Why is it so bad to be a reapplicant?

[Goro]

I spoke with an admissions director recently and she said their admissions committee actually favors/roots for the reapplicants because it shows that they're dedicated to a career in medicine. However, the problem is that a lot of reapplicants are so eager to get in that they reapply with essentially the same application. She said that most need to take a year to fix their problems before applying. So I would say if you make a concerted effort to shore up your shortcomings, then being a reapplicant is actually an advantage. Of course, I would recommend trying to get as much feedback as possible from schools you applied to so that when you apply in the future you have an answer when they ask, "Why do you think you didn't get in before?"

As the wise @gonnif has pointed out repeatedly (see post 52 above), most med schools believe that and actually state it on their websites. Which most reapplicants either promptly ignore, or are too lazy to go check out, despite their often having hundreds if not even 1000s of hours of research experience. I guess this is why they become 3x re-applicants, or accountants.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

I'm always flabbergasted by the fact that such smart people can be such poor interviewers. I understand if you're typically a weird dude/dudette, but if you're that intelligent I would think you could learn how to fake it for the 6 hour day that is so important.

Then again, I'm glad they don't and get weeded out.

Fake it till you make it

 

[lpp06]

Everyone must also the random affect that such large number of students at such a high caliber may mean it was just the luck of the draw. This is an Olympic level competition where 20 or more are competing for the 3 medal slots. Number 4 may be just beaten by fractions of a second and just missed a medal. Think about the fact that overall just under 50% of all matriculants get a single offer of acceptance. Assuming that they apply to the average of 15 schools, that is about 7% acceptance rate for 1/2 the matriculants. There are 150+ programs, each with their own process, leanings, decision making, adcom social dynamics with thousands of faculty/ staff making millions of judgements across the total of all applicants and having hundreds thousands of small interactions with applicants. At any particular point in this large chain, you never know what influence may make a judgement go up or down. Picking applicants, like medicine itself, is as much an art as it is a science and the judgement of screeners, evaluators and adcoms, like all of us, is effected the complex nature of simple human interactions

Probably the best 10,000 foot synopsis of the application process.

 

[PeculiarPanda]

Thanks for all the feedback people. I understand the cons of reapplying, but what if I only apply to a couple schools this year (since it's late I'm essentially throwing a hail Mary) and if it doesn't work out I'll just apply to other schools the year after? After all, USMD is my last choice compared to Canada so I'm just throwing in an app for backup

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Goro]

I'm always flabbergasted by the fact that such smart people can be such poor interviewers. I understand if you're typically a weird dude/dudette, but if you're that intelligent I would think you could learn how to fake it for the 6 hour day that is so important.
QUOTE]
You don't get out much, do you?
BTW, I know some really intelligent people who lack the sense to avoid drying off a wet dog in a microwave. ie, just because one is intelligent, it doesn't mean that you are smart.

There are oceans of pre-meds who almost pre-selected at birth for good grades. The social skills, however, are lacking. 4.0 automatons are a dime-dozen. I didn't come up with that quote either...a Yale medical school dean did.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

The bulk of those 12% have all the ECs, they're just insane interviewers and have no business in the field of medicine. I'd say the minority have next to no ECs and thus fail to get admitted. IDK why medical schools even interview those students.

I'm fascinated by this. What have you seen? What are some of the insane things that interviewees have said or done? I'm frequently asked for tips, etc, and would love to be able to share more. I also was contacted by a student with very good stats who was rejected by all 4 schools he interviewed. I suspect that he might be doing some of the crazy things you've seen.

Anyone else with some examples to share, please do.

 

[moggat]

You jumped 10 points? From what to what ( 500 to 510 is not the same jump as 515 to 525). And didn't you to Hopkins ( therefore a slightly lower MCAT wouldn't be an issue with a good GPA from Hopkins.)
I realize this is off topic but that is interesting.

Not intending to bump--just want to answer your question as it's pertinent to the above ^^

(I applied MDPhD only, so just shift all your MD references up 5 points.)

I went from a 33 (~514) to a 524. I had a 3.8c/3.6s from Hopkins, yeah, but the bump you get from a "notorious grad inflating school" is VASTLY overestimated on SDN. (I had one interviewer ask me about grade deflation at JHU, but only because he had a nephew that goes there). A 3.6 from JHU/WashU/Cal/etc. is never going to be a 4.0, even if you would have gotten a 4.5 at any other school.

I think in general, stats are a lot more important than what SDN likes to believe. They're what get you in the door. Your EC's and interview can make or break your acceptance, but if you don't have the stats you won't even get that chance. I was in an unusual position as a reapplicant (which I can talk about if you want, somewhere it wont derail the thread) but I'm dead sure the 10 pt increase in MCAT is what made the difference between getting 1 interview and getting 12+.

 

[sh.h]

-40% of applicants with 3.8 GPA or higher do not get an acceptance
-60% of applicants with 3.6-3.8 GPA do not get an acceptance
-20% of those with 517 MCAT or higher do not get an acceptance
-just under 50% of matriculants get a single offer of acceptance even applying on average to 15 schools
-at least 80% of all applicants at any single school must be rejected prior to interview

Now lets add being a reapplicant to that and you tell me that being "decent" will be good enough?

these stats are good as they put things in perspective. It's tough to read though XD

 

[mwsapphire]

these stats are good as they put things in perspective. It's tough to read though XD

Well I'd say most of those with great GPA's who don't get accepted had a poor MCAT ( notice 80 percent of people with a 517+ get in, regardless of GPA)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

Well I'd say most of those with great GPA's who don't get accepted had a poor MCAT ( notice 80 percent of people with a 517+ get in, regardless of GPA)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Or they had poor essays, weak ECs, sense of entitlement, applied too late, had a poorly thought out school list or bad/weak LORs.

It's NOT merely about the stats!

 

[sh.h]

Or they had poor essays, weak ECs, sense of entitlement, applied too late, had a poorly thought out school list or bad/weak LORs.

It's NOT merely about the stats!

I am not entirely sure how things happen in admission in Canada ( I am a Canadian citizen), but I know interviews contribute a lot. For example, someone with high-average GPA and decent LOR and ECs get the interview, but they don't get the seat. Most Unis say , grade:interview => 50:50
is this the same in States?

 

[deleted1038508]

Schools that have the luxury of many fine applicants can choose not to interview those who have been pre-screened by a previous cycle.

Hi @gyngyn (and also @LizzyM and @Goro), I know this thread is really old but I am a high-stat reapplicant to lots of top schools this cycle. Last year, I applied to these schools' MD/PhD programs and didn't receive many interviews (only 2). It didn't end up working out, mainly because my research couldn't compete with the many years of research that successful MSTP applicants had. Now, I am applying MD-only, and in my personal statement I discussed my commitment to treating patients (with a mention of research but primarily focusing on patient care and emphasizing my clinical experiences). I am really worried that, despite having no holes in my application (I really made sure to cover every single base), I will be at a "disadvantage" like you guys put it. However, do you think that reapplying MD-only, instead of MD/PhD, will spare my app from the same kind of "risk" adcoms would potentially see in it, as you mentioned? Thanks so much.

 

[deleted1064759]

Hi @gyngyn (and also @LizzyM and @Goro), I know this thread is really old but I am a high-stat reapplicant to lots of top schools this cycle. Last year, I applied to these schools' MD/PhD programs and didn't receive many interviews (only 2). It didn't end up working out, mainly because my research couldn't compete with the many years of research that successful MSTP applicants had. Now, I am applying MD-only, and in my personal statement I discussed my commitment to treating patients (with a mention of research but primarily focusing on patient care and emphasizing my clinical experiences). I am really worried that, despite having no holes in my application (I really made sure to cover every single base), I will be at a "disadvantage" like you guys put it. However, do you think that reapplying MD-only, instead of MD/PhD, will spare my app from the same kind of "risk" adcoms would potentially see in it, as you mentioned? Thanks so much.

You applied MD-PhD and didn't profess your undying love for research? I think that's your problem right there. Compounded with the fact that top schools like a lot of research in even regular MD applicants.

 

[deleted1038508]

You applied MD-PhD and didn't profess your undying love for research? I think that's your problem right there. Compounded with the fact that top schools like a lot of research in even regular MD applicants.

Haha, well to be clear I still did talk about my love for research. However, having only 1 year along with some spotty research experiences up to the time of my app made even a strong rec from my PI and my own profession of love for research not enough to cut it for those MSTP apps.

This time around, I'm basically saying that I still love research but I realized that patient care is my priority. Upon reapplying, I now have 2 years of research in my reapplication to these schools (not including some research from first 2 years of undergrad), and will be continuing full-time through my gap year, coming to a total of about 4200 hours. So I definitely have a lot of research experience now, but have shifted the focus to wanting to treat patients in an academic medicine setting.

 

[gyngyn]

Hi @gyngyn (and also @LizzyM and @Goro), I know this thread is really old but I am a high-stat reapplicant to lots of top schools this cycle. Last year, I applied to these schools' MD/PhD programs and didn't receive many interviews (only 2). It didn't end up working out, mainly because my research couldn't compete with the many years of research that successful MSTP applicants had. Now, I am applying MD-only, and in my personal statement I discussed my commitment to treating patients (with a mention of research but primarily focusing on patient care and emphasizing my clinical experiences). I am really worried that, despite having no holes in my application (I really made sure to cover every single base), I will be at a "disadvantage" like you guys put it. However, do you think that reapplying MD-only, instead of MD/PhD, will spare my app from the same kind of "risk" adcoms would potentially see in it, as you mentioned? Thanks so much.

Many fine MSTP applicants do not find a seat though they may have had a good shot at MD only. How you frame your change of heart will certainly help your cause. No MD school wants to be a consolation prize.

 

[Goro]

Hi @gyngyn (and also @LizzyM and @Goro), I know this thread is really old but I am a high-stat reapplicant to lots of top schools this cycle. Last year, I applied to these schools' MD/PhD programs and didn't receive many interviews (only 2). It didn't end up working out, mainly because my research couldn't compete with the many years of research that successful MSTP applicants had. Now, I am applying MD-only, and in my personal statement I discussed my commitment to treating patients (with a mention of research but primarily focusing on patient care and emphasizing my clinical experiences). I am really worried that, despite having no holes in my application (I really made sure to cover every single base), I will be at a "disadvantage" like you guys put it. However, do you think that reapplying MD-only, instead of MD/PhD, will spare my app from the same kind of "risk" adcoms would potentially see in it, as you mentioned? Thanks so much.

You can still do lots of research as an MD. Since you had no luck with MD Ph.D last cycle, I can't recommend trying that cycle again. So going MD only is a better choice.

What has improved in your application since the last cycle? This is why Mini reapplicants have trouble on the second try oh, they just reapply hoping magic will strike.

The bias against three applicants is mostly sdn hype. Many fine schools offer advice to re applicants all their admissions websites.

I've also seen tons of people who post here with high stats and great apps who failed to get in on the first cycle because they applied too late, and then they were accepted in the second cycle when they applied on time.

 

[Goro]

And as insurance, you might want to have a few do schools on your list if you don't get any Love by end of November. You've already lost one year of clinician salary

 

[deleted1038508]

Many fine MSTP applicants do not find a seat though they may have had a good shot at MD only. How you frame your change of heart will certainly help your cause. No MD school wants to be a consolation prize.

I agree, and I am worried about the "consolation prize" part of it. I do have a strong amount of clinical experience now, and I framed my application such that I am committed to patient care (along with research on the side). I just don't know how schools are going to view this...

@Goro I'm glad to hear you say MD only was a better choice I certainly realized that I can still do impactful research as an MD, which is my main reason for this switch. In terms of improving my applications, I have more volunteer experience (~550 hours this year as opposed to ~300ish last year, as well as 3 new volunteering activities, one of them being a unique way of serving the community during COVID by coordinating deliveries to elderly/disabled/immunocompromised individuals during the pandemic- see invisiblehandsdeliver.org) and I was able to flesh out the stories and learning lessons from both the clinical and non-clinical experiences. I also have a much better personal statement/narrative, defended with more patient-contact experiences than I showed last time. My research is stronger too, even though I'm applying MD only. Finally, I got a new strong recommendation from one of my upper level neuroscience profs. So overall, I think my application is way stronger, but I am worried that an inherent "reapplicant disadvantage" will cause a similar result as last cycle :/ Both cycles, I applied relatively early too so shouldn't make a difference there. I'm already complete at every school I applied to this cycle. I guess it's mainly just a thing to cross my fingers about at this point.

 

[deleted1038508]

And as insurance, you might want to have a few do schools on your list if you don't get any Love by end of November. You've already lost one year of clinician salary

Do you think DO would take me? I have a 3.98/523 from a T10 school so I worry they'll just yield-protect against me

 

[deleted1064759]

I agree, and I am worried about the "consolation prize" part of it. I do have a strong amount of clinical experience now, and I framed my application such that I am committed to patient care (along with research on the side). I just don't know how schools are going to view this...

@Goro I'm glad to hear you say MD only was a better choice I certainly realized that I can still do impactful research as an MD, which is my main reason for this switch. In terms of improving my applications, I have more volunteer experience (~550 hours this year as opposed to ~300ish last year, as well as 3 new volunteering activities, one of them being a unique way of serving the community during COVID by coordinating deliveries to elderly/disabled/immunocompromised individuals during the pandemic- see invisiblehandsdeliver.org) and I was able to flesh out the stories and learning lessons from both the clinical and non-clinical experiences. I also have a much better personal statement/narrative, defended with more patient-contact experiences than I showed last time. My research is stronger too, even though I'm applying MD only. Finally, I got a new strong recommendation from one of my upper level neuroscience profs. So overall, I think my application is way stronger, but I am worried that an inherent "reapplicant disadvantage" will cause a similar result as last cycle :/ Both cycles, I applied relatively early too so shouldn't make a difference there. I'm already complete at every school I applied to this cycle

Sounds like you got a pretty solid app OP!

 

[Goro]

Do you think DO would take me? I have a 3.98/523 from a T10 school so I worry they'll just yield-protect against me

DO schools do not engage in resource protection. I have interviewed candidates with stats like yours. And we'd would take you too. I have a number of students in my first-year class with stats like yours.

 

[deleted1038508]

Sounds like you got a pretty solid app OP!

Thanks, I really appreciate it Last app cycle really humbled me so I'm just trying to be very conscientious this time.

@Goro Thank you for that suggestion, I will look into DO in the case that by end of November things don't work out with the schools in my list. Also, maybe I'll just work another year to make up for that lost salary

 

[LizzyM]

You should be fine, particularly if you find a way to address the fact that you previously applied MD/PhD, were unsuccessful and came to the realization that MD-only was the better choice for you.

The "disadvantage" of being a reapplicant with stats like yours is someone saying, "what's wrong with this one? They should have gotten admitted last year! I wonder what happened." You have to hope that their curiousity outweighs their scepticism and that they invite you to interview so as to hear the rest of your story.

 

[deleted1038508]

You should be fine, particularly if you find a way to address the fact that you previously applied MD/PhD, were unsuccessful and came to the realization that MD-only was the better choice for you.

The "disadvantage" of being a reapplicant with stats like yours is someone saying, "what's wrong with this one? They should have gotten admitted last year! I wonder what happened." You have to hope that their curiousity outweighs their scepticism and that they invite you to interview so as to hear the rest of your story.

Thanks so much for this feedback- I was advised by an MSTP student in my lab not to address this switch in my primary/secondaries because it is a bit of a nuanced situation and would take up space that I could use discussing other application strengths. Do you agree?

Either way, I’ve already submitted all of my secondaries so this is sadly not an option anymore. I was anticipating explaining this situation in interviews instead. Hopefully I didn’t lose that one shot of explaining myself.

 

[glee123]

@Goro : Have nothing against DO schools, but curious as to why someone with a 4.0 / 40 (or 524+ I guess in today's terms) chooses to go DO? Do they just really like the DO mission / want to stay close to home or was it because they got rejected from MD

 

[KnightDoc]

I agree, and I am worried about the "consolation prize" part of it. I do have a strong amount of clinical experience now, and I framed my application such that I am committed to patient care (along with research on the side). I just don't know how schools are going to view this...

@Goro I'm glad to hear you say MD only was a better choice I certainly realized that I can still do impactful research as an MD, which is my main reason for this switch. In terms of improving my applications, I have more volunteer experience (~550 hours this year as opposed to ~300ish last year, as well as 3 new volunteering activities, one of them being a unique way of serving the community during COVID by coordinating deliveries to elderly/disabled/immunocompromised individuals during the pandemic- see invisiblehandsdeliver.org) and I was able to flesh out the stories and learning lessons from both the clinical and non-clinical experiences. I also have a much better personal statement/narrative, defended with more patient-contact experiences than I showed last time. My research is stronger too, even though I'm applying MD only. Finally, I got a new strong recommendation from one of my upper level neuroscience profs. So overall, I think my application is way stronger, but I am worried that an inherent "reapplicant disadvantage" will cause a similar result as last cycle :/ Both cycles, I applied relatively early too so shouldn't make a difference there. I'm already complete at every school I applied to this cycle. I guess it's mainly just a thing to cross my fingers about at this point.

Also, you will overcome the reapplicant bias by not only applying to the top schools you applied to last year. Also apply to some lower tier schools. You won't be a reapplicant to them, and won't have to deal with the consolation prize aspect of this cycle with them. Face it, no matter how convincingly you are able to spin it, that is what this is with the schools you previously applied to, since you intentionally didn't apply to any MD-only last year.

 

[Goro]

@Goro : Do they just really like the DO mission / want to stay close to home or was it because they got rejected from MD?

YES

 

[deleted1038508]

Also, you will overcome the reapplicant bias by not only applying to the top schools you applied to last year. Also apply to some lower tier schools. You won't be a reapplicant to them, and won't have to deal with the consolation prize aspect of this cycle with them. Face it, no matter how convincingly you are able to spin it, that is what this is with the schools you previously applied to, since you intentionally didn't apply to any MD-only last year.

Yeah I have added a more spread out school list. I'm still reapplying to all of the same schools again, but I added another 7-8 that I didn't previously. However, many do ask if I have previously applied to med school, so that's annoying. But yeah