Choosing Med Schools to Apply to

<p>NYU doesn't admit high-statistics students to raise their stats -- it does so because it actually wants them. And it's not that the lower-stats pick them necessarily because they're off the waitlist, it's because that's the school they get into.</p>

<p>Nobody's arguing that NYU takes heavy proportions of its students off the waitlist (although many schools do); that was a response to the first five premises in your hypothetical, which are not reasonable. Shraf was pointing out how unreasonable it was by drawing a logical conclusion. The fact that you think his conclusion is absurd shows that your first five premises were absurd, not that Shraf is being unreasonable.</p>

<p>Not reasonable how? They are very exaggerated but are clearly in line with what you believe to be happening ie "the better accepted students go to "better" medical schools than NYU thus lowering NYU's matriculated data.</p>

<p>I never made the point that NYU's class is .8 from waitlist (nor did anyone else). Shraf brought that in on a whim. His/her goal was obviously to somehow negate my example (which is, once again, clearly in line with what you are saying... although exaggerated to make the point clear (I could make it more, as you put it, "reasonable" but that really isn't necessary for our purposes (which are alluding me at this point lol :) )). However his negation is based on something neither I (nor you I assume) accept ie that NYU's class is .8 waitlist. However my point ie that most of NYU's top acceptees do not matriculate to NYU is exactly what you are arguing. I simply use it to show that your conclusions about this somewhat probable fact are somewhat illogical.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"the better accepted students go to "better" medical schools than NYU thus lowering NYU's matriculated data.

[/quote]

Yes, students with multiple offers often (usually, in fact) pick the higher-ranked school.</p>

<p>This is different from what, as Shraf points out, you argued -- which is that students who had admissions from Harvard and NYU would almost certainly pick NYU if they had low MCAT scores.</p>

<p>All right. I see where my example went wrong. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>

<p>However, it doesn't really change my point, it just "points" out an oversight I made while quickly writing up that example. Let me just sum up the overall point I was making without an example.</p>

<p>Let's say only the accepted students with lower stats decide to matriculate to NYU. Harvard obviously will have students through all ranges accept their acceptances.
All right. So obviously the matriculated data will be different between the two schools.
Now, let me pose a hypothetical that is not too absurd. For both schools to have a median of 35 they have to accept the same number of applicants above and below 35. This would indicate that their distribution of scores/gpas may be similar. Let's say they both select their accepted class has 20% MCAT of 33 or less. For an applicant with a 33 MCAT his chances of getting into Harvard or NYU would look similar. The difference for him and a 37 MCAT would be that he would probably only get into one (whereas a 37 MCAT may get into both etc.). The 33 would take NYU (or Harvard) because it would probably be the better school he got into whereas the 37 would have the choice and would probably nearly always choose Harvard. This is what would lower NYU's median matriculated (applied to all schools obviously). However, HOW DOES THIS GIVE THE 33 A BETTER CHANCE OF ACTUALLY GETTING INTO NYU? (the bold isn't to show emotion, it just indicates the question I pose to you bluedevilmike :) . I think I could be wrong, your last post made clear why that other example was false but is there something clearly flawed with how I have presented it this time?)</p>

<p>

If NYU's class has a median of 33 on the MCAT, what score do you need to be competitive at NYU? A 33 (that reflects the make-up of the class) or a 37 (that reflects all accepted applicants, many of whom will not attend)?</p>

<p>To respond to uvajack's post #26, the first assumption that NYU and Harvard both accept 200 is already wrong. That assumption is critical.</p>

<p>Let's say you have the same 5000 applicants applying to both NYU and Harvard. Harvard accepts 200 of them with a median of 35. NYU will likely accept the same 200 AS WELL AS ANOTHER 260 applicants because, as I have already noted, NYU accepts 460 students to fill its matriculating class. This already suggests that Harvard is more difficult to get into than NYU because NYU is accepting 260 students that Harvard already rejected. This also doesn't account for the fact that Harvard only waitlist 50 kids while NYU waitlists around 400. You don't need to have a higher accepted median MCAT/GPA to be more selective than another school.</p>

<p>I no longer have a US News subscription but I'm pretty sure Harvard accepts around 200 and NYU accepts around 460. If anyone has a subscription and want to double check for me, that'd be great.</p>

<p>To norcalguy: I certainly understand your point. However, it still seems to be pointing towards the conclusion that, for NYU, the "260" extra kids are the ones who are expected to make up the class while the other 200 cross accepted to Harvard and the like are there to boost their numbers (as others have also suggested). If that is true, fine, you obviously are correct. However, without hard data suggesting this I wouldn't buy into it.</p>

<p>great uvajack is finally beginning to use some logic and make sense....and it only took us 46 posts</p>

<p>
[quote]
the other 200 cross accepted to Harvard and the like are there to boost their numbers

[/quote]
They're not there to boost their numbers. NYU really wants those kids to come. Therefore, it admits them.</p>

<p>They're not there to boost their numbers. NYU really wants those kids to come. Therefore, it admits them.</p>

<p>Why wouldn't every other medical school do that and boost their medians?</p>

<p>Because, as it may come as a shock to you, the main goal of med schools is not to "boost their medians."</p>

<p>Mid-tier med schools fall into two groups of thought when it comes to admitting students: one group takes only students that it thinks will matriculate. Another will accept students who are unlikely to matriculate but hopes at least 1-2 will come. They are willing to live with low yields.</p>

<p>Schools like GW, BU, and Georgetown are notorious for rejecting overqualified applicants. Almost everyone in my Columbia interview group was rejected from Boston University w/o an interview. These types of schools don't want to waste their time and resources interviewing applicants who will never come. Keep in mind, schools can only afford to interview around 10% of their applicant pool. Interview invites are precious. Other schools don't mind accepting extraordinary applicants and having low yields. NYU is obviously a school that follows this philosophy as it has essentially the lowest matriculating MCAT out of any of the med schools with accepted medians of 35 and over.</p>

<p>Thanks to norcalguy and bluedevilmike. They have made excellent points and are correct. I do admit (now) that the matriculated data will probably give you a better indication of your chances than accepted data (due to differential accepted/class size rations).</p>

<p>So then US News is a better indicator of where to apply instead of the MSAR?</p>

<p>You really really need both sources. In the hypothetical event that you could only pick one, I would recommend US News. But that would be a stupid restriction.</p>

<p>well US news doesnt tell you the additional prereqs of the schools which would be a good thing to find out before you waste money applying there</p>

<p>It's also missing interview data and in-state vs. out-of-state breakdowns.</p>

<p>No, US News has both interview data and in-state/out of-state breakdowns. The data is a year or two behind the MSAR though.</p>

<p>Oh it does? Nice. I never knew that.</p>

<p>It gives similar data as the MSAR (# applied, interviewed, accepted with in-state/out-of-state distinctions). My only complaint is that it's not quite up to date as the MSAR. As we've seen with the huge increases in stats b/w the last two MSAR's, a couple years difference can mean 2 or more pts. on the MCAT.</p>

<p>BTW: Shaf, the applied/interviewed/accepted data are not in the book version so don't buy that. The book only has the bare-bones stats (avg. MCAT, acceptance rate, etc.). You'll need to buy the online version.</p>

<p>
[quote]
BTW: Shaf, the applied/interviewed/accepted data are not in the book version so don't buy that. The book only has the bare-bones stats (avg. MCAT, acceptance rate, etc.). You'll need to buy the online version.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>oh ok...thanks...well either way i was prob gonna spring for the online version since the book comes out in august as i mentioned earlier which would be a bit too late in the process to start thinking about which schools to apply to</p>