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

[aprimenumber]

Can't it be undone if they say the rejection was done in error?

EDIT: What LizzyM just said.

But speaking of things done in error, and since NYU seems to be a somewhat recurring topic in this thread, NYU did accidentally do a few things in error this cycle, like accidentally revealing rejection statuses to many applicants on their portal system in early September, and sending out a wave of mistaken II's a few weeks later only to send another email out that same day apologizing for their mistake, and telling applicants to disregard those II's.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

Yikes, my school once sent interview invites by accident but we went ahead and interviewed the candidates. It became obvious that our attempts to screen and select the best candidates for interviews was working; those interviewed who had not been selected but invited by accident were not hidden gems that we would have otherwise missed.

 

[medic86]

Yikes, my school once sent interview invites by accident but we went ahead and interviewed the candidates. It became obvious that our attempts to screen and select the best candidates for interviews was working; those interviewed who had not been selected but invited by accident were not hidden gems that we would have otherwise missed.

Not even a single one?

-1 for the underdogs.

 

[breakintheroof]

But speaking of things done in error, and since NYU seems to be a somewhat recurring topic in this thread, NYU did accidentally do a few things in error this cycle, like accidentally revealing rejection statuses to many applicants on their portal system in early September, and sending out a wave of mistaken II's a few weeks later only to send another email out that same day apologizing for their mistake, and telling applicants to disregard those II's.

Ah, NYU. So many schools now use those AMP portals and I guess we should be glad because they work pretty seamlessly. NYU was the big exception to that rule this cycle.

I think the company that makes those portals also provides tools to sort and screen applications on the school's side of things. Adcoms must love that.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

Yikes, my school once sent interview invites by accident but we went ahead and interviewed the candidates. It became obvious that our attempts to screen and select the best candidates for interviews was working; those interviewed who had not been selected but invited by accident were not hidden gems that we would have otherwise missed.

haha that small sample size of underdogs doesn't accurately represent the true hidden gems that exist within our group

 

[LizzyM]

haha that small sample size of underdogs doesn't accurately represent the true hidden gems that exist within our group

So true. The hardest thing is taking 1,000 applications and throwing out 850. Emotionally very hard. I could never discard more than 67%.

 

[DocVader1990]

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 don't like the use of the word "entitlement" for an overachieving pre-med populace, most applicants are anything but entitled. In fact most of these applicants have worked exceedingly hard through high school, college and beyond only to find themselves in admissions limbos for months and even almost a year! Couple than with the bankruptcy inducing expenses of applying and interviewing, also the rest of the world starts med school after high school etc. You still think there is entitlement?

This is about basic respect. It is quite depressing to have worked so hard and be treated like a number, not knowing what is going on. If a school can't do so because of limited resources, then that is okay and they should communicate it to their applicants, otherwise they have NO excuse and it's just pure laziness.

 

[mimelim]

I don't like the use of the word "entitlement" for an overachieving pre-med populace, most applicants are anything but entitled. In fact most of these applicants have worked exceedingly hard through high school, college and beyond only to find themselves in admissions limbos for months and even almost a year! Couple than with the bankruptcy inducing expenses of applying and interviewing, also the rest of the world starts med school after high school etc. You still think there is entitlement?

This is about basic respect. It is quite depressing to have worked so hard and be treated like a number, not knowing what is going on. If a school can't do so because of limited resources, then that is okay and they should communicate it to their applicants, otherwise they have NO excuse and it's just pure laziness.

Ya, I get it. You feel entitled because you worked hard. We get it. Welcome to the real world.

 

[RoronoaZoro]

Entitlement and respect are two different things...

 

[miamiheatfan]

I think the idea is that top candidates will always get multiple interviews.

However, with an overall cap on application numbers, the overall number of interviews these candidates may garner is limited. You can imagine an applicant who applied to 30 schools and received 25 invitations. This person will likely keep attending interviews (possibly until s/he receives a favorable financial aid package). Were the number of applications capped at 20, there are at least 5 interview spots that might have gone to other candidates.

With this type of system, schools could continue to have as little information on applicants (where is X holding acceptances/waitlists?) until near the end of the application cycle.

Alright got it! Sounds like a pretty good idea!

 

[gyngyn]

Yikes, my school once sent interview invites by accident but we went ahead and interviewed the candidates. It became obvious that our attempts to screen and select the best candidates for interviews was working; those interviewed who had not been selected but invited by accident were not hidden gems that we would have otherwise missed.

This is the same thing we see with "courtesy" interviews.
Ultimately I did see a use for them, though. They help distinguish which interviewers don't have a clue.

 

[breakintheroof]

I would strongly support a system without fees that limited the maximum number of schools to which one could apply...
Right now, even with the disincentive of a fee, we get thousands of silly applications (among the thousands of excellent ones) that must be read and sorted in order to find the applicants we want who actually might want to come here.

When this was first posted the other day, I was intrigued. But now, I think that limiting applications is a flawed idea that would not promote fairness. I wonder if someone can check my reasoning.

The most direct beneficiary of such a policy is the adcom, not the applicant. For an admissions dean, there would be fewer silly applications to throw away. Even more importantly, however, there would also fewer excellent applications, because each strong applicant could only distribute their application among so many schools.

An adcom would then know for sure that every application that crossed their desk came from someone who put that school in their personal top 20 (or whatever the limit was set at). Not only that, the adcom would know that the applicant could have only so many acceptances. The students they accept would therefore be more likely to matriculate, leading wily admissions deans to recognize that they could offer fewer acceptances. And so, under pressure as always from their superiors, they would start to turn their eye to what costs them money. The same thing that eats up their budgets in today's system: interviews.

To me, this would negate what I had seen as the principal argument in favor of this system, namely:

...the real reduction is choice comes from not being invited to interview in the first place. This being due to the applicants who attend a huge number of interviews, thus using up resources that would have opened interviews for others.

In my view, the likely result of limiting applications would be schools reducing the number of applicants they interview.

In this thread, @LizzyM and @gyngyn have both said that when they interview applicants they would rather choose not to, by accident or by courtesy, those applicants are almost invariably not accepted. So what is the point of offering interviews outside of the usual pool? Better to focus on the applicants who have a chance, which would simply be a subset of the pool that exists in today's system. In the end, the resources that would have opened up interviews for others would be spirited away from the admissions department toward educational or administrative expenses. Just like application fees are now.

Now it's true that a limited system would be nice for some strong applicants because they would have to travel to fewer interviews. But applicants can choose that path already by applying to no more than 20 schools. Most already do--the average is about 15. The applicants who are trying their best to get considered at any school, who currently apply to twice that many or more, would get squeezed out in the proposed system just as they do today. It would be good that they could save money on application fees, but they would still be the casualty of the finite number of seats.

I acknowledge that many applications that land on deans' desks shouldn't be there, either because they are not of high enough quality or because they are very unlikely to matriculate. I am not convinced that limiting applicants' choice is a fair solution to this.

 

[youououa]

I think part of @gyngyn's logic is that applicants with more capital have an unfair advantage at the moment.

You stated that most candidates apply to 15 schools. You also stated there are applicants who apply to twice as many schools in today's system. These individuals are able to do so through a combination of finances and/or FAP assistance.

Fundamentally, the differential ability of certain candidates to influence their admissions outcome by applying to more schools is unfair (by definition!). This unfairness would be mitigated if all candidates could apply to the same number of schools for free.

Screeners' jobs may be made easier as a result of this change, particularly at top-echelon schools. However, consider a few observations. First, if the maximum number of applications was set high (perhaps at 30 - higher than the current average), unqualified applicants could still send applications to top schools. Further, the number of applicants goes up each year, roughly speaking, so any relief the screeners experienced would be temporary.

Finally, the medical schools' class size is the ultimate arbiter of who gets accepted. I don't see how the need to fill a class would change if the number of applicants to any particular school were reduced.

The most direct beneficiary of such a policy is the adcom, not the ap

 

[Ol'Lady]

What are the schools expenses associated with holding interviews? What costs limit the number of interviews? (Please tell me it's not just the food! )

 

[breakintheroof]

I think part of @gyngyn's logic is that applicants with more capital have an unfair advantage at the moment.

You stated that most candidates apply to 15 schools. You also stated there are applicants who apply to twice as many schools in today's system. These individuals are able to do so through a combination of finances and/or FAP assistance.

Fundamentally, the differential ability of certain candidates to influence their admissions outcome by applying to more schools is unfair (by definition!). This unfairness would be mitigated if all candidates could apply to the same number of schools for free.

You're right, it is unfair in that some applicants can apply to more schools than others. At some cost of applicant choice, limiting applications would reduce this inequality. However, that is only one rationale that has been provided for limiting the number of applications, and I think the other rationale is flawed.

Screeners' jobs may be made easier as a result of this change, particularly at top-echelon schools. However, consider a few observations. First, if the maximum number of applications was set high (perhaps at 30 - higher than the current average), unqualified applicants could still send applications to top schools. Further, the number of applicants goes up each year, roughly speaking, so any relief the screeners experienced would be temporary.

Finally, the medical schools' class size is the ultimate arbiter of who gets accepted. I don't see how the need to fill a class would change if the number of applicants to any particular school were reduced.

I am not sure I understand your point here. Could you elaborate?

 

[breakintheroof]

What are the schools expenses associated with holding interviews? What costs limit the number of interviews? (Please tell me it's not just the food! )

Pay for staff who handle coordination, and time for volunteers who interview. Similar to why screening applications is associated with costs to an admissions office.

 

[Ol'Lady]

Does interviewing take time away from doing other duties that are not admissions related? I could see that as an expense too.

 

[Ol'Lady]

Also does screening apps cost a lot? I mean like the pre screening. Is that like a software thing or do humans have to really get in there? A little of both?

 

[LizzyM]

Also does screening apps cost a lot? I mean like the pre screening. Is that like a software thing or do humans have to really get in there? A little of both?

Much of the work of screening apps is done by faculty volunteers as part of one's "good citizenship" as a member of the university community.. These same faculty are being asked to sit on the medical students promotion committee, the research ethics committee, tenure and promotion committee, etc, etc.

Many schools use faculty volunteers to do the interviews, student volunteers to give the tours and serve as overnight hosts, and the space available for interviews is limited too; not every faculty member has an office conducive to doing interviews and in some cases the office is too far away to make it work so other space has to be located.

 

[Ol'Lady]

Would anyone say the screening/prescreening costs more or the interviewing? Ok sounds expensive in terms of time invested by faculty and other important ppl @LizzyM @aprimenumber

 

[aprimenumber]

Does interviewing take time away from doing other duties that are not admissions related? I could see that as an expense too.

Especially when you consider the number of clinicians who take time out of their schedule to interview applicants. A physician's time is very valuable. I remember that one of my interviewers was a plastic surgeon. Think about how much $$$ he could have made for the hospital in the afternoon that he chose to take off to help interview a batch of applicants.

 

[LizzyM]

Would anyone say the screening/prescreening costs more or the interviewing?

In terms of volunteer hours, I'd say it is about 30-40 minutes per application for review and 60-120 minutes per interviewed applicant. Of course the applications reviewed are far greater in number than the applicants interviewed.

The other "costs" are the cost of office staff, IT support, software purchase/development to handle applications, cost to the institution for the office space itself and the furnishing and maintenance of the space. (Offices were able to unload quite a bit of office space when they no longer needed "file rooms" for the paper applications.)

 

[Psai]

Dear RTC,

After careful review and consideration of your application, the Committee on Admissions regrets to inform you that it is unable to offer you a place in the medical school class entering in August 2015.

We are humbled and most thankful to have received so many applications from talented students like you. This year, we received over 7,800 applications for the 150 places available in the entering class. With more well qualified candidates than we could admit or even interview, the Committee on Admissions faced an incredibly difficult task this year.

We wanted to thank you again for your interest in New York University School of Medicine, and we wish you success in your path to becoming a physician.



Sincerely,

Rafael Rivera, M.D.

Associate Dean for Admissions & Financial Aid

New York University School of Medicine

My NYU rejection letter said "Dear Applicant" which was a slap in the face from the start. There was also a typo
Also there were apparently 8,300 applications for 162 places that year, wonder why their class size dropped

 

[Ol'Lady]

Especially when you consider the number of clinicians who take time out of their schedule to interview applicants. A physician's time is very valuable. I remember that one of my interviewers was a plastic surgeon. Think about how much $$$ he could have made for the hospital in the afternoon that he chose to take off to help interview a batch of applicants.

Thanks for the insight into the process @aprimenumber @LizzyM

 

[TREDWISE]

When this was first posted the other day, I was intrigued. But now, I think that limiting applications is a flawed idea that would not promote fairness. I wonder if someone can check my reasoning.

The most direct beneficiary of such a policy is the adcom, not the applicant. For an admissions dean, there would be fewer silly applications to throw away. Even more importantly, however, there would also fewer excellent applications, because each strong applicant could only distribute their application among so many schools.

An adcom would then know for sure that every application that crossed their desk came from someone who put that school in their personal top 20 (or whatever the limit was set at). Not only that, the adcom would know that the applicant could have only so many acceptances. The students they accept would therefore be more likely to matriculate, leading wily admissions deans to recognize that they could offer fewer acceptances. And so, under pressure as always from their superiors, they would start to turn their eye to what costs them money. The same thing that eats up their budgets in today's system: interviews.

To me, this would negate what I had seen as the principal argument in favor of this system, namely:

In my view, the likely result of limiting applications would be schools reducing the number of applicants they interview.

In this thread, @LizzyM and @gyngyn have both said that when they interview applicants they would rather choose not to, by accident or by courtesy, those applicants are almost invariably not accepted. So what is the point of offering interviews outside of the usual pool? Better to focus on the applicants who have a chance, which would simply be a subset of the pool that exists in today's system. In the end, the resources that would have opened up interviews for others would be spirited away from the admissions department toward educational or administrative expenses. Just like application fees are now.

Now it's true that a limited system would be nice for some strong applicants because they would have to travel to fewer interviews. But applicants can choose that path already by applying to no more than 20 schools. Most already do--the average is about 15. The applicants who are trying their best to get considered at any school, who currently apply to twice that many or more, would get squeezed out in the proposed system just as they do today. It would be good that they could save money on application fees, but they would still be the casualty of the finite number of seats.

I acknowledge that many applications that land on deans' desks shouldn't be there, either because they are not of high enough quality or because they are very unlikely to matriculate. I am not convinced that limiting applicants' choice is a fair solution to this.

Hmm. Well I don't think you are really contradicting what @gyngyn said. You're supposing that a reduction in the number of interviews and acceptances would be the result of such a system. This is most likely true, but it is aside from @gyngyn's point that such a system would be more fair to the applicants.

Let's say there are 1000 interview spots and 500 acceptances available for 250 seats in medical school across all medical schools. A person who applies to 30 schools and grabs 10 interview spots is in a much better position to take some of those acceptances than someone who could only apply to 10 schools for financial reasons. However, if we limit everyone to 10 free applications, maybe there would be 700 interview spots for 350 acceptances and 250 seats in medical school, but nobody would be at an advantage solely because they could afford to apply to more schools.

Really, I think that the bigger issue in this whole process is how much of an advantage it is to apply early. What if medical schools only took applications for one month, and then spent the rest of the year processing those applications? And what if medical schools announced their secondary questions ahead of time? Then people who could afford to sit around on their butts for a couple months straight wouldn't be at such an advantage over someone who has to work to support themselves or their families.

 

[breakintheroof]

Hmm. Well I don't think you are really contradicting what @gyngyn said. You're supposing that a reduction in the number of interviews and acceptances would be the result of such a system. This is most likely true, but it is aside from @gyngyn's point that such a system would be more fair to the applicants.

Let's say there are 1000 interview spots and 500 acceptances available for 250 seats in medical school across all medical schools. A person who applies to 30 schools and grabs 10 interview spots is in a much better position to take some of those acceptances than someone who could only apply to 10 schools for financial reasons. However, if we limit everyone to 10 free applications, maybe there would be 700 interview spots for 350 acceptances and 250 seats in medical school, but nobody would be at an advantage solely because they could afford to apply to more schools.

I think that @gyngyn has several points in favor of this system, and I dispute one. As I understand it, the new system would, in theory, benefit applicants by:

1) reducing costs (I agree);
2) reducing inequality of opportunity as you describe here @TREDWISE (I agree);
3) accelerating the timeline of the cycle by increasing efficiency, as mentioned below (I maybe agree);

Imagine how much better it would be to know now. To be finding an apartment or roommates in the place you want to be.

and 4) increasing opportunities to interview for people who would not have gotten them otherwise, as endorsed by @youououa below (I do not agree).

I think the idea is that top candidates will always get multiple interviews.

However, with an overall cap on application numbers, the overall number of interviews these candidates may garner is limited. You can imagine an applicant who applied to 30 schools and received 25 invitations. This person will likely keep attending interviews (possibly until s/he receives a favorable financial aid package). Were the number of applications capped at 20, there are at least 5 interview spots that might have gone to other candidates.

This system might, in fact, be more fair than our current system. I don't hesitate to agree that it has two or three major advantages. However, if the AAMC announced tomorrow that a respected adcom at the University of Califas-Gyngyn (UCGG) had proposed this system and said it would free up interviews for applicants who otherwise wouldn't have them, I would question it.

 

[TREDWISE]

I think that @gyngyn has several points in favor of this system, and I dispute one. As I understand it, the new system would, in theory, benefit applicants by:

1) reducing costs (I agree);
2) reducing inequality of opportunity as you describe here @TREDWISE (I agree);
3) accelerating the timeline of the cycle by increasing efficiency, as below (I maybe agree);

and 4) increase opportunities to interview for people who would have gotten them otherwise, as endorsed by @youououa below (I do not agree).


This system might, in fact, be more fair than our current system. I don't hesitate to agree that it has two or three major advantages. However, if the AAMC announced tomorrow that a respected adcom at the University of Califas-Gyngyn (UCGG) had proposed this system and said it would free up interviews for applicants who otherwise wouldn't have them, I would question it.

Well that's a question of extent. To what extent does the decreased number of interviews balance out the inability of top applicants to apply to the majority of top schools. Nobody can know for sure, unless someone wants to create a mathematical model (which would REALLY be taking this overboard lol). I think it could go either way.

 

[breakintheroof]

Well that's a question of extent. To what extent does the decreased number of interviews balance out the inability of top applicants to apply to the majority of top schools. Nobody can know for sure, unless someone wants to create a mathematical model (which would REALLY be taking this overboard lol). I think it could go either way.

I think we agree!

 

[3108]

Ironically, I received a rejection email from Northwestern even though I never completed their secondary.

Maybe they gave me an extra ounce of respect since I'm an alumnus.

 

[ridethecliche]

Entitlement and respect are two different things...

I agree. I think it's kind of hilarious to say that people are entitled because they want to get a rejection letter.

Respect is interesting as well. I've had 6 interviews. I've walked out after one fuming because my 2 interviewers came off as jerks for no good reason. Shame on me for thinking that I was 'entitled' to a fair and respectful interview.