Why do they really have a reapplicant checkbox? And Records question

[ThucydidesLazar]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Does anyone know why they have a checkbox for "reapplicant"? Is it vestigial from an era when things were less linked through electronic records? But I doubt that...

We know that medical schools can know through the National Student Clearinghouse, and perhaps financial aid, what schools an applicant attended, whether or not he or she declares them. But if a student implements a FERPA block, most schools will not divulge this information to the NSC. And if a student in addition received no financial aid or loans, then despite the attitude of some that "THEY'LL KNOW", I doubt really that the AMCAS or medical schools would be able to tell if a student went to a school or not. But given the existence of NSC, why have the student still declare what schools they went to? Because I believe the NSC doesn't divulge grades and the AMCAS's automated system needs to know whether or not all of the transcripts have been submitted so it can then move on to the next step.

The question as to whether or not a person has a criminal record may seem irrelevant given the fact that they do a criminal check later. It seems like that question is merely set there to test the applicant. Although, from a programming perspective, it seems like a simple way to screen. And the criminal screening requires permission to be given up front.

They don't really seem to have anything similar for "reapplicant". I have heard that the AMCAS does allow a person to access applications from a few years ago, and that they will automatically load up old data into a new application. So that seems to indicate a degree of interactivity.

Would the AMCAS report to schools, one way or another, that an applicant had applied before? Given the large number of applicants, would a medical school retain records of previous applicants that they would analyze to check? Would they retain records for those pre-screened, or only those given interviews? If they have records, how long are they retained? I know the AMCAS doesn't seem to keep transcripts on the "Permanent Record", and that the "Active Record" is only for a person who is still an applicant.

Obfuscation obviously would not get over anyone having a low grade or low MCAT. But with a high grade and high MCAT, it does become a relevant question. Granted, with those elements met, there may be a lack of people who would want to employ it. Still, I think this is an interesting question, and may be relevant to a number of people. Is the "reapplicant" checkbox vestigial and superfluous, or given largely automated mechanisms and high volume, is it the only method schools would really know if people were reapplicants?

 

[DokterMom]

That was one heckuva long way to ask: "Do USMD schools have any systemic way of knowing whether or not someone is a re-applicant?"
Or was there more?

 

[ThucydidesLazar]

That was long to you? I'm used to reading dense and long passages, so that looked pretty short to me. To each their own, though.

Your summary of the post isn't bad, but it misses a few points of what I was bringing up. There is a sort of stern authoritarian emotional belief of "THEY KNOW", sort of an "they're always watching" mentality people have about things. One of the reasons I wrote an analysis rather than being was very casual about it was because I wanted to encourage more fact-based, analytical posts than reactionary ones. For example, I talked about the NSC mechanism. One of the points I was thus bringing up with this approach was, implicitly, "There are mechanisms behind everything." Does anyone know if there are mechanisms behind this? I am really wondering if there is any point to that checkbox or is it all just done behind-the-scenes. But your summary was fairly accurate, yes.

 

[familyaerospace]

They don't really seem to have anything similar for "reapplicant". I have heard that the AMCAS does allow a person to access applications from a few years ago, and that they will automatically load up old data into a new application. So that seems to indicate a degree of interactivity.

Would the AMCAS report to schools, one way or another, that an applicant had applied before? Given the large number of applicants, would a medical school retain records of previous applicants that they would analyze to check? Would they retain records for those pre-screened, or only those given interviews? If they have records, how long are they retained?

I can assure you the following

1) AMCAS does allow people to load up past applications. Rolling things over is how I kept my sanity after four rounds of applying.

2) At least two schools I applied to kept my records and referring to past applications during my interviews. The school I am about to attend, I applied to four times and interviewed 3 times and they flat out said they keep the application. Two other schools did similar. I further know this as Top Choice School referred to things I have not mentioned on my application for four years. So that is showing they are keeping for at least 4 years. I think since they also ask for AMCAS number, if they really wanted to find out if you are a reapplicant, it wouldn't be terribly difficult even if you didn't check the reapp box.

 

[ThucydidesLazar]

Three interviews before an acceptance? It sounds like you are Liu Bei talking to Zhuge Liang. (Hopefully you liked the reference 🙂 )

Anyway, thank you, that is really useful information. But, then you received interviews, and 3 years more-or-less consecutively. So we know at least that with people who got interviews, they do keep them. The reapplicant check-box also is starting to look like it is just programming to simplify statistical / categorizing purposes. (And it seems like, at the moment, reapplicant-recognition is school-based rather than AMCAS-based.)

But I wonder if they retain records for pre-screened applications, since those would be much larger. Was your first round successful in gaining an interview? That was the one four years ago before acceptance.

 

[Redpancreas]

That was one heckuva long way to ask: "Do USMD schools have any systemic way of knowing whether or not someone is a re-applicant?"
Or was there more?

Agreed. And I'm sure that the checkbox is there as a convenience thing for them so they don't have to go through financial aid and other departments to figure things out.

Proposed Mechanism:

School receives AMCAS --> It says you're a reapplicant --> good...now they save time by not having to verify that with other components of the school like the financial aid department, office of admissions, etc.

If you say you're not a reapplicant, I'm sure they verify anyways and if you lied, you're in trouble. The checkbox is merely there to save time for them.

Now in regard to your comment about why it's not all centralized to the school, some institutions are very old fashioned. They may just prefer printing out the information and storing it in physical folders and then placing them in different offices across the school.

 

[Redpancreas]

[QUOTE="ThucydidesLazar, post: 16445838, member: 688502"]That was long to you? I'm used to reading dense and long passages, so that looked pretty short to me. To each their own, though.


🙄

Ya, you pretty much asked something that required one sentence to ask and then pontified for no reason for 3 paragraphs. I don't think anyone will be able to shed light on this "mechanism" you're trying to investigate.

 

[DokterMom]

Congratulations @familyaerospace ! Proof that sometimes, persistence and compassion do pay off.

I can assure you the following

1) AMCAS does allow people to load up past applications. Rolling things over is how I kept my sanity after four rounds of applying.

2) At least two schools I applied to kept my records and referring to past applications during my interviews. The school I am about to attend, I applied to four times and interviewed 3 times and they flat out said they keep the application. Two other schools did similar. I further know this as Top Choice School referred to things I have not mentioned on my application for four years. So that is showing they are keeping for at least 4 years. I think since they also ask for AMCAS number, if they really wanted to find out if you are a reapplicant, it wouldn't be terribly difficult even if you didn't check the reapp box.

So we've established that schools to which you've applied previously can (and do) pull up old applications. I'm wondering if an 'older' AMCAS number wouldn't also be a tipoff --

But mostly - just Congratulations!

 

[NeuResurgens]

I can assure you the following

1) AMCAS does allow people to load up past applications. Rolling things over is how I kept my sanity after four rounds of applying.

2) At least two schools I applied to kept my records and referring to past applications during my interviews. The school I am about to attend, I applied to four times and interviewed 3 times and they flat out said they keep the application. Two other schools did similar. I further know this as Top Choice School referred to things I have not mentioned on my application for four years. So that is showing they are keeping for at least 4 years. I think since they also ask for AMCAS number, if they really wanted to find out if you are a reapplicant, it wouldn't be terribly difficult even if you didn't check the reapp box.

Hey, good to see that you made it. Congrats!

To OP, I believe schools keep records of applications, so I think if you're a re applicant to any of the school's you applied to before, they will know it. I can't vouch for schools you didn't apply to the cycle before though. AAMCAS probably keeps a record of this.

 

[familyaerospace]

But I wonder if they retain records for pre-screened applications, since those would be much larger. Was your first round successful in gaining an interview? That was the one four years ago before acceptance.

My first round had one DO interview and no MD interviews. The next year had 2 MD interviews, the next year had 4 (including 2 from prior year, and 2 others I was a reapplicant to), then 2 interviews this year (same two that I was waitlisted at the prior year).

And thank you all for the congratulations!

 

[ThucydidesLazar]

[QUOTE="ThucydidesLazar, post: 16445838, member: 688502"]That was long to you? I'm used to reading dense and long passages, so that looked pretty short to me. To each their own, though.


🙄

Ya, you pretty much asked something that required one sentence to ask and then pontified for no reason for 3 paragraphs. I don't think anyone will be able to shed light on this "mechanism" you're trying to investigate.

Though for his part the second person who answered me was able to answer my question, while you didn't.

 

[ThucydidesLazar]

My first round had one DO interview and no MD interviews. The next year had 2 MD interviews, the next year had 4 (including 2 from prior year, and 2 others I was a reapplicant to), then 2 interviews this year (same two that I was waitlisted at the prior year).

And thank you all for the congratulations!

Yeah, congrats. Want to share the story? What you improved, etc?

Other than that, having answered that the first year had no MD interviews, you've pretty much solved the question. It seems like they do keep records. I wonder how much they scrutinize. But gonnif answered that in a way that was satisfactory to me. So, in addition to some of the other people who posted helpful things, I think this question is fairly well solved. But if you want to tell us your story before they close the thread, that'd be cool. Otherwise, enjoy the sweet feeling of a victory well-earned.

 

[familyaerospace]

Yeah, congrats. Want to share the story? What you improved, etc?

Other than that, having answered that the first year had no MD interviews, you've pretty much solved the question. It seems like they do keep records. I wonder how much they scrutinize. But gonnif answered that in a way that was satisfactory to me. So, in addition to some of the other people who posted helpful things, I think this question is fairly well solved. But if you want to tell us your story before they close the thread, that'd be cool. Otherwise, enjoy the sweet feeling of a victory well-earned.

Seriously very little changed from year to year. My story is SDN famous though. My GPA didn't move, my MCAT has always been on the border of acceptable, I already had overkill on shadowing and volunteering (both medical and non-medical each have several thousand hours), my work experiences just increased a little but they were also overkill as I've been a CEO for 15 years for a research related company. I replaced one physician letter between round 1 and 2. Then between round 3 and 4 I swapped out a 3 year several thousand hour volunteer position letter (the activity was totally removed and replaced by another activity) with a clergy letter from my rabbi. On top of the several journal articles and presentations I already had, between rounds 1 and 2, I published a book chapter on religion and have another book which was under contract again religion not science. My personal statement barely changed although I removed maybe two sentences which were very serious and added three which honestly were kinda snarky because I was just getting really tired and wanted to let my feelings be very, very known. I do not recommend that. The only other thing is that after round 4 was submitted, a few months later I moved to a town which is literally 3 people on a mountain. Prior I lived in a town of 100. I also spent a few years studying Talmud in an Israeli yeshiva during the various years.

When I interviewed at MCG the second time (3rd round overall), they told me that the previous interviewer (Round 2 which was a questionable interview) wrote down I was excessively nervous and he said he (3rd round interviewer) saw absolutely none of it.

I have had more questionable interviews than probably any other person on SDN.

I'm a mixed race, gay transsexual observant Jew who lives in the South. First round, the DO school informed me I could not be accepted due to being trans. Second round, a lot of digs were about me being gay (one interviewer asked why I never learned German, I said "I'm Jewish, we kinda have issues with Germans.") One of the schools literally asked an entire list of stupid questions which are all found on my blog. Third round had two schools (of four) state they could not accept me for being Jewish (thank you BDS movement). Fourth round, had one school's BOTH INTERVIEWERS get on my case about being Jewish. MCG had one bad interview who ripped on me for being trans and Jewish, I marched back and asked for a new interviewer to replace that one. I am usually known for being uber polite to admissions, but I was really really upset. Had the Associate Dean who I've chatted with before as my replacement, I liked her. Then the closed interview I knocked the next person's socks off and I just loved her. If I liked women and she wasn't already married, I would have proposed.

 

[Goro]

I have to bring the knife out...after reading some of OP's other posts, he must be one of those people who loves to hear himself talk.

That was one heckuva long way to ask: "Do USMD schools have any systemic way of knowing whether or not someone is a re-applicant?"
Or was there more?

 

[TUVIX]

Seriously very little changed from year to year. My story is SDN famous though. My GPA didn't move, my MCAT has always been on the border of acceptable, I already had overkill on shadowing and volunteering (both medical and non-medical each have several thousand hours), my work experiences just increased a little but they were also overkill as I've been a CEO for 15 years for a research related company. I replaced one physician letter between round 1 and 2. Then between round 3 and 4 I swapped out a 3 year several thousand hour volunteer position letter (the activity was totally removed and replaced by another activity) with a clergy letter from my rabbi. On top of the several journal articles and presentations I already had, between rounds 1 and 2, I published a book chapter on religion and have another book which was under contract again religion not science. My personal statement barely changed although I removed maybe two sentences which were very serious and added three which honestly were kinda snarky because I was just getting really tired and wanted to let my feelings be very, very known. I do not recommend that. The only other thing is that after round 4 was submitted, a few months later I moved to a town which is literally 3 people on a mountain. Prior I lived in a town of 100. I also spent a few years studying Talmud in an Israeli yeshiva during the various years.

When I interviewed at MCG the second time (3rd round overall), they told me that the previous interviewer (Round 2 which was a questionable interview) wrote down I was excessively nervous and he said he (3rd round interviewer) saw absolutely none of it.

I have had more questionable interviews than probably any other person on SDN.

I'm a mixed race, gay transsexual observant Jew who lives in the South. First round, the DO school informed me I could not be accepted due to being trans. Second round, a lot of digs were about me being gay (one interviewer asked why I never learned German, I said "I'm Jewish, we kinda have issues with Germans.") One of the schools literally asked an entire list of stupid questions which are all found on my blog. Third round had two schools (of four) state they could not accept me for being Jewish (thank you BDS movement). Fourth round, had one school's BOTH INTERVIEWERS get on my case about being Jewish. MCG had one bad interview who ripped on me for being trans and Jewish, I marched back and asked for a new interviewer to replace that one. I am usually known for being uber polite to admissions, but I was really really upset. Had the Associate Dean who I've chatted with before as my replacement, I liked her. Then the closed interview I knocked the next person's socks off and I just loved her. If I liked women and she wasn't already married, I would have proposed.

This story is absolutely amazing. Particularly the "I'm a mixed race, gay transsexual observant Jew who lives in the South." You should write an op-ed for the New Yorker or something. What a tale!

 

[familyaerospace]

This story is absolutely amazing. Particularly the "I'm a mixed race, gay transsexual observant Jew who lives in the South." You should write an op-ed for the New Yorker or something. What a tale!

Currently I am writing for a blog called Sojourn but my series on gender in the Talmud is almost over (everything is being scheduled). A book will be coming at some point though.

 

[Law2Doc]

My alma mater used to scan and save all applications and would retain them for who knows how many years. So yes they do this. And Many places ask you to check a box as to whether you've ever applied to any med school before. Lying on an application shouldn't ever be contemplated, even if it's hard for the recipient to check, so that shouldn't be an option if that's what you are getting at. It's essentially career suicide to knowingly do this.

The importance of knowing who is a reapplicant is really being able to see if they made the requisite substantial improvements, or whether they are just throwing up the same application over and over again and hoping they don't flub whatever they previously flubbed. You only want to give a spot to someone who was able to address his shortcomings and demonstrate an upgrade. I mean if a guy came off badly in his interviews at other programs an adcom might not know that, but would be understandably suspicious if it's clear that no real improvements were made to the application since the prior cycle. By contrast if the guy applied with a 25 MCAT last year and now is applying with a 30 MCAT and additional ECs an adcom will be a whole lot less suspicious if what went wrong last time. He has objective evidence of substantial improvement.

 

[Noomm]

I'm a mixed race, gay transsexual observant Jew who lives in the South.

How can you be a "gay observant Jew"? That's the most oxymoronic thing I've ever heard. What part of "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" doesn't make sense to you?

 

[avgn]

How can you be a "gay observant Jew"? That's the most oxymoronic thing I've ever heard. What part of "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" doesn't make sense to you?

 

[Noomm]

@familyaerospace I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to bash you or anything - it just legitimately makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Noomm]

1) From a sociological perspective, the poster is obviously talking about her self identification (in-group). Your biblical quotation as an all encompassing external identification (out-group) generalization does not pass muster as the the extremely wide spectrum of both those individuals and groups who identify as Jewish. On the scale of religiosity from most adherence to traditional religious practices, rituals and values to minimal adherence, Jews can run from Ultra Orthodox Hasidics ("the pious ones") to reform practices all the way to "secular" Jews who identify solely on a cultural basis with little or no religious intent.

2) Since the poster has identified as a transsexual and is now identifying as a woman, it can be argued that there is no prohibition as in the quote you used above. Indeed, as a prospective medical professional, you should realize that it widely accepted across the medical community that transgendered individuals are seeking the physical manifestation of the true personality that they are. And if you accept this as a prospective medical professional, aren't you also obligated to yourself to accept that a person identifying as transgendered should be treated with the same cultural values, standards etc that you would treat any other patient? If not, you have a conflict that puts your own professional integrity with a personal belief, not a good place for a prospective doctor to be in.

3) Lastly, on a personal note, it has always struck me as so odd this tension and lack of acceptance across the culture with LBGT when it has been widely accepted in Jewish community for, well likely, centuries. As a child in the 1960s I was fully aware that the Yiddish term "feygele" or "fagella" (meaning little bird) was used to describe men who liked men, something my grandmother learned when she come to this country before 1920. It wasnt hidden, or used behind someone's back but as a normal description. Nor were the people it described anything other than a part of the community. So it appears the Orthodox to Conservative have accepted LBGT into their arms, houses, and community for a long time.

4) Accepting all those no matter what is part of medicine

Thank you for the well thought out reply.

 

[familyaerospace]

@Noomm and @gonnif - Actually I am a female to male transsexual who was yeshiva educated as a man because Judaism is pretty hip. The Talmud is incredibly clear that there are six sexual halachic categories. Androgynos, TumTum, Saris, and Ayliont are the unusual ones.

The biblical verse first of all does not apply to TumTumim at all which you can learn more about in the Talmud (I can give you cites if you really want them). Ftms are closer to TumTumim which is how they are converted. Mtfs can be one of the latter too, usually saris is the best option.

Second of all, it was written in there because of issues with Temple prostitutes, it may in fact only refer to the Temple priests.

Third, it is almost impossible to get charged with sodomy under that rule because you have to be doing the act in public which is defined as having sex around two other shomer mitzvot Orthodox Jewish men over bar mitzvah age who are not relatives. That is almost impossible to find. Then they have to be willing to testify in front of a beit din about the activity which due to some very unusual rules about how rabbis are properly ordained (you have to be ordained directly down from Moses in the land of Israel with no breaks) means only those rabbis are allowed to implement the death penalty.

I would recommend the movie "Trembling Before G-d" for more information

 

[Goro]

Funny how people obsess about this one quote, and ignore everything else in the book of Leviticus.

http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html

How can you be a "gay observant Jew"? That's the most oxymoronic thing I've ever heard. What part of "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" doesn't make sense to you?