Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
US News gives access to acceptance rates, but I believe they are school-reported rather than calculated from #accepts
Why Are US Medical School Acceptance Rates So High?
Started by doctorDoctor.
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
USNews subscription has acceptance rates. The number applied matches up with MSAR fairly well (or it did the last time I looked at it) and the number accepted looks pretty reasonable, so I think they can be trusted as generally accurate.
Is there any kind of way of verifying those stats? Otherwise it's kind of like the Caribbean schools reporting "Oh hey our average MCAT is a 34!" because there is nobody they have to report to in order to verify/corroborate that data.
I ask that because in the past I've seen some US News figures which can be checked prove not to be completely correct.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The number applied can be compared to MSAR. The number accepted either can be compared to school reported data on their websites (if it exists, which it does for some schools) or must be taken on faith. The ones that I've looked at that I have knowledge of (which is like maybe 7 schools) look reasonable.
Yeah it's probably relatively accurate there are schools like Loyola that release the number of people they accept if anybody wanted to actually check the data themselves. I guess I just wonder how US News of all people gets hold of that data many schools go out of their way to not reveal.
The motivation would be to turn in lower numbers, so Top 20s reporting 5-8%s doesn't seem suspect the way the (known false) reports of insanely high step scores is. If you look at MSAR-derived interview rates vs accept rates the math checks out though, almost always looks like 1/3 to 2/3 of interviewees gets an accept (for example U Chicago interviews 12% of applicants, reported that they accept 4%).
"Give us a number or we cannot rank you in this list that a ton of (idiot) applicants will use to decide if they'll apply to and/or attend your school"
The thing is many ADCOMs hate those rankings and what they bring with them. You'll hear gyngyn and others refer to them as the "US Snooze" rankings all the time. I'd expect US News to be the last people in the world schools would want to just hand out information they are usually tight lipped about.
guilty
Adcoms may hate them, but premeds love them.
"Chances for top 20?"
"Chances for top school?"
"Am I screwed for a top 10 school with only a 37 MCAT?"
"I want to attend a top tier medical school and only published one second author paper, should I consider SGU/Ross?"
"I go to a top 17 medical school"
etc
Med schools recognize that the rankings are a stupid way to judge, but also recognize that the idiot masses do use them to judge. Hell, look at how adcoms/physicians talk about the idiocy of emphasizing grades and test scores above all else and yet...
For example look at the admissions booklets for some top schools like Vandy. It's in the first line of the "about our school" blurb for UC Irvine. Obviously they recognize the value in having a nice high ranking to flaunt. As mimelim once put it, "US News was very smart to fill in a niche of ranking things that can't really be ranked or shouldn't be ranked, but people want ranked. And they make money for it."
boo, you (prestige) *****
I mean it is pure brilliance on the US News part, I guess I'm just kind of surprised that after they piss off these schools and ADCOMs every year so much with those rankings which are just pure buffoonery and the result is the schools are just willing to hand over all this secret data to them and them only. There really no other overly ambitious companies who they couldnt give that info to instead who dont piss off ADCOMs every year? Guess it just adds to the brilliance of what US News does.
Game theory.
If one school bows out, especially a top school, and doesn't get ranked, goodbye half your applications. If everyone bows out, great, everyone "wins", but if a couple schools defect from the bow out, they get to reap all the rewards of everyone else dropping. Plus, if you're ranked at the top, why would you want to change the system anyway?
I'm certain the MSAR could contain accept rates if the AAMC wanted to include the info. For whatever reason, they feel yield rate is not info worth giving to applicants. US News is interested in selling product though, so of course they're willing to give it to us.
Wedgie nailed it. Nobody really thinks it's good for the lists to exist, but everybody wants the exposure and attractiveness boost being on the list provides, especially high up it. I would love to see some name like Harvard or Hopkins go "unranked" for a year though, just to see what happens
Yeah I mean now there is no way of bowing out. It's more of how we got to this situation in the first place. There all kinds of sources like US News who would want that info who dont make BS rankings that piss off these very schools
I'm also not sure @efle schools would give out that info even if MSAR tried to get it out of them. Yield rate is often a source of pride/controversy/many other adjectives for schools; I know at the undergrad level of admission it's closely monitored and many schools don't want to reveal that info and will try and do things behind the scenes to improve their yield rate statistics they wouldnt want getting out to the public.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well they wouldn't directly publish the yield rate, they'd just publish # interview, accept, and matriculate so that it could be calculated. Many med schools don't advertise their interview rates either, only apps and matriculants, but yet we're given that. Many also publish their numbers differently (eg MCAT full ranges or averages instead of medians and 10-90s).
And AAMC already has access to the data, since they see where everyone applied, where they were accepted, and where they matriculated. It's not an issue of schools keeping the data from the MSAR people, it's MSAR people hiding it from us.
And AAMC already has access to the data, since they see where everyone applied, where they were accepted, and where they matriculated. It's not an issue of schools keeping the data from the MSAR people, it's MSAR people hiding it from us.
Well there's a reason the MSAR hides it from us. My guess is its at the request/urging of the schools themselves. There's alot of stuff AAMC has access to that we never get to see in MSAR and this is one of them.
Yeah, which is unfortunate, knowing accept numbers is far more useful than matriculation numbers for trying to build the best school list.
Interesting thread....
First, note that the OP says he/she is a high school student, coming to the conclusion that med school admissions is "relatively easy."
Numerous posts did a great job explaining the weed out process which, going back to frosh year of college, would yield a number substantially lower than 40%.
I would emphasize a couple of other points...
The 40% admitted is not the same as the "top 40%," once one factors in URM admits and the skew of in-state state school admits. Candidates can be safely in the top 20-25% range stats and even ECs-wise and not land in the 40% admitted category. As just one measure, a 514/515 (33ish) MCAT puts a candidate at the 91st-93rd percentile (well within the top 10%), and yet a ton of 33 MCAT folks will not garner a MD admit. Secondly, even if the 40% rate remains fairly level, the overall median stats are still rising. The old 3.5/30 standard as a key threshold to aim for or surpass to feel good about one's chances is now something like 3.65/32ish and climbing. You'll see many here on SDN refer to 3.7+/33-34ish candidates as very average in terms of competitiveness. If you had asked those same candidates 4-5 years ago if they would feel pretty confident if they ended up hitting 3.7/33 most would have been pretty confident. It will be interesting to see if these numbers flatten out or continue rising.
I'd also like to comment on the US News thing. Many are disgusted with the rankings and believe they should be de-emphasized, but there is no doubting the influence they have. I believe there are schools (undergrad) -- think Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Williams, etc -- that could survive dropping out because their brands are so strong and these schools enjoy iconic status in our culture. They have enough muscle to drop out and actually perhaps enhance their prestige ("we are so good we are considered the gold standard even without a US News ranking"). In contrast, there are more niche schools of excellence like Reed where that is not the case. Sure, people in the know will quickly identify with Reed as a superb school (and one of the most intellectually rigorous along the lines of Chicago and Swat), but there is no doubt that Reed over the last 20 years has suffered some reputation erosion. The thing to admire (perhaps) about a Reed is that Reed doesn't care (or at least does a good job of acting like it doesn't care). I think Harvard and Williams would care, but as I suggested I don't think they would have to as those are schools that counter-intuitively might actually experience prestige-enhancement.
Wait, what was the breakdown, and were they International students? This is sad ;(
Now now Lulu, don't be petty. gyngyn's school is one that doesn't send out secondaries unless people deserve them. Other schools use them as a tax on the hopelessly naive, if not downright foolish. And it's not the MCAT that makes unqualified people apply to med school. it's their cluelessness about this process, or their parents.
I've seen plenty of lackluster applicants get glowing committee LORs ("We rank this candidate in the top 10% of our students"). We thus discount them. Pre-meds over-rate the power of LORs anyway. Med schools like the committee LORs because they do a good job of summarizing the individual LORs.
You too??? I look for the rare red flags as well.
They're either f***ing stupid, pathologically clueless, or they have Tiger Parents (who come in all colors, sizes and cultures).
"Not a team player"
"Not reliable"
"Aloof"
"Blames other members of the team for..."
"Self-centered"
"Unprofessional behavior during ....."
"I can't imagine this person being a doctor"
This is the usual. Keep in mind that these are RARE. I see one maybe 1x/interview cycle.
I've seen plenty of lackluster applicants get glowing committee LORs ("We rank this candidate in the top 10% of our students"). We thus discount them. Pre-meds over-rate the power of LORs anyway. Med schools like the committee LORs because they do a good job of summarizing the individual LORs.
You too??? I look for the rare red flags as well.
They're either f***ing stupid, pathologically clueless, or they have Tiger Parents (who come in all colors, sizes and cultures).
"Not a team player"
"Not reliable"
"Aloof"
"Blames other members of the team for..."
"Self-centered"
"Unprofessional behavior during ....."
"I can't imagine this person being a doctor"
This is the usual. Keep in mind that these are RARE. I see one maybe 1x/interview cycle.
Yeah, the problem is that with few exceptions all letters more or less look the same, and for the few that don't I feel like I'm trying to judge the writer more than the applicant. If I don't know the letter writer personally, I can only guess if the writer typically uses flowery language or if their baseline writing style looks like my avatar's expression. "Big name" also doesn't mean a lot to me either for the same reasons as above unless I personally know them and how involved they normally are with students. Did the student have to wait in line and kiss ass to get that letter or did the letter writer actually get to know the applicant on a personal level? You can't always tell by what's written.
Ironically the first guy I interviewed last year from my program had a letter from an up and coming star in the academic psychiatry world who wrote something along the lines of "I trained a Harvard, and my extensive experience includes being faculty at [prestigious place], and later [other prestigious place] and this is one of the finest med students I have ever worked for".
I mean that's nice and all, but are you talking up the applicant or yourself?
I also tend to be leery of LOR writers who gush more about themselves rather than the applicant.
State schools take a great present age of their applicants. For decent applicants, success at a state school is quite likely.
I thought the old mcat gave you a score of 3 minimum in each section such that the lowest cumulative score was 9...
Now that's quite interesting because many of the LOR resources (eg the one Stanford asks you give each writer) explicitly instruct the writer to mention their "pedigree", if you will, along with their exposure to various students/systems, so the school can judge to whom (the general group) the writer compares the applicant.
Sure but none of those things really tell me what the normal tone of their letters tend to be. Is every student they write for "exceptional"?
It's why negative comments stand out much more than positive ones do (and also why I'm unfortunately hesitant to put written constructive criticism in a student's rotation evaluation unless they're particularly egregious. Negative comments on the MSPE stick out like a sore thumb, to an extent that isn't entirely fair to the student.)
You're right--I suppose even then it would be difficult to assess whether they wax poetic about all their students. That's quite interesting. One would hope that, having been given the privilege of writing a LOR for a potential future member of their craft, one would take great care to ensure a measured, thoughtful and accurate assessment.
Serendipitously, I have been an Ochem lecturer at a large university, and I simply turn away students I do not know (I advise them to find writers who know them better and can write more meaningful remarks).
Edit: and yes, LORs can be a PITA, but it's what you do to encourage students you'd like see go in that direction.
No, I have seen several 1's.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well, I stand corrected. Wow.
Just to give some perspective yes you can score a 1 on a section. But good god does it take work to do that. Even getting an 8/52 on many old scales was enough to get you a 2 on a section........that's about 15% on a test where you have a 1/4 chance of answering a question correctly.
Last edited:
Assuming the applicant tried, their faculty of reason scored them less than if a drunk monkey took the exam randomly clicking each answer choice.
In particular, I remember a candidate (from a very fine private undergrad) who had taken the MCAT more than 7 times over the course of several years, never getting more than a total of 4.
I honestly don't see how that's possible... I don't understand how you can go to any undergrad and score a 4, or even a 10. I wonder if it isn't an error...it boggles my mind.
I wonder if this person was just doing it to "troll irl" or something. It is incomprehensible that someone could actually do this.
Exactly. You'd have to actively try to score that low...or maybe the test was in a language they didn't speak, but even then, one would expect a score closer to 25% +/- SD.
IRL Troll makes sense... I could actually see someone doing this as a "social experiment" or something (read: a lot of time and money).
My assessment was that she had suffered some kind of brain injury after matriculating into college (her grades were excellent at school famous for deflation). Her professors seem to have been describing her "pre-trauma" in the LOE's.
I would have a hard time if I were in admisisons not remembering the people who wrote strong letters for that candidate(in particular that school's committee) and not letting that affect my view/perspective on anything they might write about other applicants in future years.
That kind of reminds me of something similar that happened at my UG where we had someone accepted to a top school and had that acceptance revoked due to multiple D's and F's grades and him embarrassingly himself and sealing his fate when the school called him and tried to talk to him about those grades(he happened to be heavily under the influence when they had called). What in turn ended up happening, is it took 4 years for another person from our UG to get into that med school when on average we had 2-4 people accepted there per year in prior years. Our advisor had it on good record from those in admissions at that school it took a long time for the dean and others of high importance to get over that incident and not let it severely cloud their view/judgment of other applicants from that school.
Basically, this kind of reminds me of that story. If I were in admission I could see myself having a harder time taking seriously any future recommendations from LOR writers or committee writers from that school who writes strong LORs for a person like that and that would probably indirectly hurt other applicants.
Edit: I just saw what you said about the brain injuries which would obviously change what I wrote. But still, it would reflect poorly on any committee to recommend somebody with that kind of MCAT track record and that's something that's hard not to remember.
It still makes me sad, years later.
It does serve as a reminder of how fleeting our intelligence can be.
Was there evidence in their application of that applicant doing other things at the time they were taking those MCATs(ie working, doing research or things of productivity)? I would imagine when you legitimately cant even guess your way to a 20% questions correct on a 4 answer choice test that reveals a type of trauma that would significantly impact your ability to do even rather rudimentary things we need to on a daily basis. It is a very sad story at every level.
One other thing to consider is that the probabilistic chances of scoring no more than a 4 after 7 repeated tries is astronomically low, which makes me think this wasn't random guessing. Either the person intentionally entered incorrect answers or, as has been suggested, was impaired to the point where they thought nearly every single correct answer was incorrect (which is what you would need in order to get a 1/1/2).
Yeah that's basically my point. Those scores reveal a level of impairment that I would imagine affects a person far more than just how they can master undergraduate science coursework and probably limits many everyday functions in their life. Those aren't a set/trend of scores your classic 2.5 GPA underachiever who has no clue what they are doing gets.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The rest of her application was surprisingly unremarkable.
I believe she was involved in a lab, though I can't remember if it was a paid or volunteer position.
I saw something like this happen to one of my medical students who suffered a two month stint in the neuro ICU with near fatal encephalitis. She lost so much of her short term memory that she was completely disabled. Her scores on exams were a bit like this. It was as if she preferentially chose wrong answers...
This is the first time i've seen someone using the geometric distribution on SDN. You deserve an internet fist bump
Oh nevermind, you addressed what might have happened. That's sad.
I believe its because a some of these acceptance rates may not truly be acceptance rates but actually matriculation rates, a lot of people will get multiple offers since they apply to many schools and as a result only take one.
Acceptance rates go up as the # of schools applied to goes down but the national acceptance rate stays the same. The most accurate reflection of being able to get into medical school is the national acceptance rate plus minus some state school biases (i.e. its harder in Cali than elsewhere).
Similar threads
