Frankly, I suspect that many schools don't want to deal with the flurry of calls and letters (electronic and paper) that they'd receive from rejected candidates, their parents and their supporters if rejections were communicated while the admission season was still open. Sure, some do but a rejection is forever (no turning back and changing that decision) and yet people will want to know "why?" and "what could I do better?" and "why was someone with a GPA and MCAT less than mine interviewed but I was not?" Schools just don't want to deal with that sh-t, particularly if they are still making interview decisions and focusing on recruiting the next class.

Also, and this is a tail wagging the dog, some schools, having not made a final decision, will issue an invite to an applicant late in the season if someone very high on the food chain points out that they have a special interest in a candidate. If the candidate has not been rejected, then an interview invite can be issued but, as I said, a rejection can't be undone in order to issue an interview invitation to save face with a VIP.

Every batch of rejections brings with it a wave of blow-back.
No school has enough staff to deal with the needs of both the active applicants and the dismay of the disgruntled ones.
Add the continuous requests for counseling and you can see that spacing out denials is to insure a smooth work flow to meet the needs of the many.

I do agree that rejecting no one until the end is unnecessarily cruel.

When you talk about blowback, do you just mean requests for feedback, or are there actually people who email admissions offices who are outraged and combative?

 

[gyngyn]

When you talk about blowback, do you just mean requests for feedback, or are there actually people who email admissions offices who are outraged and combative?

I think you can guess.

 

[LizzyM]

These windows into the admissions office are fascinating and much appreciated.

It makes schools that reject instantly as they go along seem brave. (Pritzker comes to mind.)

Does the risk of blowback also contribute to the unfortunate habit schools get into of avoiding post-interview rejections? So many schools seem to want to put everyone on a waitlist, presumably even those whose interviews were horror shows.

There is great debate as to whether it is cruel to reject applicants post interview if there is almost no chance that they'll ever be chosen from the waitlist or if it is less cruel to waitlist them and thus signal that there was nothing wrong with the application and interview but just too few seats at that med school.

There are people who will happily withdraw from the waitlist at school B because they were admitted to School A, but if they had been rejected post-interview at School B because B recognized that it would never get far enough down the waitlist for this candidate, then the candidate will be furious and demand to know why they were rejected at School B and what they could have done better, particularly if their offer of admission was from a more highly regarded school. "Dude, relax, you got into Harvard. Don't get so excited about being rejected by Podunk State." Putting someone on the waitlist sometimes helps avoid the histrionics. On the other hand, their are the calls and letters of interest and intent but those are hopeful rather than fury-filled and thus easier to face morning after morning through the Spring and Summer.

This is not an easy business and I've been hanging out here for almost 10 years now trying to lift back the curtain and give you a feel for what is like on the other side. At the same time, y'all have given me a much greater appreciation for what if is like for applicants.

 

[breakintheroof]

There is great debate as to whether it is cruel to reject applicants post interview if there is almost no chance that they'll ever be chosen from the waitlist or if it is less cruel to waitlist them and thus signal that there was nothing wrong with the application and interview but just too few seats at that med school.

There are people who will happily withdraw from the waitlist at school B because they were admitted to School A, but if they had been rejected post-interview at School B because B recognized that it would never get far enough down the waitlist for this candidate, then the candidate will be furious and demand to know why they were rejected at School B and what they could have done better. "Dude, relax, you got into School A. Don't get so excited. Putting someone on the waitlist sometimes helps avoid the histrionics. On the other hand, their are the calls and letters of interest and intent but those are hopeful rather than fury-filled and thus easier to face morning after morning through the Spring and Summer.

This is not an easy business and I've been hanging out here for almost 10 years now trying to lift back the curtain and give you a feel for what is like on the other side. At the same time, y'all have given me a much greater appreciation for what if is like for applicants.

Thank you! For this, and for your near-decade of SDN service.

I am sure applicants are split on these issues as well. Rejections sting. But they undoubtedly promote efficiency, saving the applicant time and effort, as well as facilitating planning one's future.

Personally I feel that admissions offices should strive for transparency toward their applicants. I understand that there are limits, of course, and I am beginning to understand why different schools may place stricter ones than I think would be ideal.

 

[gyngyn]

These windows into the admissions office are fascinating and much appreciated.

It makes schools that reject instantly as they go along seem brave. (Pritzker comes to mind.)

Does the risk of blowback also contribute to the unfortunate habit schools get into of avoiding post-interview rejections? So many schools seem to want to put everyone on a waitlist, presumably even those whose interviews were horror shows.

Exactly. Some of them are seriously impaired. But candidates on the waitlist can be easily followed to see which school was foolish enough to admit them. This is how I discovered that there is no interview methodology that is clearly superior to another.

 

[3108]

Frankly, I suspect that many schools don't want to deal with the flurry of calls and letters (electronic and paper) that they'd receive

No school has enough staff to deal with the needs of both the active applicants and the dismay of the disgruntled ones.

But by the same logic, schools also wouldn't want to deal with meaningless updates and interest letters from applicants who are still holding onto strands of hope. I've restrained myself from emailing/calling schools I really like more than I already have because...well SDN told me not to. So it seems like med schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place in having to deal with disgruntled rejected applicants and incessant hopeful applicants.

On the other hand, their are the calls and letters of interest and intent but those are hopeful rather than fury-filled and thus easier to face morning after morning through the Spring and Summer.

That exactly what I was thinking too. Between the "disgruntled rejected applicants and incessant hopeful applicants", the hopeful ones are probably more pleasing to hear from.

 

[3108]

Thanks for all the insight into the ethics of med school admissions @LizzyM and @gyngyn. Who knew there was such dilemma in the admissions process!

I'm satisfied with my acceptances, despite silence from my top choice, but I hope this thread brings some more clarity to other applicants who were frustrated with silence.

 

[gyngyn]

But by the same logic, schools also wouldn't want to deal with meaningless updates and interest letters from applicants who are still holding onto strands of hope. I've restrained myself from emailing/calling schools I really like more than I already have because...well SDN told me not to. So it seems like med schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place in having to deal with disgruntled rejected applicants and incessant hopeful applicants.



That exactly what I was thinking too. Between the "disgruntled rejected applicants and incessant hopeful applicants", the hopeful ones are probably more pleasing to hear from.

I actually find the updates sadder...

 

[aprimenumber]

I actually find the updates sadder...

I'm guessing they're usually stuff like "I got assigned additional responsibilities at my job", "I started volunteering", "I shadowed more!", and always "I am still very interested in your school and would absolutely love to attend here!"

Thank you guys for your input! I never realized how much hassle it can be to deal with endless updates and blowback responses, but it definitely makes a lot of sense (I remember one applicant telling me that he's noticed that many schools that reject early like to inform applicants at the end of day on Fridays, probably so that distraught applicants will calm down over the weekend before they can communicate with the office). I can definitely see how this unfortunate predicament was exacerbated by pre-med behavior.

 

[johnnytest]

I would appreciate transparency in schools that do rolling admissions. For example, providing the number of IIs and acceptances given out, etc every month or so. I don't think that would decrease the number of calls applicants make when rejected but I would be able to realize the reality of the situation for those schools who do silent-rejects and determine what are my chances for an II/acceptance.

 

[ridethecliche]

I'm pretty sure NYU sent out emails saying they were done giving out interviews. Penn did as well.

Certainly not fun to be in limbo forever, but it is what it is. I do think that the AAMC should make a rule requiring schools to post a final status. People pay a lot of money for applications and it's totally bogus for schools not to send out decisions.

 

[mimelim]

I'm pretty sure NYU sent out emails saying they were done giving out interviews. Penn did as well.

Certainly not fun to be in limbo forever, but it is what it is. I do think that the AAMC should make a rule requiring schools to post a final status. People pay a lot of money for applications and it's totally bogus for schools not to send out decisions.

Pretty sure the application fee gives you an opportunity to apply for a place in a medical school class, not pay for someone to look out for your emotions.

I'm not saying that they schools shouldn't change their policies. I'm saying that, "I'm paying you lots of money, therefore you owe me!" is a little dubious.

 

[ridethecliche]

Pretty sure the application fee gives you an opportunity to apply for a place in a medical school class, not pay for someone to look out for your emotions.

I'm not saying that they schools shouldn't change their policies. I'm saying that, "I'm paying you lots of money, therefore you owe me!" is a little dubious.

You're paying for a consideration for the medical school class entering the following fall. If they're not considering you, then they should tell you as such. Emotions have no bearing on my rationale for their notifications. I'm sure they can hire someone to come up with a system to auto notify applicants when their application is no longer in the running. It's the right thing to do.

I don't think students are owed a reason for their rejection. It would be awesome if they did that, but it's going way over the expectations. Good on schools that do this.

 

[onceawolverine]

I actually find the updates sadder...

Well of course. Updates come from applicants who are genuinely disappointed and saddened by the outcome. The update is a manifestation of those emotions, combined with a heartfelt, desperate desire to improve/contribute to their application in any way they can think of. It can't be easy to read updates from someone that your committee said "no thank you" to, especially if there are underlying tones of genuine sadness and disappointment. But to me, (and what do I really know?), I'd rather read a letter from the person whose emotions are earnest and humble (if an applicant is disappointed rather than disgruntled, I think that demonstrates slightly more humility) than the applicant who is a sore loser. So updates might be "sadder," but the character behind the update is the one I'd personally rather be hearing from.

 

[beachside]

I may be the weirdo here, but I actually don't like receiving rejection notices. Even the term "rejection" implies that there was something wrong with your application, when that's generally not the case. Really it's usually just a case of your application being good, but the competition being better and/or a better fit for that particular medical school. I'd like to know when schools stop offering interviews, but I don't want to receive 15 rejection notices.

Look at the business world, for example. People generally send their resumes out to a ton of different employers when they're looking for a job. It's expected that you won't hear back from most. Occasionally you may receive a notice that the position that you applied for is no longer available. If you actually interviewed for the position, you may receive a personalized email or phone call informing you that they unfortunately decided to go with someone else. I don't know if I've ever seen the word "rejection" used in any of those cases. I certainly wouldn't want to receive dozens of notifications that I was weighed and found wanting. What a blow to the confidence.

Anyway, my solution to this problem is to simply make it well-known when schools stop offering interviews.

 

[breakintheroof]

I'm not saying that they schools shouldn't change their policies. I'm saying that, "I'm paying you lots of money, therefore you owe me!" is a little dubious.

I think that the application fee represents a contract under which the applicant will be considered fairly for admission. I agree that this does not include best practices like a timely, appropriate notification of one's status. Schools should ideally do this kind of thing anyway.

There seem to be varying reasons for why they don't. Many have limited resources and choose to prioritize other tasks. Some are trying to protect their applicants' feelings or their own sanity at the expense of transparency, as the adcoms on this thread have described. And others I think are just misguided about what's really useful.

Many schools, for instance, do take the time to put up status updates, but what they write is meaningless and confusing. For instance, late this fall, Michigan (an otherwise excellent office overall) changed most applicants without an interview invite to something called "Application Screening Complete." You could see the confusion play out on MDApps, as some people listed themselves as "On hold," some as "Status of death," and many as "Rejected." When some applicants went on to get interviews after receiving that status, it only underscored how useless the designation was. And there are schools that are way, way worse--the stories I hear about VCU are bizarre.

 

[mimelim]

You're paying for a consideration for the medical school class entering the following fall. If they're not considering you, then they should tell you as such. Emotions have no bearing on my rationale for their notifications. I'm sure they can hire someone to come up with a system to auto notify applicants when their application is no longer in the running. It's the right thing to do.

I don't think students are owed a reason for their rejection. It would be awesome if they did that, but it's going way over the expectations. Good on schools that do this.

I think that the application fee represents a contract under which the applicant will be considered fairly for admission. I agree that this does not include best practices like a timely, appropriate notification of one's status. Schools should ideally do this kind of thing anyway.

There seem to be varying reasons for why they don't. Many have limited resources and choose to prioritize other tasks. Some are trying to protect their applicants' feelings or their own sanity at the expense of transparency, as the adcoms on this thread have described. And others I think are just misguided about what's really useful.

Many schools, for instance, do take the time to put up status updates, but what they write is meaningless and confusing. For instance, late this fall, Michigan (an excellent office overall) changed most applicants without an interview invite to something called "Application Screening Complete." You could see the confusion play out on MDApps, as some people listed themselves as "On hold," some as "Status of death," and many as "Rejected." When some applicants went on to get interviews after receiving that status, it only underscored how useless the designation was. And there are schools that are way, way worse--the stories I hear about VCU are bizarre.

Personally, I don't like this entitlement concept. You submit an application and a fee with it. The expectation is that your application will be considered for their medical school class. The school owes the student nothing more than consideration.

Certainly it is "nice" for schools to be transparent or to notify you timely about your application status, but is hardly their obligation. Expecting them to increase their operating costs, headache or anything else like that for students that they have no ties to other than that they sent them an application is dubious.

 

[breakintheroof]

Personally, I don't like this entitlement concept. You submit an application and a fee with it. The expectation is that your application will be considered for their medical school class. The school owes the student nothing more than consideration.

Certainly it is "nice" for schools to be transparent or to notify you timely about your application status, but is hardly their obligation. Expecting them to increase their operating costs, headache or anything else like that for students that they have no ties to other than that they sent them an application is dubious.

I do hope that it is a stretch to read entitlement in my post. As I said, the only obligation is fair consideration. I acknowledge the limitations of resources and headache that you mention, and I think schools that are evidently not facing those restrictions can nonetheless improve.

I appreciate the adcoms who take the time to explain themselves to premeds on this site. In this thread, these adcoms have talked about how hearing applicants' perspectives has helped them understand the other side of things. My intent is only to further that understanding with my own perspective.

 

[beachside]

Personally, I don't like this entitlement concept. You submit an application and a fee with it. The expectation is that your application will be considered for their medical school class. The school owes the student nothing more than consideration.

Certainly it is "nice" for schools to be transparent or to notify you timely about your application status, but is hardly their obligation. Expecting them to increase their operating costs, headache or anything else like that for students that they have no ties to other than that they sent them an application is dubious.

Concur. By the way, how did you get that Rocket Scientist badge?

In my previous job, when something wasn't too difficult, we'd say that it wasn't "rocket surgery". Someone should design you a Rocket Surgeon badge.

 

[Psai]

Concur. By the way, how did you get that Rocket Scientist badge?

In my previous job, when something wasn't too difficult, we'd say that it wasn't "rocket surgery". Someone should design you a Rocket Surgeon badge.

By being a rocket scientist

 

[FindMeOnTheLinks]

I've been wondering this for awhile, and I guess it somewhat fits in with the discussion going on in this thread. Why must medical schools have rolling admissions? Wouldn't it make much more sense if there were nationally standardized deadlines for completion of each element of the application? I.e. you must submit your AMCAS prior to June 1st, secondary/LOR by September 1. Then all completed applications are considered against each other for interviews, which can be offered starting December 1. Last day of interviews is April 1, and you have to dole out your acceptances by May 1. Applicants then have two weeks to pick which offer they will accept, and then you have waitlist movement after that.

Wouldn't that be much more transparent, easier on applicants and admissions offices to have these deadlines to streamline this process much more? I mean, obviously it wouldn't be quite this simple, but why does the process have to be so variable at each school? It seems that it could be done more efficiently if there were standard procedures put in place.

Edit: I understand there are so many applicants that it may not be possible to get through everything quite this fast (read all applications in three months?!) but maybe that would push more schools into enacting measures to screen more heavily at the secondary stage and make it even more applicant friendly. I'm just throwing this out there for discussion. There has to be a way to make it more streamlined.

 

[beachside]

I've been wondering this for awhile, and I guess it somewhat fits in with the discussion going on in this thread. Why must medical schools have rolling admissions? Wouldn't it make much more sense if there were nationally standardized deadlines for completion of each element of the application? I.e. you must submit your AMCAS prior to June 1st, secondary/LOR by September 1. Then all completed applications are considered against each other for interviews, which can be offered starting December 1. Last day of interviews is April 1, and you have to dole out your acceptances by May 1. Applicants then have two weeks to pick which offer they will accept, and then you have waitlist movement after that.

Wouldn't that be much more transparent, easier on applicants and admissions offices to have these deadlines to streamline this process much more? I mean, obviously it wouldn't be quite this simple, but why does the process have to be so variable at each school? It seems that it could be done more efficiently if there were standard procedures put in place.

Edit: I understand there are so many applicants that it may not be possible to get through everything quite this fast (read all applications in three months?!) but maybe that would push more schools into enacting measures to screen more heavily at the secondary stage and make it even more applicant friendly. I'm just throwing this out there for discussion. There has to be a way to make it more streamlined.

The workload on admissions staff in such a scenario would essentially be "feast or famine". You'd have enough work for a dozen people for a few months, and then only enough work for like one guy for the remainder of the year. You would also lose all flexibility to accept an applicant that couldn't complete his package until later in the season due to life circumstances.

 

[beachside]

By being a rocket scientist

Right...

 

[mimelim]

Right...

Some sort of connection to Physics or Aerospace. You request it via the forum help desk and they give you a little quiz.

 

[ridethecliche]

Personally, I don't like this entitlement concept. You submit an application and a fee with it. The expectation is that your application will be considered for their medical school class. The school owes the student nothing more than consideration.

Certainly it is "nice" for schools to be transparent or to notify you timely about your application status, but is hardly their obligation. Expecting them to increase their operating costs, headache or anything else like that for students that they have no ties to other than that they sent them an application is dubious.

I'm usually 100% in agreement with you, but I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect them to tell applicants without interviews that they're done offering interviews...

I don't think there is any sort of air of entitlement for someone to expect that they will be told that they are no longer in consideration when the paid to be considered. If you put in an offer for a house, you should be told that your offer was rejected. You're paying for the privilege of being considered and being told you're no longer running is my view a reasonable expectation as part of that payment. I think that the payment implies that you're paying for them to make a decision on your application. Once that decision is reached, they should notify the applicant. To say that they're not making a decision means that they're not doing their job.

Are you really arguing that it significantly increases operating costs to have a dean write one letter that is sent to every applicant with the computer attaching their name from the system to that letter? Or it increases heachache? Really? It would take someone in IT 10 minutes to set that up and precedent already exists for other schools that are doing that. I'd argue that if it is such a hassle, then a large chunk of schools wouldn't be doing this.

As far as the headache of dealing with special snowflakes, then that's a separate issue altogether. If they can't follow the instructions saying that the school doesn't offer more information regarding applications after a decision has been made, then the applicants should deal with it.

Your claims about increased cost and headache are dubious...

 

[NYCdude]

Frankly, I suspect that many schools don't want to deal with the flurry of calls and letters (electronic and paper) that they'd receive from rejected candidates, their parents and their supporters if rejections were communicated while the admission season was still open. Sure, some do but a rejection is forever (no turning back and changing that decision) and yet people will want to know "why?" and "what could I do better?" and "why was someone with a GPA and MCAT less than mine interviewed but I was not?" Schools just don't want to deal with that sh-t, particularly if they are still making interview decisions and focusing on recruiting the next class.

Also, and this is a tail wagging the dog, some schools, having not made a final decision, will issue an invite to an applicant late in the season if someone very high on the food chain points out that they have a special interest in a candidate. If the candidate has not been rejected, then an interview invite can be issued but, as I said, a rejection can't be undone in order to issue an interview invitation to save face with a VIP.

You'd have a point if applying to schools was free and they were doing a public service.

But if I'm paying 100 dollars to apply to your school, I at least expect some news of where I stand. It doesn't have to be lengthy and flowery, just any news is better than gut wrenching and ultimately futile silence.

Although I do concede that it must be terribly annoying to have to deal with people who feel that they're entitled to an acceptance.

On that end, I think Quinnipiac does it best. They sent out rejections but also sent out an offer to explain what was wrong with your app, which would be conducted after the application season is over. That seems like a decent compromise that doesn't compromise efficiency.

 

[mimelim]

I'm usually 100% in agreement with you, but I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect them to tell applicants without interviews that they're done offering interviews...

I don't think there is any sort of air of entitlement for someone to expect that they will be told that they are no longer in consideration when the paid to be considered. If you put in an offer for a house, you should be told that your offer was rejected. You're paying for the privilege of being considered and being told you're no longer running is my view a reasonable expectation as part of that payment. I think that the payment implies that you're paying for them to make a decision on your application. Once that decision is reached, they should notify the applicant. To say that they're not making a decision means that they're not doing their job.

Are you really arguing that it significantly increases operating costs to have a dean write one letter that is sent to every applicant with the computer attaching their name from the system to that letter? Or it increases heachache? Really? It would take someone in IT 10 minutes to set that up and precedent already exists for other schools that are doing that. I'd argue that if it is such a hassle, then a large chunk of schools wouldn't be doing this.

As far as the headache of dealing with special snowflakes, then that's a separate issue altogether. If they can't follow the instructions saying that the school doesn't offer more information regarding applications after a decision has been made, then the applicants should deal with it.

Your claims about increased cost and headache are dubious...

If a school is no longer considering applications, then yes, they should make a blanket announcement that they are no longer considering applications. I checked with a lawyer (okay, so I asked my wife, ADA) payment does constitute a contract, but the obligation is for consideration, nothing about notification. She laughed at me when I said that if they aren't accepting anyone else that they should notify people. Apparently it is pretty standard to not send any type of notification of a position being filled or someone no longer being considered in the "real job market" (her words, not mine).

I never argued that it "significantly" increases costs. I simply said that it increases their costs and headaches, which it does. Given their lack of duty toward the students, they are not obligated to take on any cost, regardless of how small. Could they be nice like some other schools? Absolutely. But, it certainly doesn't make them wrong or bad to not bear that additional cost.

There are good ways to do this. I will always agree that more transparency and communication are better and as @southernim says, likely helps that school overall. MY issue is the feeling of being entitled to it, which applicants are not. See the above poster expecting that because he paid $100 the school owes him something.

 

[aprimenumber]

tl;dr FAQ version of this entire debate:

Q: Should med schools notify applicants if they're no longer in consideration?
A:Yes.
Q: Do they have to?
A:No.
Q: Are they wrong for not doing so?
A:No.
Q: Would it be super nice if they did?
A:Yes.
Q: Do med schools have valid reasons for not notifying applicants?
A:Yes.
Q:Can you blame med schools?
A:Only as much as you can blame the applicants.
Q: Does paying money obligate them to notify applicants if they're no longer under consideration?
A:No.
Q:But I paid money!
A:For them to consider your candidacy, which they did. Didn't say anything about whether or not they should inform you as early as you would like.
Q:But I paid lots of money!
A:Then don't apply to those schools.

 

[mimelim]

Thanks @aprimenumber

 

[LizzyM]

I've been wondering this for awhile, and I guess it somewhat fits in with the discussion going on in this thread. Why must medical schools have rolling admissions? Wouldn't it make much more sense if there were nationally standardized deadlines for completion of each element of the application? I.e. you must submit your AMCAS prior to June 1st, secondary/LOR by September 1. Then all completed applications are considered against each other for interviews, which can be offered starting December 1. Last day of interviews is April 1, and you have to dole out your acceptances by May 1. Applicants then have two weeks to pick which offer they will accept, and then you have waitlist movement after that.

The horror of this system would be that you would need to go to every interview from December 1 to April 1. With the current system, once an applicant has an offer in the bag, further interviews are optional and someone who would otherwise have a dozen can cut back and do a few more but not spend four solid months and thousands of dollars interviewing with the hope of getting one offer.

 

[ridethecliche]

If a school is no longer considering applications, then yes, they should make a blanket announcement that they are no longer considering applications. I checked with a lawyer (okay, so I asked my wife, ADA) payment does constitute a contract, but the obligation is for consideration, nothing about notification. She laughed at me when I said that if they aren't accepting anyone else that they should notify people. Apparently it is pretty standard to not send any type of notification of a position being filled or someone no longer being considered in the "real job market" (her words, not mine).

I never argued that it "significantly" increases costs. I simply said that it increases their costs and headaches, which it does. Given their lack of duty toward the students, they are not obligated to take on any cost, regardless of how small. Could they be nice like some other schools? Absolutely. But, it certainly doesn't make them wrong or bad to not bear that additional cost.

There are good ways to do this. I will always agree that more transparency and communication are better and as @southernim says, likely helps that school overall. MY issue is the feeling of being entitled to it, which applicants are not. See the above poster expecting that because he paid $100 the school owes him something.

I think job applications are different because you're not paying them for a service, i.e. to consider your application. I think even an internal message i.e. a portal message would be good. When I've been 'rejected' from jobs, I always was able to log in and see that the position was closed in the system, but I mainly applied to jobs at big hospital systems which used oracle peoplesoft software for this kind of thing where it updates the status of the job or closes the job ID when the position is closed.

 

[FindMeOnTheLinks]

The horror of this system would be that you would need to go to every interview from December 1 to April 1. With the current system, once an applicant has an offer in the bag, further interviews are optional and someone who would otherwise have a dozen can cut back and do a few more but not spend four solid months and thousands of dollars interviewing with the hope of getting one offer.

Great point, you are quite correct

 

[miamiheatfan]

Wouldn't it make much more sense if there were nationally standardized deadlines for completion of each element of the application? I.e. you must submit your AMCAS prior to June 1st, secondary/LOR by September 1. Then all completed applications are considered against each other for interviews, which can be offered starting December 1. Last day of interviews is April 1, and you have to dole out your acceptances by May 1. Applicants then have two weeks to pick which offer they will accept, and then you have waitlist movement after that.

Possibly, but not going to lie, applying early was a strategy that I and many successful applicants benefited heavily from, and that is one aspect of applying that is totally in the applicant's power. That would suck to have that element removed to be honest!

 

[3108]

I'm pretty sure NYU sent out emails saying they were done giving out interviews.

Checked through my inbox and spam again, and I did not receive another email from NYU beyond the secondary app...

People generally send their resumes out to a ton of different employers when they're looking for a job. It's expected that you won't hear back from most.

I checked with a lawyer (okay, so I asked my wife, ADA) payment does constitute a contract, but the obligation is for consideration, nothing about notification. She laughed at me when I said that if they aren't accepting anyone else that they should notify people. Apparently it is pretty standard to not send any type of notification of a position being filled or someone no longer being considered in the "real job market" (her words, not mine).

As a recent graduate heading to med school, I haven't had too much experience with applying for jobs outside of my gap year job. But in my limited experience, I've never had to pay a (hefty) fee to apply for a job, and I am fairly certain application fees for jobs are not the norm. Sure, the fee shouldn't be a source of entitlement, but I think the fee stands for more than just a monetary transaction. I put a lot of consideration into choosing which schools to apply to, mainly because I didn't way to keep paying fees...I suppose that's where my "entitlement" comes from. When I applied to gap year research positions, I just sent my resume to whatever relevant labs I could. Silence from 95% of those labs never bothered me because the application itself did not require much effort. To me, effort in should entail effort back, even an effort as small as a one word status update: rejected.

There's no legal contract, you're right. Maybe some degree of moral obligation though...

 

[beachside]

As a recent graduate heading to med school, I haven't had too much experience with applying for jobs outside of my gap year job. But in my limited experience, I've never had to pay a (hefty) fee to apply for a job, and I am fairly certain application fees for jobs are not the norm. Sure, the fee shouldn't be a source of entitlement, but I think the fee stands for more than just a monetary transaction. I put a lot of consideration into choosing which schools to apply to, mainly because I didn't way to keep paying fees...I suppose that's where my "entitlement" comes from. When I applied to gap year research positions, I just sent my resume to whatever relevant labs I could. Silence from 95% of those labs never bothered me because the application itself did not require much effort. To me, effort in should entail effort back, even an effort as small as a one word status update: rejected.

There's no legal contract, you're right. Maybe some degree of moral obligation though...

You have to pay for med school, unlike a job. Just consider the application fees to be part of your tuition.

Unfortunately, as we've seen in other incidences, med schools have all the power here. We're just pawns right now. We just have to play the game.

 

[mimelim]

As a recent graduate heading to med school, I haven't had too much experience with applying for jobs outside of my gap year job. But in my limited experience, I've never had to pay a (hefty) fee to apply for a job, and I am fairly certain application fees for jobs are not the norm. Sure, the fee shouldn't be a source of entitlement, but I think the fee stands for more than just a monetary transaction. I put a lot of consideration into choosing which schools to apply to, mainly because I didn't way to keep paying fees...I suppose that's where my "entitlement" comes from. When I applied to gap year research positions, I just sent my resume to whatever relevant labs I could. Silence from 95% of those labs never bothered me because the application itself did not require much effort. To me, effort in should entail effort back, even an effort as small as a one word status update: rejected.

There's no legal contract, you're right. Maybe some degree of moral obligation though...

#1 It IS a legal contract.
#2 I don't know how it is immoral to not do something like this. Maybe "not nice"?
#3 Your fee is for consideration. Most jobs do not get spammed by thousands upon thousands of applications. If you don't like the odds/the process then don't apply to schools with a reputation of not being nice.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I hadn't thought of negative blow back as a potential reason for silent rejections, but I personally don't think that's a good excuse for it, IMO (not that my opinion matters). every school that doesn't want to deal with it could include something like "we do not have the resources to discuss potential weaknesses with applicants, so please see your advisor for help, all attempts will be ignored", as some of my rejection letters have included. though that may not stop all of the phone calls completely I'd suspect.

my biggest pet peeves have definitely been:

1. extremely outrageous non-refundable deposits to hold seats at schools, which should be illegal (up to two grand! mostly a DO school issue though)
2. Having strict deadlines to meet when there's no real time limit a school can take to give us a decision (I've heard of people waiting 3+ months for decisions post-interview, and almost a full year pre-interview).
3. the silent rejections

Again, it's easy for me to say these things without knowing the full story of what occurs behind the scenes. Of course my opinion means nothing and that's why we're all sitting on this side of the table, so it is nice that we get to see the ADCOM side of things here on SDN. just sharing how I've felt experiencing these things. such a fun process! haha

 

[ridethecliche]

Totally agree with @DoctorLacrosse about DO deposits. It's highway robbery.

#1 It IS a legal contract.
#2 I don't know how it is immoral to not do something like this. Maybe "not nice"?
#3 Your fee is for consideration. Most jobs do not get spammed by thousands upon thousands of applications. If you don't like the odds/the process then don't apply to schools with a reputation of not being nice.

Schools open up applications and profit from them as well. If they didn't want to deal with this, then they would pre screen primaries and only send out secondaries to applicants they were truly interested in. They could reduce the spam. Vanderbilt does this and I received a letter from them saying that they weren't going to send me a secondary. I got over it.

The argument that schools can't handle the calling in of applicants pleading their cause has nothing to do with releasing decisions. That shouldn't be a consideration because they could limit this by screening primaries.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

Totally agree with @DoctorLacrosse about DO deposits. It's highway robbery.



Schools open up applications and profit from them as well. If they didn't want to deal with this, then they would pre screen primaries and only send out secondaries to applicants they were truly interested in. They could reduce the spam. Vanderbilt does this and I received a letter from them saying that they weren't going to send me a secondary. I got over it.

The argument that schools can't handle the calling in of applicants pleading their cause has nothing to do with releasing decisions. That shouldn't be a consideration because they could limit this by screening primaries.

Also a strong point I hadn't even thought of. The bottom line is a lot of this is about making as much money as possible, and if that's the road you want to go down, then you could at least have sufficient staffing to make it run a little bit more efficiently.

I guess the real answer is we're the pre-meds fighting tooth and nail for a spot, so they really can just do whatever they want and we just have to deal, which is the unfortunate reality of it.

 

[3108]

#1 It IS a legal contract.
#2 I don't know how it is immoral to not do something like this. Maybe "not nice"?
#3 Your fee is for consideration. Most jobs do not get spammed by thousands upon thousands of applications. If you don't like the odds/the process then don't apply to schools with a reputation of not being nice.

#1 Sorry misread what you had typed. Yes it is a legal contract.
#2 I was wary of bringing "morality" into this...it's really not a moral issue. Just meant that IMO, schools should at least respect applicants' genuine interest in their school, enough interest to pay the secondary fee (and primary). "Moral obligation" of respect.
#3 That's a good point about the exorbitant amount of applications.

 

[Shams al Deen]

So the justification for painful silent rejections is that admissions offices don't want to deal with disappointed emails. LOL wow that's kinda weak. I mean it takes two seconds to respond with some generic "there are only 120 seats blah blah and we don't have enough for all qualified blah blah". Anyway I appreciate gyngyn and LizzyM shedding light on the issue, but I think it's a pretty lame reason and that schools should reconsider their approach.

 

[gyngyn]

So the justification for painful silent rejections is that admissions offices don't want to deal with disappointed emails. LOL wow that's kinda weak. I mean it takes two seconds to respond with some generic "there are only 120 seats blah blah and we don't have enough for all qualified blah blah". Anyway I appreciate gyngyn and LizzyM shedding light on the issue, but I think it's a pretty lame reason and that schools should reconsider their approach.

We don't do this, but the blow back is real and quite time consuming.

 

[Goro]

Illegal? Hey, you want to go to my medical school, show me you're serious and put your money where your mouth is. If not we have > 500 other interviewees who will gladly come. Those fees are up front and you know what you're getting into. I don't know if our wily old Admissions dean gets blowback, but we at least, let people know right away if they've been rejected or not.

1. extremely outrageous non-refundable deposits to hold seats at schools, which should be illegal (up to two grand! mostly a DO school issue though)
2. Having strict deadlines to meet when there's no real time limit a school can take to give us a decision (I've heard of people waiting 3+ months for decisions post-interview, and almost a full year pre-interview).
3. the silent rejections

 

[ridethecliche]

Illegal? Hey, you want to go to my medical school, show me you're serious and put your money where your mouth is. If not we have > 500 other interviewees who will gladly come. Those fees are up front and you know what you're getting into. I don't know if our wily old Admissions dean gets blowback, but we at least, let people know right away if they've been rejected or not.

1. extremely outrageous non-refundable deposits to hold seats at schools, which should be illegal (up to two grand! mostly a DO school issue though)
2. Having strict deadlines to meet when there's no real time limit a school can take to give us a decision (I've heard of people waiting 3+ months for decisions post-interview, and almost a full year pre-interview).
3. the silent rejections

I don't really agree with (1) for that reason. 2000 dollars for a deposit and non-refundable at that? It's a way to force people to commit to a school early, especially since DO schools aren't held to the same rules and standards as MD schools when it comes to admissions. I really think this just forces applicants to forgo other interviews and pick a place because they can't afford to interview or put down more deposits vs. actually wanting to go. There's a 2 week decision time. It's ridiculous.