So I've been seeing a trend of stat wh*r* schools being cast in a negative light on here and on r/premed. I happened to have decent stats while applying, so it is a little intriguing that the general consensus is against schools that like applicants like me. I would like to know, what are the reasons people don't appreciate stat wh*r* schools?
Why are stat wh*r* schools considered bad?
- Thread starter mlfpprf
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
Do you think off the charts stats are a necessary prerequisite to becoming an excellent physician?
If so, then there is nothing I can say to you to make you understand. If not, what don't you understand about people who don't have your stats "not appreciating" being excluded from an opportunity due to an unnecessary focus on stats because a school thinks that will lead to increased prestige, rank, whatever?
Last edited:
What are "off the charts stats" to you? And are you saying this in context of LM 75+ applicants with mediocre EC's?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 1,002
off the charts stats are more like LM 80+. 75 to 80 are more like average stats for stat wh.res.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 3,306
Simply said there is going to be very limited difference in the performance of a 3.7/515 premed and a 4.0/524 premed in medical school. Schools choosing to go for the latter at the expanse of taking non trads, URM, disadvantaged etc will boost their rankings, but end up with a frankly boring class of research drones.
- Joined
- May 31, 2019
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 989
Because having a sky-high MCAT score and GPA do not guarantee that you'll be a better doctor. There's a lot more to being a good doctor than being able to make good grades and perform well on one high-stakes standardized test.
Although my stats are strong, they are below the medians for my school. I've made it through the curriculum with no problems so far- same as my 3.9X/52X classmates. Personally, I think that having a nontraditional background gifted me with several "soft skills" that have eased the transition from lecture hall to exam room. For this reason, I'm a huge fan of holistic review in lieu of relying heavily on stats. But unfortunately, that's a lot more work for medical schools than just using two objective metrics.
Although my stats are strong, they are below the medians for my school. I've made it through the curriculum with no problems so far- same as my 3.9X/52X classmates. Personally, I think that having a nontraditional background gifted me with several "soft skills" that have eased the transition from lecture hall to exam room. For this reason, I'm a huge fan of holistic review in lieu of relying heavily on stats. But unfortunately, that's a lot more work for medical schools than just using two objective metrics.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
No, I'm saying it strictly with respect to stats. ECs are not part of the conversation. Look at the medians, as well as the quartile breakdowns on MSAR, for the schools you are talking about. They are off the charts, as compared to the universe of medical schools, and medical students.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 74,949
- Reaction score
- 120,274
Even a student with a 3.4 and 505 MCAT can handle medical school.
From what I have observed, people with the highest stats tend to have really good mental firepower, IE they had very good recall of material.
My only issue with high stat schools has to do with financial aid. These top schools have very good aid (need-based + merit) yet make it extremely difficult for those who qualify for that aid to get in. Take NYU for example. Free tuition/COA yet only 4% of their class is disadvantaged.
So do you mean that these schools give lots of money to "the best of the best" and don't give enough for those who really need it?
I can definitely see that. Mental firepower is especially important in med school, that I can vouch for
It's not that they don't give enough to those that need it. It's that they don't accept these students from the jump.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 74,949
- Reaction score
- 120,274
That's because those schools have massive endowments. NYU got some $600 million from the guy who owns or set up Home Depot. Harvard's endowment is somewhere around $1 billion!
How/why would large endowments make it harder for them to dispense aid?
People don’t like high stats students. That’s getting reflected on the schools who value high stats. If you have high stats, you are a robot, evil, have no heart or emotional intelligence, lack interpersonal skills etc. you cannot be a good doctor
- Joined
- May 31, 2019
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 989
I don't think that's the case. I think that the grudges and beliefs that that people hold apply more on a systemic level than on an individual one. People don't hold biases against students who have high stats, but are rather just a little unhappy with the level of emphasis that is put on stats alone (at the expense of considering other important skills and characteristics). I know plenty of high stat students who are just straight-up wonderful people. I also know lower-stat students who are also brilliant in ways that are not adequately measured by standardized tests. I would be thrilled to have either set of people as my personal doc.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
It's not harder to dispense aid. In fact, NYU probably loses a lot of people to the Harvards, Penns, Hopkinses, etc. of the world.
The simple fact is that NYU is chasing the same high stat, low SES, URM applicants as its peers, which also offer very generous aid to those candidates. That, in turn, renders NYU's free tuition deal something other than unique to them.
That leaves high stat, non-disadvantaged people who do not receive need or merit based grants from other top schools left to fill 96% of its seats, after the folks you are asking about peel away. It's not that NYU doesn't want them. It's that it is unable to keep them after admitting them, and even full COA offers on top of free tuition just doesn't lure them away from other top schools who offer them the same thing.
That might change over time, but it is what it is today, and a dedicated stat wh*re like NYU is not about to dip lower into its pool in order to increase its disadvantaged yield by going after applicants the other top schools don't want.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 74,949
- Reaction score
- 120,274
I was under the impression that they were liberal with aid!
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
They are! Please see my post above. The comment was in response to another comment that NYU is falling short of its stated mission because only 4% of its class is disadvantaged. I tried to address that in my post.
My observation from last cycle was that NYU was the dream school of plenty of rock star, low SES, URM applicants. They got interviews. They were accepted. They were over the moon. Then, later in the cycle, they received acceptances from schools like Harvard and Penn. Very generous aid packages. All of a sudden, NYU was no longer their dream school.
I find that hard to believe that they are chasing the same students. And you say exactly why in your last sentence. Other top schools are willing to drop their 10th percentiles a bit to target a wider variety of students while NYU is not.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 1,002
You meant to be sarcastic right?
No, this is the norm in America. It is not my personal opinion though.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 3,306
I don’t dislike high stat students. I dislike the fact that NYU, a school with a ridiculous endowment has the lowest amount of students that identify as disadvantaged.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,840
- Reaction score
- 18,229
Then the joke is on everyone, because high stat students (3.80+/518+) have the highest acceptance rate (84.2%) of any subgroup.
People throw shade on certain schools because of the perception that they admit high stat applicants not because they'll make good doctors, but to nudge their US News rankings up another 0.00001%.
This is a serious question I am asking for learning purpose. Why do you think high stats will not make good doctors?
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
No one is saying they won't. What people are saying is that they are not necessary to become good med students, or doctors. As a result, an over reliance on them, as evidenced by 99th percentile medians and 90th percentile 10th percentiles, is obnoxious, and needlessly serves to deny deserving applicants opportunities at some schools.
I am not an applicant but a patriotic citizen who believes in fairness and fair treatment of everyone. I like to challenge the status quo as much as I can. This is not directed to you, but the present situation in America.
If I am right all medical schools offer need based aid and only NYU helps everyone. So, why it is a big issue? Can’t one school be allowed to help others? In my opinion, more medical schools should follow and emulate NYU.
In my opinion, anyone who is taking a loan to attend any college is DISADVANTAGED. With the current tuition levels for undergrad and medical schools, that is very close to 98% of the families. If the formula we use to figure out who is qualifies for need based aid is right, then no one should be taking out loans. Isn’t it?
As a society we expect our children to stand on their own and not even live with their parents once they turned 18. Isn’t it ? Then why we are looking into their parents’ income and decide who needs help? We are making some vague assumption that if the family makes x amount, then the student doesn’t need help. Do we ever validate it? Do all parents can afford to pay and DO THEY PAY?
IMO, we have to abolish the need based aid and bring down the tuition for everyone. After becoming a doctor, no one is going to work for free or less salary. Then how is it moral to force some students to take loan and indirectly use that money to pay for the other students? If family A makes 50k and family B makes $150k, family B pays a lot more in taxes. At that point both are equal. Then why are we asking the student from family B to take out loans ? It is unfair . If you say that because family B can afford it, please answer me, after you become a doctor, you walk into a restaurant and order a steak dinner and get a bill for $500 and the guy sitting next to you is billed $30 BECAUSE YOU CAN AFFORD IT, is it right and moral ?
So, we have to abolish the need based aid. If colleges have money to help students, let them lower the tuition for everyone or at least lend it to students in exchange for some service after they graduated I.e. work in rural and underserved area for a few years. Two mangoes with one stone.
Sorry I beg to differ. An applicant with 99th percentile deserves it more than one with 90th percentile. That’s how it works in the rest of the world. 100 meter dashes are determined by 0.01 seconds, we cannot declare the guy who came 4th as the winner based on assumptions.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
Okay, but it honestly looks like you're not really "asking for learning purpose." You seem to have a very specific point of view, and you "beg to differ."
That's fine. You're a fan of high stat schools and think all schools should rely exclusively on stats, like an athletic competition, and like med school admissions work in some countries that a lot of people seem to want to leave to come to the US, where the stat wh*res are the exception, rather than the rule.
Great! You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't twist what others are saying into "high stats will not make good doctors." More accurate would be " insanely high stats will not make better doctors than somewhat less high, but still very respectable stats," because that's really what the shade on the stat wh*res is all about. In medicine, unlike a track meet, that 0.01 percent on any exam or academic metric won't mean anything in terms of real world results, while plenty of other, more subjective things med schools look at make all the difference in the world.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,840
- Reaction score
- 18,229
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 27,610
- Reaction score
- 19,993
And... you lost me. The present situation in America ? Patriotism? I'm good to challenging the status quo, but I don't think you have any systems competencies developed yet.
Even the new student loan forgiveness plan has critics on both sides of the political aisle. I don't think the answer you are looking for is that simple. I totally commiserate about how expensive higher education and professional education have gotten but I don't really follow where you are going that reflects the status quo.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
Broken down to its bare essence, @senecca seems to be saying that access to higher education should be totally based on merit, as reflected strictly by stats, because "that’s how it works in the rest of the world," and there should be no such thing as need based aid, because steak in a restaurant costs the same for everyone regardless of ability to pay.
This would certainly challenge the status quo in America, but @senecca hasn't exactly reconciled this view, which kind of implies the rest of the world is the gold standard, with the fact that people all over the world, from all walks of life, including doctors, want to immigrate to America, while there never seems to be a lot of traffic going in the opposite direction.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 27,610
- Reaction score
- 19,993
Sure... just like the rest of the world, taxpayers actually pay for education including elementary through secondary school. Somebody yell...
There is good and bad in every country and every culture. No one is 100% perfect including us. There is nothing wrong in learning from others and fix what we got it wrong.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
Very true, but there is no consensus that there is anything wrong with the way it is being done, so no one is about to learn from others and fix anything with respect to what you are complaining about.
Just sour grapes from some in the very small minority of folks with decent, but not outrageous stats (3.8+/518+) who have terrible school lists and/or serious gaps in parts of their applications that adcoms find important, who have unsuccessful cycles (~16% spread over the past 3 reported cycles). They just don't understand why anyone values anything other than the ability to float through college seeking classes and professors where they are most likely to get the highest grades, followed by the ability to do well on a single, high stakes national entrance exam.
You might be right and everyone else might be wrong, but this is the way it is in America in 2022. It's not changing. In fact, the trend is going the other way. More inclusive processes that involve greater outreach to under represented communities, more holistic reviews, and less emphasis on stats. As a result, that 16% has been creeping up over the past few years. In 2018, it was only 11%.
Either figure out how to succeed here, or find a country or culture that plays to your strengths. Complaining about it in an anonymous forum on the internet isn't going to get you any closer to a coveted spot in an American medical school.
“Either figure out how to succeed here, or find a country or culture that plays to your strengths. Complaining about it in an anonymous forum”
Are you going to preach this to everyone who have a legitimate complain about all kinds of atrocities , grievances or discrimination against them? So, you want people either to shut up or leave? Huh? If your house gets dirty, do you clean it or move to a new house? No wonder none of the students who are discriminated against (I am speaking of college admissions in general) speak up.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 27,610
- Reaction score
- 19,993
Catching up: on the original question: you could say it's jealousy that some schools just get students with better stats. It's like in college athletics, highly prized recruits go to or transfer to the same top schools. Some of the most talented athletes get booed (Derek Jeter, Serena Williams, Kobe Bryant, LeBron, Brittney Griner, Tom Brady). Some people like certain "stat-heavy" schools" as much as they like to boo the current Alabama football team. It's not a big deal, so don't let it affect you.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 3,306
Thing is, the whole "you become independent in US at age of 18" is complete bull**** and simply doesn't actually happen for most people.
Even if your parents did not pay for your tuition, chances are with richer parents you
1) Didn't need a job in undergrad
2) Had connections that made finding shadowing/volunteering etc very easy
3) Probably had access to physician mentorship within your family
4) Likely had significant financial assistance. Even if you simply lived rent free over the summers, that is simply privilege others did not have.
Why does this matter?
Pre-med as a whole has very varying differences in difficulty depending on your conditions. Got a 520+ after mom and dad let you use a spare office in their law firm for 4 months when you didn't have to work, and paid for thousands of dollars worth of tutors? Sure, impressive. But I will find a 508 from a single mother who studied while holding down two jobs far more impressive and far more representative of the difficulty and time management required in medicine. Some adcoms will too.
And for someone with the really hot take libertarian views, you really are interested in adding more regulations to what a private institution can and cannot do.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 455
No. I'm just saying you are an anonymous "not an applicant but a patriotic citizen who believes in fairness and fair treatment of everyone."
Who are you complaining to here? Another bunch of anonymous strangers, most of whom don't consider what you are posting "legitimate complain about all kinds of atrocities , grievances or discrimination against" you. So, how exactly do you expect any of this to enhance your chances to get accepted to medical school?
You post history suggests that you planned to be an applicant this cycle, and now have pulled back for some reason. If that's not true, and you are just an interested observer seeking to stir it up, then I guess none of this really matters.
OTOH, if you are a prospective future applicant who is annoyed because you have decent stats but not much else, and are being told by advisors that you won't be competitive without addressing the gaps in your application, these "atrocities , grievances or discrimination" will only be resolved by giving adcoms what they want. I can assure you, as someone who also had decent stats, and nevertheless spent years getting an application in shape for submission, neither a bunch of attaboys nor critiques here on SDN in response to your complaints are going to get you any closer to your goal. You'll either give adcoms what they want, or you'll spend the rest of your life voicing your "legitimate complain about all kinds of atrocities , grievances or discrimination." Good luck.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,840
- Reaction score
- 18,229
It has become one of my guilty pleasures to review our AOA inductee list each year and count how many of them were considered risks by the admissions committee.
As someone from a very poor family background, went to a high school which hardly had any teachers, still did exceptionally well in standardized tests, managed to get into a highly selective engineering school and excelled there (top 5%), I always thought if you understood the subject, grasped the concepts and learned how to apply them to solve problems, understood the test , did practice problems, you can do exceptionally well in any standardized tests. I didn’t know that there is elaborate science behind you interpreting those scores. May be I was wrong. As they say, we learn every day.
No , I am not a libertarian, liberal , conservative, just a normal citizen who believes in fairness. The goal of any government is to make laws, regulations and maintain order. Government has all kinds of regulations for private businesses and organizations. Universities are not exceptions, private or public.
I think I have said what I wanted to say. Cheers. Peace.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2021
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 176
i feel that this line of thinking is what upsets a lot of people bc both of the scenarios described represent gross assumptions on the poles of either side, when in reality the vast majority of students are in-between these with no way of using family income as a sliding scale of where on that "spectrum" any given applicant might land (if it's even accurate). Even with supplemental application questions like "did you use an MCAT prep course?"
ex: an applicant with a lawyer parent and no family physicians or loans from a state school bc of scholarships who worked during undergrad but mostly for beer money, shadowed a variety of docs bc they weren't afraid to reach out, and took summer classes while studying for the MCAT using the free study materials bc of preference
(^not my story but I thought it was reasonable)
What you would see on their application is: Lawyer (+income), public school, no loans, worked in college, lots of different shadowing, solid MCAT, no paid test prep material, and then race and no low SES claim
Someone like this would possess a mix of "indications" for privileged and disadvantaged and you would use your assumptions to fill in the rest, there is no place for applicants to say "I have no personal relationships tying me to the physicians I shadowed" or "I just like the Khan academy videos best" and nor should there need to be. Family income is simply too 1-dimensional to be used as grounds for assumptions to fill in the details that are so dynamic between applicants (also known as: people or humans)
This is all in reference to admissions not financial aid but I can imagine there are LOTS of applicants from "privileged" family incomes who's families refuse to pay for materials and resources that improve application outcomes and it would be tragic to overlook their efforts by focusing on the income of their parents or guardians that is self reported
I have been following the magnet school, undergrad and post graduate admissions for 7 years or so (it is a passion you can say). I feel that there is a deep rooted aversion for the standardized tests among vast the majority of our population including politicians, students, school superintendents, university boards (including topmost universities) , admission committees etc. They feel that these tests are standing in their way of achieving something that they desire, especially in the last two or three years. UCs went test blind and all other universities except MIT are test optional for undergrad admissions. So, why pretend that we still value standardized tests and give false hopes to those students who still choose to grind for those tests?
Also, whatever be the reasons, if we as a country is not willing anymore to accept and respect the outcomes of the standardized tests for what they are, instead choose to slander them, ridicule them and diminish their values based on assumptions and/or external factors, I think it is better to be honest and get rid of all the standardized tests, or at least make them pass/fail like Step 1. I heard that passing rate for step 1 is 98%. Probably we can use it as the benchmark for all other standardized tests like SAT, ACT, MCAT, GMAT, LSAT, GRE etc. Similarly, we should get rid of the school and college GPAs as well, just make them pass/fail. We can use the lottery for the magnet school and college admissions, most magnet schools already do that.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 27,610
- Reaction score
- 19,993
The aversion for standardized exams in the US is due to a recognition that social inequities are perpetuated in the results. Quality of one's education and socioeconomic status is reflected in standardized exams, and the COVID-19 pandemic only highlighted this fact more. Now, the history of standardized exams in the US is intriguing, and I think some sort of graduation exam (within K-12) is not considered to have as much pushback.
The UC system going test-blind/optional was a reflection of a few other political positions, specifically the imposition of Prop 209 which barred race-conscious admissions (LA Times article). Within the hierarchy of UC programs, URM's had lagged behind in representation compared to how well these groups are doing when it comes to graduating high school (but there's a lot of research on this topic). Yes, I've kept my eyes on how programs like Thomas Jefferson and Lowell are doing too. And the Varsity Blues scandal.
But I don't know if our culture is going to completely move away from some sort of standardized exam system, and it will take a lot to change professional culture from licensure exams. There are also way too many people invested in understanding psychometrics that one can just throw away all of their efforts. For the US, I think there is greater concern for the non-standardized (it seems) behavioral-based exams/situational judgment exams that have been more prevalent in other industries and in Europe making an impact on one's success in getting admitted.
I'm not entirely sure that getting rid of all GPA's is necessarily the right thing. Undergrad admissions is a complete mess when it comes to comparing students who come from schools with completely different GPA scales or no GPA at all. Add homeschoolers. If anything, the lack of a test score hurts those students unless they can clearly demonstrate college readiness with AP/IB coursework or extra exposure to college-level classes. Basically, we're going back to the beginning of American education when there was seen to be a need to have a measure of college readiness in the first place.
Of course, if we can get community college to be free for everyone, then students can get their vocational or college-prep done if they came from one of these alternate high school programs... but we're not really there yet.
That said, everyone's still going to send their application to the top name-brand schools (the 50 or so "top 20's" in my book) whether or not they take an SAT or ACT score. Many schools will still require it for some consideration of merit-based scholarships. A lottery for med school admissions: I think we have to wait a bit for McMaster to analyze its experiment into this process, but it is a thought. (KevinMD's thoughts)
Last edited:
D
deleted1142566
This is so true. You do not need to be exceptionally intelligent to be a doctor. In fact, many doctors I know who went to tippy top schools end up in policy-making or biotech or academics. They don’t practice much directly.
From my personal experience through shadowing, the best doctors were those who are hardworking, diligent, and thorough with their work. Not necessarily smart, but persistent.
