Why is this process such a crap shoot?

[pkbronco]

I mean seriously! What's the deal? I know people who get into great schools with average to sub-average GPAs, MCATs and zero clinical/research experience. Meanwhile I bust my ass as an EMT, getting a 4.0 in a master's program and finding someway to complete the gallon milk challenge (no luck yet). But I get no love from anyone! Waitlisted by three schools last cycle while my friends all are in. And all I can think about is..."didn't you get a B in biochemistry..."

Anyone else have the same thoughts??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RedSHIFT]

crap shoot? what are you trying to do....cure stage IV breast cancer? Relax, all you needed was some perspective😉

 

[mmmkay121]

I mean seriously! What's the deal? I know people who get into great schools with average to sub-average GPAs, MCATs and zero clinical/research experience. Meanwhile I bust my ass as an EMT, getting a 4.0 in a master's program and finding someway to complete the gallon milk challenge (no luck yet). But I get no love from anyone! Waitlisted by three schools last cycle while my friends all are in. And all I can think about is..."didn't you get a B in biochemistry..."

Anyone else have the same thoughts??

What's your overall GPA and MCAT?

 

[stinastina]

I mean seriously! What's the deal? I know people who get into great schools with average to sub-average GPAs, MCATs and zero clinical/research experience. Meanwhile I bust my ass as an EMT, getting a 4.0 in a master's program and finding someway to complete the gallon milk challenge (no luck yet). But I get no love from anyone! Waitlisted by three schools last cycle while my friends all are in. And all I can think about is..."didn't you get a B in biochemistry..."

Anyone else have the same thoughts??

Because it is run by HUMAN beings ! People with biases, attitudes, bad days, prejudices, flaws, etc. You are assuming that all things will be equal, that life is fair, that people are always honest. Doctors, adcoms, all of them are HUMAN. You might be the one who reminds your interviewer of his ex-wife and you end up toast.

😱

 

[RDood]

I mean seriously! What's the deal? I know people who get into great schools with average to sub-average GPAs, MCATs and zero clinical/research experience. Meanwhile I bust my ass as an EMT, getting a 4.0 in a master's program and finding someway to complete the gallon milk challenge (no luck yet). But I get no love from anyone! Waitlisted by three schools last cycle while my friends all are in. And all I can think about is..."didn't you get a B in biochemistry..."

Anyone else have the same thoughts??

I'm with you in that it seems like a crap shoot. I've been put on pre-interview hold at some schools, and auto interview at others so it definitely seems strange. Remember that you are "non-traditional," and where did the Master's come from, and what kind? Recall also, that undergraduate work still matters.

 

[pkbronco]

I'm with you in that it seems like a crap shoot. I've been put on pre-interview hold at some schools, and auto interview at others so it definitely seems strange. Remember that you are "non-traditional," and where did the Master's come from, and what kind? Recall also, that undergraduate work still matters.

A Cal-State school....Master's in Human Physiology. And I totally realize undergrad still matters. That's where my flaw is...hence the reason for my master's degree. 3.8 last three years, but 3.4 cum. I rowed for two years before getting serious about my academics.

 

[lyn2006]

It is a crapshoot, but it has to be because of the sheer volume of applications each school gets. I just went to "how admissions at X school works" yesterday (I'm an M1) and found out how we were chosen last year from the ~8000 applicants. Basically, it is a crapshoot - they read everyone's application and then offer an interview to those they think are entering medicine for the right reasons. You never know what in your application could make you stand out.

 

[Gut Shot]

I mean seriously! What's the deal? I know people who get into great schools with average to sub-average GPAs, MCATs and zero clinical/research experience.

Hmmm, I find this a little tough to swallow. What school(s) are they attending?

A Cal-State school....Master's in Human Physiology. And I totally realize undergrad still matters. That's where my flaw is...hence the reason for my master's degree. 3.8 last three years, but 3.4 cum. I rowed for two years before getting serious about my academics.

I'm a little confused about the timeline. Did you do undergrad in four years? Is your undergrad GPA at 3.4 or does that take into account graduate coursework? Is your Master's finished? The reason I ask is that undergrad and grad GPA's are usually considered separately. Also, many schools will not consider you without having already finished any graduate work.

 

[hlchess]

My stats were good enough for an auto-invite at Michigan, but I got put on hold by Michigan State. Can anyone figure that one out?

 

[ChymeChancellor]

My stats were good enough for an auto-invite at Michigan, but I got put on hold by Michigan State. Can anyone figure that one out?

MSU probably thinks your overqualified to go there. Why would they hurt their acceptance yield by accepting you when they think you won't go there? My guess is they're waiting to invite the people with higher stats later in the season... but I really don't know what's going on with them either.

 

[Gabujabu]

This process isn't as much of a crapshoot as people here say it is. Of course, there is some level of randomness to the process and individual schools could behave strangely but, in general, if you do everthing right and have a strong application, you should most likely get in somewhere, not necessarily your first choice but somewhere, provided you don't do the following:

1) Show no interest in the school-obvious via the secondary/interview
2) Bomb the interview
3) Don't bother to get clinical experience
4) Apply to way too few schools- Harvard, Yale or bust
5) Apply extremely late

When I interviewed at UMich, they told me that ~99.5% of the people who interview there got into some medical school.

 

[CaramelDlite]

No medical school's website is going to say "we select our students based on MCAT scores and GPA alone". There's so much more to the admissions process than numbers, that's we al stressed so much over our personal statement, our LORs, and our ECs. If this was law school, our numbers might be the end all be all, but lucky for us, we also have to deal with interviews which on their own can make or break us. You may have an outstanding GPA but how are you as a person? If your passion for medicine was not evident in any of these aforementioned categories, you may not get the results you were hoping for. I'm not only directing this to the OP, its just there are alot of people who think because they're smart, they should be doctors (I know we all remember DopamineSurge) and that really is not the case. I agree that maybe in general, the process is a crapshoot, but your flaw might be more glaring than you think. Work on the intangibles and hopefully you'll have better luck this time around...

 

[ClosetNerd]

The procesess has its flaws but it isn't a compete crap shoot. I'm in the same boat the OP is and I have to say what really holds me back is my undergrad GPA. Schools really do look heavily at it. There isn't much we can do at this point other than take more classes to replace the old pre-recs (which probably still won't do squat to your CUM), rock the MCAT if you haven't allready, apply to a broader range of schools, and really try to sell our uniquness / experiance / comittement to schools. It sucks... but thats just the way it goes. I wish you the best of luck. Your sort of a reflection of my chances as well.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

No medical school's website is going to say "we select our students based on MCAT scores and GPA alone"

Yes, but if you have a computer or even a human system in place at a medical school that denies interviews based on these numbers, it's kind of the same thing, isn't it? At least initially.

By not selecting those with "unsatisfactory" MCAT/GPA composites, they've already selected who will go on to the next step "on MCAT scores and GPA alone."

 

[floridakppr]

A better question, at times, might be, "Why is this process such crap?"

 

[Depakote]

No medical school's website is going to say "we select our students based on MCAT scores and GPA alone".

I've heard WashU's considering a revision.

 

[Orthodoc40]

No medical school's website is going to say "we select our students based on MCAT scores and GPA alone". There's so much more to the admissions process than numbers, that's we al stressed so much over our personal statement, our LORs, and our ECs. If this was law school, our numbers might be the end all be all, but lucky for us, we also have to deal with interviews which on their own can make or break us. You may have an outstanding GPA but how are you as a person? If your passion for medicine was not evident in any of these aforementioned categories, you may not get the results you were hoping for. I'm not only directing this to the OP, its just there are alot of people who think because they're smart, they should be doctors (I know we all remember DopamineSurge) and that really is not the case. I agree that maybe in general, the process is a crapshoot, but your flaw might be more glaring than you think. Work on the intangibles and hopefully you'll have better luck this time around...

This basically sums it up. Too many premeds expect everything to be about numbers, and are amazed or annoyed or angry when it doesn't always turn out that way. Nothing in life is guaranteed.

 

[Rafa]

This basically sums it up. Too many premeds expect everything to be about numbers, and are amazed or annoyed or angry when it doesn't always turn out that way. Nothing in life is guaranteed.

But I'm pre-med! PRE_MEDD! Don't you know who I AM????

 

[pkbronco]

Hmmm, I find this a little tough to swallow. What school(s) are they attending?

One had average grades and bombed the MCAT, they're are Georgetown. Another is at Colorado State. Similar story.

I'm a little confused about the timeline. Did you do undergrad in four years? Is your undergrad GPA at 3.4 or does that take into account graduate coursework? Is your Master's finished? The reason I ask is that undergrad and grad GPA's are usually considered separately. Also, many schools will not consider you without having already finished any graduate work.

My master's will be finished this year. I did my undergrad in four years. 3.4 is strictly undergrad, my master's work is a 4.0. I agree with your last point, which left me in an awkward position. The Assisant Dean of Admissions at the school I want to attend told me to do this plan: get at least a 27 on your MCAT, continue with EMT and tutoring, and take some grad level courses. That way they would have some As in higher level courses to judge my application on instead of just my undergrad work. Sounded pretty cool, coming from an Assistant Dean a med school admissions....but it didn't work. We meet/talked on the phone a lot, but I only got to number 4 on their waitlist. Slow year he said and I should just reapply.

 

[Orthodoc40]

But I'm pre-med! PRE_MEDD! Don't you know who I AM????

 

[breck]

This basically sums it up. Too many premeds expect everything to be about numbers, and are amazed or annoyed or angry when it doesn't always turn out that way. Nothing in life is guaranteed.

This may be right to some extent. However, I would not dismiss the notion that this process can be a crap shoot. For example, I have read about several people here on SDN that have interviews at SIU, Creighton, and a couple other schools that I applied to. I have very similar stats to them and I haven't heard sh-t yet!! Maybe they'll call maybe they won't. The odd part is that some of these same people said they got rejected pre-secondary by schools like Wake and VCU. Here comes the crap shoot. Wake and VCU sent me an invitation to complete their secondaries almost right away. So!!! How come they got interviews and I didn't and how come I got secondaries at the other schools and they didn't. If I got rejected pre-secondary at Wake and VCU we could just say well this isn't a numbers game and the people with interviews who didn't get those secondaries were better than me on some level. On the other hand, if those people with interviews at Creighton and SIU didn't get interviews or secondary invites we'd say I must be better than them on some level, other than numbers. But the reality is the situation isn't so black and white.

 

[Orthodoc40]

This may be right to some extent. However, I would not dismiss the notion that this process can be a crap shoot. For example, I have read about several people here on SDN that have interviews at SIU, Creighton, and a couple other schools that I applied to. I have very similar stats to them and I haven't heard sh-t yet!!

This is the point!

 

[Law2Doc]

This may be right to some extent. However, I would not dismiss the notion that this process can be a crap shoot. For example, I have read about several people here on SDN that have interviews at SIU, Creighton, and a couple other schools that I applied to. I have very similar stats to them and I haven't heard sh-t yet!! Maybe they'll call maybe they won't. The odd part is that some of these same people said they got rejected pre-secondary by schools like Wake and VCU. Here comes the crap shoot. Wake and VCU sent me an invitation to complete their secondaries almost right away. So!!! How come they got interviews and I didn't and how come I got secondaries at the other schools and they didn't. If I got rejected pre-secondary at Wake and VCU we could just say well this isn't a numbers game and the people with interviews who didn't get those secondaries were better than me on some level. On the other hand, if those people with interviews at Creighton and SIU didn't get interviews or secondary invites we'd say I must be better than them on some level, other than numbers. But the reality is the situation isn't so black and white.

What you typed doesn't necessarilly suggest a crap shoot, and in fact this process isn't one. If you asked an adcom about their methodology and what they were looking for in applicants, they would have a pretty specific answer and a pretty non-random approach. But, contrary to what some on SDN seem to think, the claimed approach would not be simply to take the highest number stats that don't act crazy in the interview. (People are screaming about crapshoots because schools are doing something quite different than this).

Your post suggests you are operating under a set of assumptions (i.e. what these schools are focusing on as important) that are flawed. Every school has its methodology, and its notions of what their incoming class should look like and who is a "good fit". GPA and MCAT stats are part of this but only in the overall average sense. Plenty of people get snubbed or helped by essays, LORs, ECs, experiences (and at a later stage the interview). There is no single factor that can get one into med school, and certainly not just on GPA/MCAT stats -- it is based on multiple factors, some objective, but many not. If schools wanted to fill up their classes with the highest possible numerical stats, they could much more easilly and less expensively do so, so it should be illustrative that no (ZERO) schools do this. So your notion that you have "very similar stats" than someone else may be very far afield as the adcoms see it, because some of your cohorts may actually be in much better or worse shape due to the subjective factors.

Bottom line is that it seems like a crapshoot because (1) you are looking at different factors than the adcoms may be focusing on, and (2) you don not see all the stats of your competitors and are probably quickly dismissing some of the "good fit" subjective factors.

 

[breck]

This is the point!

Did you read the rest of the post?? Did I express feelings of amazement, annoyance, or anger? Absolutely not. I simply pointed out that people with similar stats will be viewed by schools differently. It's as simple as this person A and B have similar stats. Person A gets interviews at SIU and Creighton but doesn't even get secondaries at Wake and VCU. In the meantime person B, ME, gets no interviews from SIU or Creighton but gets secondaries from Wake and VCU. It should be painfully obvious that different schools are looking for different things. Hence the crap shoot.

 

[breck]

What you typed doesn't necessarilly suggest a crap shoot, and in fact this process isn't one. If you asked an adcom about their methodology and what they were looking for in applicants, they would have a pretty specific answer and a pretty non-random approach. (People are screaming about crapshoots because schools are doing something quite different than this).

So your notion that you have "very similar stats" than someone else may be very far afield as the adcoms see it, because some of your cohorts may actually be in much better or worse shape due to the subjective factors.

Bottom line is that it seems like a crapshoot because (1) you are looking at different factors than the adcoms may be focusing on, and (2) you don not see all the stats of your competitors and are probably quickly dismissing some of the "good fit" subjective factors.

You seem to suggest that this process is not a crapshoot but then you straight up say that I am dismissing some of the subjective "good fit" factors. This suggests that the application process can indeed be a bit of a crapshoot. Since different schools have different criteria for what is a good fit there is an element of a crapshoot. (I'm assuming the schools that are being compared are at about the same "tier")

Think of some of the subjective factors that could exist. Someone above mentioned that if a student reminds an adcom of their ex-spouse they probably wouldn't get interviewed. This example is a little extreme but the point is right on. I have heard several stories about marathon runners getting interviewed by marathon runners and, SURPRISE, the interview went great. Talk about dumb luck. This may not be a deal breaker or a deal maker but it would be hard to dismiss the fact that on some level this would make a difference on how the interviewer thought of the interviewee. It's kind of like saying that an adcom member (especially males) would be above being influenced by the fact that their interviewee is an attractive young woman. What about an applicant who is really interested in surgery who is lucky enough to have a surgeon reviewing their file? The list of examples could go on forever. Humans are biased PERIOD. I agree that most people who are good enough to get into medical school are good enough to get into several medical schools. The entire process is not a crap shoot, or luck, or whatever. But I think it would be naive to say that there aren't little things in the process that can make who gets interviewed and/or acceptanced a little bit random, and therefore a crap shoot.

 

[Law2Doc]

You seem to suggest that this process is not a crapshoot but then you straight up say that I am dismissing some of the subjective "good fit" factors. This suggests that the application process can indeed be a bit of a crapshoot. Since different schools have different criteria for what is a good fit there is an element of a crapshoot. (I'm assuming the schools that are being compared are at about the same "tier")

Think of some of the subjective factors that could exist. Someone above mentioned that if a student reminds an adcom of their ex-spouse they probably wouldn't get interviewed. This example is a little extreme but the point is right on. I have heard several stories about marathon runners getting interviewed by marathon runners and, SURPRISE, the interview went great. Talk about dumb luck. This may not be a deal breaker or a deal maker but it would be hard to dismiss the fact that on some level this would make a difference on how the interviewer thought of the interviewee. It's kind of like saying that an adcom member (especially males) would be above being influenced by the fact that their interviewee is an attractive young woman. What about an applicant who is really interested in surgery who is lucky enough to have a surgeon reviewing their file? The list of examples could go on forever. Humans are biased PERIOD. I agree that most people who are good enough to get into medical school are good enough to get into several medical schools. The entire process is not a crap shoot, or luck, or whatever. But I think it would be naive to say that there aren't little things in the process that can make who gets interviewed and/or acceptanced a little bit random, and therefore a crap shoot.

I agree with your bolded sentence above, and think it nicely sums up what I was saying, but disagree with what you followed it with. A crap shoot means it is "random", purely by chance and not based on a methodology. Like in the game of craps where pure luck determines the roll of the dice. A consistantly applied methodology, whether subjective or not, is never a game of chance. Thus crap shoot is simply the wrong word. Sure, there are biases, and different schools, and adcom members within each school, will be looking for different things. But there is absolutely nothing random about that. There is order in this process. Every person involved is applying their methodology as consistently as they can, bias driven though it may be. That each sees the world and the applicant pool slightly differently makes it hard to predict for the outsider, but not random. To the extent they are swayed by "little things in the process" they are likely consistently swayed. So nothing random here, it just isn't going to jibe with objective numerical scores.

 

[ChymeChancellor]

I agree with your bolded sentence above, and think it nicely sums up what I was saying, but disagree with what you followed it with. A crap shoot means it is "random", purely by chance and not based on a methodology. Like in the game of craps where pure luck determines the roll of the dice. A consistantly applied methodology, whether subjective or not, is never a game of chance. Thus crap shoot is simply the wrong word. Sure, there are biases, and different schools, and adcom members within each school, will be looking for different things. But there is absolutely nothing random about that. There is order in this process. Every person involved is applying their methodology as consistently as they can, bias driven though it may be. That each sees the world and the applicant pool slightly differently makes it hard to predict for the outsider, but not random. To the extent they are swayed by "little things in the process" they are likely consistently swayed. So nothing random here, it just isn't going to jibe with objective numerical scores.

Right on... from our eyes we can't see what a specific reviewer is looking for so it seems like a "crap shoot." But the person reviewing our file probably has very specific criteria they look for in their applicants which varys from reviewer to reviewer.

 

[sendwich]

it's simply: if your application happens to end up with an adcomm whose stack of applicatino to take home and evaluate *likes* you, you get and invite and possibly an acceptance. at least during the interview, you're evaluated by several people, not just one...which, to me, sounds like what happens during the secondary-->interview stage.

your stats/application: 50%
pure luck: 50%

 

[Orthodoc40]

Did you read the rest of the post?? Did I express feelings of amazement, annoyance, or anger? Absolutely not. I simply pointed out that people with similar stats will be viewed by schools differently. It's as simple as this person A and B have similar stats. Person A gets interviews at SIU and Creighton but doesn't even get secondaries at Wake and VCU. In the meantime person B, ME, gets no interviews from SIU or Creighton but gets secondaries from Wake and VCU. It should be painfully obvious that different schools are looking for different things. Hence the crap shoot.

What is the problem?? We are saying the same thing!
I said that schools look at more than just numbers, and it for some reason amazes/annoys people that they do that, therefore they see it as a 'crap shoot'.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I agree with your bolded sentence above, and think it nicely sums up what I was saying, but disagree with what you followed it with. A crap shoot means it is "random", purely by chance and not based on a methodology. Like in the game of craps where pure luck determines the roll of the dice. A consistantly applied methodology, whether subjective or not, is never a game of chance. Thus crap shoot is simply the wrong word. Sure, there are biases, and different schools, and adcom members within each school, will be looking for different things. But there is absolutely nothing random about that. There is order in this process. Every person involved is applying their methodology as consistently as they can, bias driven though it may be. That each sees the world and the applicant pool slightly differently makes it hard to predict for the outsider, but not random. To the extent they are swayed by "little things in the process" they are likely consistently swayed. So nothing random here, it just isn't going to jibe with objective numerical scores.

I have to respectfully disagree. The whole interview process adds true randomness to the application cycle. In an ideal world, interviewers would be able to apply the same set of criteria and/or the same methodology to all of the candidates, but your interview evaluation will certainly depend upon:

1. The specific interviewer(s) that you receive (presumably assigned randomly.)
2. The people who interview with that interviewer before you (if the guy before you was great, you're going to have to work harder to stand out, yet you don't even know it.)
3. That interviewer's ability to sell you to the admissions committee (OK, so this is kind of the same as reason #1.)

The same sorts of things occur in the evaluation of your application. In an ideal world, the same criteria would be applied equally to all 5000 applicants, but that just doesn't happen, so the success of your application does depend, at least partly, upon pure luck.

 

[Mac11]

The whole interview process adds true randomness to the application cycle.

If it was truly random, the average MCAT/GPA (of matriculants) would be the national average of med school applicants. Therefore, it can't be random.

 

[a BEEFY schlong]

randomness... lol

only people with ****ty #'s say that

 

[Law2Doc]

I have to respectfully disagree. The whole interview process adds true randomness to the application cycle. In an ideal world, interviewers would be able to apply the same set of criteria and/or the same methodology to all of the candidates, but your interview evaluation will certainly depend upon:

1. The specific interviewer(s) that you receive (presumably assigned randomly.)
2. The people who interview with that interviewer before you (if the guy before you was great, you're going to have to work harder to stand out, yet you don't even know it.)
3. That interviewer's ability to sell you to the admissions committee (OK, so this is kind of the same as reason #1.)

The same sorts of things occur in the evaluation of your application. In an ideal world, the same criteria would be applied equally to all 5000 applicants, but that just doesn't happen, so the success of your application does depend, at least partly, upon pure luck.

I suppose who you have interview you has some element of chance, but not, in my opinion, enough to assert that the whole process is a crapshoot. I don't see a whole lot of people posting that they got screwed over because every interviewer they got was a bad one, or that their interviewer couldn't sell them effectively to adcoms. And even if this were the case, it averages out. As for your skills as compared to your competition this is absolutely not random -- these are all skills you can improve. You ALWAYS have to be better than the competition, no matter who came before you. Luck doesn't enter into games of skill, just games of chance.

 

[Pemberley]

If it was truly random, the average MCAT/GPA (of matriculants) would be the national average of med school applicants. Therefore, it can't be random.

I suppose who you have interview you has some element of chance, but not, in my opinion, enough to assert that the whole process is a crapshoot.

I don't think Jota was saying that there is no logic whatsoever -- and I think it would be equally incorrect to suppose that there is no randomness whatsoever. People seem to be arguing the extreme-end-positions here.

There are areas of our applications, that are easily comparible:
1) the MCAT
2) grades in the pre-req courses
3) shadowing/volunteer work/etc to a total lack of the same.

However, there is also randomness:
1) Fundamental non-comparibility of some "softer" attributes: does a candidate with work in a lab beat one with work in the military? How about the one with time in the peace corps? What if she was a professional ballerina? The weighting factors of all these things are arbitrary, not fundamental attributes of the activities. I guess this was a non-trad's set of examples, but I'm certain there are similar ones for trads.
2) The adcomms are only human. Whatever the best weighting is, they won't always get it. The interviewer could have a bad day. He could not have had enough coffee. Some people click better than others.

Finally, in addition to the actual randomness, there is also the apparent randomness from the adcomms not telling us what the **** is going on! Decisions whose logic isn't presented can appear random.

The best data in support of randomness in admissions processes isn't two applicants at one school: it's one applicant at two very similar schools.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

If it was truly random, the average MCAT/GPA (of matriculants) would be the national average of med school applicants. Therefore, it can't be random.

Not sure if you're a troll (there seems to be a serious attack these 2 days,) but I didn't say that the process was truly random, I said that it had elements that were.

 

[cantBANmeFUCERS]

Not sure if you're a troll (there seems to be a serious attack these 2 days,) but I didn't say that the process was truly random, I said that it had elements that were.

i said i would like to shoot crap at your face. u *****~

 

[Xypathos]

i said i would like to shoot crap at your face. u *****~

I think I should be made the Dr. Eugenic Hunter and be able to ban trolls --- this is becoming fun.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I suppose who you have interview you has some element of chance, but not, in my opinion, enough to assert that the whole process is a crapshoot. I don't see a whole lot of people posting that they got screwed over because every interviewer they got was a bad one, or that their interviewer couldn't sell them effectively to adcoms. And even if this were the case, it averages out. As for your skills as compared to your competition this is absolutely not random -- these are all skills you can improve. You ALWAYS have to be better than the competition, no matter who came before you. Luck doesn't enter into games of skill, just games of chance.

Law2Doc, you are the person posting in other threads that some schools treat all applicants as equal once they reach the interview stage. If your interviewer is assigned randomly, and all applicants are treated equal once they get to the interview stage, then there is really an element of true randomness.

For examples of people that feel that they have been shafted by their interviewer, go to the interview feedback section of this website and look for the frowny faces ( 🙁 ). There are plenty who think their interview went poorly because of one specific interviewer. You could argue that this is as equally the fault of the interviewee as the interviewer. Other people that "drew" someone more compatible with their personality didn't have this problem. The random draw of your interviewer contributes to whether or not you get into that Medical School. Plain and simple.

 

[cantBANmeFUCERS]

I think I should be made the Dr. Eugenic Hunter and be able to ban trolls --- this is becoming fun.

sorry i am not eugenics. he was the master. i am merely carrying on his work.

ps. oyur not a hunter. it is easy to spot me IDIOT!

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't think Jota was saying that there is no logic whatsoever -- and I think it would be equally incorrect to suppose that there is no randomness whatsoever. People seem to be arguing the extreme-end-positions here.

There are areas of our applications, that are easily comparible:
1) the MCAT
2) grades in the pre-req courses
3) shadowing/volunteer work/etc to a total lack of the same.

However, there is also randomness:
1) Fundamental non-comparibility of some "softer" attributes: does a canditate with work in a lab beat one with work in the military? How about the one with time in the peace corps? What if she was a professional ballerina? The weighting factors of all these things are arbitrary, not fundamental attributes of the activities. I guess this was a non-trad's set of examples, but I'm certain there are similar ones for trads.
2) The adcomms are only human. Whatever the best weighting is, they won't always get it. The interviewer could have a bad day. He could not have had enough coffee. Some people click better than others.

Finally, in addition to the actual randomness, there is also the apparent randomness from the adcomms not telling us what the **** is going on! Decisions whose logic isn't presented can appear random.

The best data in support of randomness in admissions processes isn't two applicants at one school: it's one applicant at two very similar schools.

Disagree with the notion that "apparent randomness" equates to a crapshoot. Different results at different schools make total sense even with no chance involved. If each adcom has a different criteria and they consistently apply it it isn't random. Hence it is not a crapshoot. It may SEEM like a crapshoot to someone looking from outside the process but it is in actuality not a random process. I don't deny that some interviewers might serve as better foils for you in the adcom meetings, or that some people may have a bad day, and in that sense there is some small level of chance -- but these are more the exception than the rule and not enough to assert that the WHOLE PROCESS is a crapshoot as continues to be asserted on SDN over and over and over again. It seems to me that people want the system to work a different way than it does, and think they know more than they do about what adcoms are looking for, and so when the results are not as they would predict, they scream foul and call it random. That's just wrong.

 

[Law2Doc]

Law2Doc, you are the person posting in other threads that some schools treat all applicants as equal once they reach the interview stage. If your interviewer is assigned randomly, and all applicants are treated equal once they get to the interview stage, then there is really an element of true randomness.

For examples of people that feel that they have been shafted by their interviewer, go to the interview feedback section of this website and look for the frowny faces ( 🙁 ). There are plenty who think their interview went poorly because of one specific interviewer. You could argue that this is as equally the fault of the interviewee as the interviewer. Other people that "drew" someone more compatible with their personality didn't have this problem. The random draw of your interviewer contributes to whether or not you get into that Medical School. Plain and simple.

I am also the one who asserts that interviewing is a skill that can be learned, practiced, honed and that you can sell yourself and win a spot in med school from an interview. That skill matters so much makes it not a crapshoot by definition. Craps is a total game of chance. This is more a game of skill.

 

[Mac11]

The random draw of your interviewer contributes to whether or not you get into that Medical School.

...and the not-so-random draw of you/ (the student) hopefully also contribute. More so than the interviewer. I think you place far too much emphasis on the interviewer. If you think the only actual random element is the interview, I'm pretty sure there are people that can consistently nail interviews and those that can't.

I'm not speaking from any actual knowledge, just it would offend me personally if it turned out the entire med school application was a flip of a coin. lol.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Disagree with the notion that "apparent randomness" equates to a crapshoot. Different results at different schools make total sense even with no chance involved. If each adcom has a different criteria and they consistently apply it it isn't random. Hence it is not a crapshoot. It may SEEM like a crapshoot to someone looking from outside the process but it is in actuality not a random process. I don't deny that some interviewers might serve as better foils for you in the adcom meetings, or that some people may have a bad day, and in that sense there is some small level of chance -- but these are more the exception than the rule and not enough to assert that the WHOLE PROCESS is a crapshoot as continues to be asserted on SDN over and over and over again. It seems to me that people want the system to work a different way than it does, and think they know more than they do about what adcoms are looking for, and so when the results are not as they would predict, they scream foul and call it random. That's just wrong.

You ignored the BEST line in her post -- the last one. If the process contains NO DEGREE OF RANDOMNESS, then it is, by definition, deterministic. The fact that one applicant can have different results at two very similar schools helps to demonstrate that this process is anything BUT deterministic.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

...and the not-so-random draw of you/ (the student) hopefully also contribute. More so than the interviewer. I think you place far too much emphasis on the interviewer. If you think the only actual random element is the interview, I'm pretty sure there are people that can consistently nail interviews and those that can't.

I'm not speaking from any actual knowledge, just it would offend me personally if it turned out the entire med school application was a flip of a coin. lol.

Law2Doc is the one saying (in other threads) that all applicants are considered completely equal once they reach the interview stage (at some schools.)

ANY interview (not just Medical School) has a huge degree of randomness to it. Sure people interview better, but what if you happen to draw the guy that asks you to draw Histidine on the white board, and you happened to forget the structure of Histidine. At many (most?) schools, the interviewer(s?) are the ones that present you to the ADCOM. Sure they also have your GPA, MCAT, etc, and I agree that those are elements that are completely under your control, but if someone does a crappy, unenthusiastic job of presenting you to the ADCOM (either on purpose because they didn't like you because they thought that you should've been able to draw the structure of histidine, or because they're just not that good at convincing people through presentations) things may not go your way, especially if this is one of those schools that treats all interviewees as equal once they reach the interview stage (de-emphasizing GPA, MCAT, etc in favor of your interview performance.)

 

[Rafa]

You ignored the BEST line in her post -- the last one. If the process contains NO DEGREE OF RANDOMNESS, then it is, by definition, deterministic. The fact that one applicant can have different results at two very similar schools helps to demonstrate that this process is anything BUT deterministic.

It doesn't matter how similar two schools are if they have different human beings serving as adcoms. The only way a student could expect to have the same results at two similar schools would be if the same people reviewed the student's application at both schools.

 

[Mac11]

The fact that one applicant can have different results at two very similar schools helps to demonstrate that this process is anything BUT deterministic.

Haha, I don't think s/he's arguing with me but I still want to put my $.o2 in:

If it was really, 100% not random, then there would be a precise "formula", if you will, by which you could determine if you will be accepted. If you assume thie, you also have to assume that you don't know what the 'formula' of a school is, and therefore two seemingly similar schools may have different such 'formulas'.

Then theres the crapshoot version, where you basically close your eyes, spin around, and throw a dart.

In reality I very much doubt it's either, but closer to the non-random one.

You can compare it to the concept of % chance. Does a 90% chance of getting in guarantee it? No, but if you apply to 12-15 (or whatever the average is), chances are you will get in somewhere. i.e. if you flip a coin enough times, the results will even out to 50-50, but if you don't do it enough times the numbers are misleading.

That was more like $.o4 😛

I'm adding to this post because I don't really want to make an entire new post:
jota_jota, I really, honestly *think* that you're not accurately representing the interviewer. These are people that interview many people; therefore they should know by now that the ability to recall the structure of histadine is not a good indicator of future performance. They're people too, (I think? Am I missing something major?)

By the way, out of curiosity, have you done several interviews? Is that why believe so strongly on this? I'll tell you right now I have no factual basis for my opinion, but if you do I'd love to hear it 🙂

 

[Law2Doc]

You ignored the BEST line in her post -- the last one. If the process contains NO DEGREE OF RANDOMNESS, then it is, by definition, deterministic. The fact that one applicant can have different results at two very similar schools helps to demonstrate that this process is anything BUT deterministic.

I addressed that and say that different results for the same applicant at different schools is totally consistent with a nonrandom system where every school has different criteria. Which is the case as they are all looking for the "best fit" for their school.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

It doesn't matter how similar two schools are if they have different human beings serving as adcoms. The only way a student could expect to have the same results at two similar schools would be if the same people reviewed the student's application at both schools.

I think you are agreeing with me, but I'm not sure if you know it. Because the process is based upon subjective judgements of human beings, there is inherently an element of randomness.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I addressed that and say that different results for the same applicant at different schools is totally consistent with a nonrandom system where every school has different criteria. Which is the case as they are all looking for the "best fit" for their school.

Assume the criteria are similar enough to be the same (as they often are.) I'll define this to mean that the criteria for evaluating applicants, published by the school in the MSAR or on their web site/printed propaganda is the same. How do you explain that? (Other than the cop-out, "Well that's obviously not their real criteria, then.")

 

[Law2Doc]

If it was really, 100% not random, then there would be a precise "formula", if you will, by which you could determine if you will be accepted.

This is not the definition of random. Random implies that chance governs. If adcoms each have a set of criteria they consistently apply, whether known or unknown, subjective or objective, then it simply wouldn't be random. The fact that their criteria can be subjective, and is, means you could never know what the formula is and could never predict the outcome without knowing more about what each adcom member was looking for and what every other applicant being considered had going for him/her. But the outcome would not be random.