Why is this process such a crap shoot?

[Law2Doc]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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.")

I think your assumption is already flawed, and if you apply that then yes, you will see variation from whom you think would get in and who does. It is not randomness or chance, it is the result of starting from a flawed starting point. The MSAR does not incorporate the subjective decision making of adcoms at various schools, nor does it incorporate the notion of "good fit". Nor does something written on a school website necessarilly incorporate various subjective opinions of who would be a good fit for the school as compared to others. So you will not get the results you predict from this. But again, if their subjective decision making is consistently applied, then it isn't random.

And as for your parenthetical, it's not really a cop out -- but what was written there is not meant to be a formula for admission, and does not encompass their subjective decision making when applied to the actual applicant pool -- it is a rough guideline and nothing more. Deviation from this is a given, and that does not make it random either.

 

[Rafa]

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.

Not necessarily. What appears random to us might be totally logical to people with more information - like the adcoms. They have their reasons for what they do. The fact that we aren't always privy to them doesn't mean they aren't (knowldegable of why they do what they do) either.

 

[Mac11]

This is not the definition of random.

I think you read it backwards buddy, I'm pretty sure I wrote definition of *not* random, so you would be right.

Am I that confusing when I type? 😳

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

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.

This is a perfect description of a random process.

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 🙂

I've had several Medical School interviews so far. I've also been on MANY job interviews. At my job, I have interviewed dozens (maybe even hundreds?) of people. Furthermore, I've acted as a hiring manager for a company in the past, so I not only interviewed people, but I also decided who to hire from a pool of applicants (unfortunately usually both less numerous, and less qualified than the average medical school applicant pool 🙂 )

Fortunately, I've never been asked to draw the structure of histidine or anything like that (BTW: Questions like that are standard practice in my industry.) Most of my interviews went very well (I think) but if you look on the interview feedback portion of this web site, most people rate their interview performance very high, disproportionally high to the number that are ultimately accepted to the school. Anyways, I am just saying that it is naive to think that you can totally prepare for every interview. I would, personally, be skeptical of someone that seemed too polished or rehearsed, because I would question how genuine they were. Other people would not. Every interviewer will have different criteria for evaluating how someone does at an interview, and that's just the way it goes. You may get paired up with someone whose criteria are aligned with your best attributes, or it might go the other way. This is an element of randomness. Just because "it all evens out" over a number of schools does not mean that the process does not contain an element of randomness. That's just the concept of a mean -- every random process has a mean.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Not necessarily. What appears random to us might be totally logical to people with more information - like the adcoms. They have their reasons for what they do. The fact that we aren't always privy to them doesn't mean they aren't (knowldegable of why they do what they do) either.

What I was commenting more about was that different interviewers may choose to have different criteria DESPITE the fact that the school/ADCOM may have a [slightly different] set of criteria. The fact that it is human beings ultimately making the decision adds an element of randomness.

Example: Suppose we want to hire someone. I interview two applicants, ask them the same questions, and they both get my questions "right." Other objective criteria are exactly the same, or to make things intersting, Applicant A has a trivially lower "score" with respect to whatever objective criteria we are talking about here than Applicant B. Applicant A, however, also went to my Undergrad. School. We have a bunch of stuff in common that Applicant B and I do not. As a result I just like Applicant A better, even though Undergrad. School is not one of the criteria that my company uses to evaluate applicants. I have an easier time recommending Applicant A over Applicant B than vice versa. Did Applicant B get screwed? Absolutely (IMHO) Does this happen all the time? Absolutely! Is this a deterministic process? Absolutely NOT! Am I a poor interviewer because I deviated from my company's policy for evaluating interviewees? No (IMHO,) I'm HUMAN!

This happens all the time with ALL interviews. Any process that includes an interview is NOT a deterministic process. It has an element of randomness to it. That's all. My fingers are blue from all this typing, and I'm not sure what else I can say about it at this point. Perhaps we have all just been arguing over semantics, because some are saying that "crapshoot" = TOTALLY random. I agree that the process isn't TOTALLY random, but it seemed to me that Law2Doc was saying that there was NO RANDOMNESS to this process, which is just flat out wrong (IMHO.)

 

[Mac11]

This is a perfect description of a random process.

I think I ended up arguing against myself there. whoops?

But actually, I think that we're (me and you) applying the concept of randomness a little differently. When you say it's a crap shoot, it implies the interviewer chooses amongst the candidates equally. In fact, I would actually agree with a slightly modified version of the above; assume the school picks students at random, but the stronger your application the more "copies of yourself" there are. Basically, each person has a unique weight (influenced by your app.) when they randomely choose you.

Is that actually random? Techincally, yes. In fact I always hear the disclaimer that "just because you have ___ stats doesn't guarantee an acceptance". Thats basically saying it's absolutely *not* deterministic. Which implies random. But weighted random, not crap shoot 🙂

I think I agree with you now 😀

Anyways, I am just saying that it is naive to think that you can totally prepare for every interview. I would, personally, be skeptical of someone that seemed too polished or rehearsed, because I would question how genuine they were. Other people would not.

👍

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I think I agree with you now 😀

👍

I agree with most/all of what you said there too. Cool. Peace, Out, and Good LUCK (yes, luck) with your applications/interviews!

 

[Mac11]

Good LUCK (yes, luck) with your applications/interviews!

haha you too

 

[stinastina]

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.

👍 👍 👍

 

[Touchdown]

Ill way in on this little conundrum:

MD School Aplicants are among the brightest, most qualified group of people out there. There are simply too many qualified people (based on cold hard stats) then spots. Therefore subjectivity enters in, in the form of an interviewer "liking you," at what stage in the application cycle, even time of the adcom meetings it is presented sadly comes into play.

My suggestion is try your hardest, dont get discourged, and if at all possible dont become bitter. Last year was my second cycle, I recieved five waitlists and mid July I found myself with no acceptances. I started scheduling meetings with the deans to find out what I would need to do this year to improve my app, the day I scheduled my meeting I recieved the call I had been waiting two years for.

Dont give up folks, this is the final choke point in the process after this people are activly trying to help you in anyway possible and believe me not having the stress of getting in over your head is fantastic. Two tests down, and Im achieving my best results since HIGH SCHOOL (allthough anatomy is still a month away.)

Also, very soon a bunch of pompous topics will be appearing on this board to talk about such things as weither a person should go to Yale or Harvard, dont let that get you down your day will come!