<p>I don't know.</p>
<p>The point is, what will med schools consider to be better?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky,the site you showed (or I showed you in another thread)only represented the statistics from AMCAS, American Medical College Application Service. Only 117 out of 125 accredited medical schools participate in AMCAS. You are not getting the whole picture from those statistics. How do I know, it was approaching 60%?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought you might come back with that, so let me ask you (and the other readers) here, logically, do you really think that the 8 missing med-schools could change the statistics so dramatically that the final admit rate would approach 60%?</p>
<p>I'll work out the mathematics for you. Let's choose the year 1992, which is the most favorable year of the 90's on record, according to AMCAS data. Like I said above, about 37400 people applied in that year, and about 17500 people were admitted, according to the published data. You say that that data doesn't include 8 med-schools. Fine, so let's assume these 8 schools were responsible for enough 'missing admittees' such that the 'true' overall admit rate really was 60%. Let's also assume that there weren't any students who applied only to those 8 'missing' med-schools and no AMCAS schools (including these students actually makes the numbers even less favorable). </p>
<p>So that would mean that 22440 students would have actually had to be admitted that year (37400 * 60% = 22440), as opposed to the 17500 AMCAS-reported admits, and hence these schools would, all by themselves, be responsible for 4940 "missing admits". That would be an amazing figure if that were true. After all, that would mean that these 8 schools out of 125, or 6.4%, of the accredited schools in the country would be handing out 22% of all of the admit slots out there. I think that would be amazing if it were true. </p>
<p>After all, let's dive into some of the specifics. The 'missing' med-schools tend to be smaller programs. For example, a whole bunch of these programs are located in Texas, and are served by the TMDSAS (Texas Medical and Dental Schools Application Service) rather than AMCAS. These schools are not that big. For example, the various UT med-schools admit only about 220 students a year. Yet for the numbers to work out, it would mean that each of the missing 8 schools would each have to be responsible for over 600 admits (4940/8= 617.5)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/home/education/medicalschool/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/home/education/medicalschool/index.html</a>
<a href="http://som.uthscsa.edu/admissions/WelcomeAdmiss.asp%5B/url%5D">http://som.uthscsa.edu/admissions/WelcomeAdmiss.asp</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
You are not getting the whole picture from those statistics. How do I know, it was approaching 60%? During that time, a close friend's daughter was applying to medical schools and we were advising her and paid close attention to any information pertaining to admissions. Both my husband and I read medical journals almost daily and we form our opinions from articles we read. How about you? Any personal experience?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'm afraid to have to tell you that the published data does not support your conclusion. I don't want to speculate too deeply as to what the real issue here is, but it seems to me that only one of 2 conclusions can be drawn:</p>
<p>1) AMCAS's published data is false, which would mean that AMCAS is lying to us.
2) A whole bunch of missing data exists with regards to those missing 8 med-schools to radically change the numbers when the missing data is factored in.</p>
<p>I dismiss option #1 using Occam's Razor as being unnecessarily conspiratorial. After all, what would AMCAS gain by deliberately publishing false information about the 1990's? </p>
<p>Hence, let's investigate option #2. According to the AMCAS published data, in 1992 (again, the year in the 1990's with the best published admit rate), the admit rate was 46%. To say that adding in the data from 8 missing med-schools would push the admit rate to 60% is a HUGE stretch. I simply do not see how the numbers can work out. </p>
<p>You don't have to believe my analysis. You can do your own analysis, using your own assumptions. Just do the math yourself, and I simply cannot see how the numbers can be reasonably massaged to ultimately produce a 60% admit rate. If you or anybody here can come up with a reasonable model for making the numbers work out, then I (and I presume norcalguy and bluedevilmike) are all ears. </p>
<p>But the point is, it's very hard for me to see how missing data from only 8 relatively small (in terms of population) schools can push the overall admit rate from 46% to 60%. We all have the rights to our own opinions, but we don't have the rights to our own facts. The 46% figure is a published fact. Unless you want to accuse the AMCAS of lying, then you have to start with that figure and then work with it, and it's hard to see how you could ever massage it all the way to 60%. </p>
<p>But again, like I said, if you don't believe me, fair enough. Do the math yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Penn , average SAT of matriculants (25-75th percentile)
V 660-760
m 680-780</p>
<p>Thomas University
mean SAT V475 M455</p>
<p>Which is better, a 4.0 from Thomas University or 3.6 from Penn ?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know.</p>
<p>The point is, what will med schools consider to be better?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep, I am 100% behind norcalguy. The question is not what we as individuals think is better. The question is, who do MED SCHOOLS ADCOMS tend to admit? </p>
<p>To give you an example, I strongly suspect that a guy who just barely graduated from MIT with a 2.0/4.0 GPA is still arguably better than somebody who got, say, a 3.5/4.0 GPA at a 4th tier grade-inflated no-name school. {Heck, I would say that even many of the people who completely flunk out of MIT are still better than most students who graduate from lower-tier schools. I say this because I know some students who flunked out of MIT and ended up at lesser schools where they simply dominated. For example, I know a guy who flunked out of MIT and eventually transferred to his local branch of his state university where he ended up easily graduating with top grades while admittedly doing very little work. } The question is who the med-school adcoms tend to admit, and whether we like it or not, they tend to key on grades. Most med-schools adcoms use a system of numerical screens to place applicants into various 'buckets' without much regard for how difficult it was for you to get those numbers. If you get placed into a low bucket because you have low numbers, you have a tough row to hoe.</p>
<p>Again, consider MIT's overall premed stats. In 2005, the average admitted MIT premed had a 3.7/4.0 GPA. Nor is 2005 an anomaly. In 2003 and 2004, the numbers were approximately the same. If med-school adcoms really respected the fact that MIT was a difficult school, then you would logically expect the average admitted MIT GPA to be a lot lower. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. By pointing out what is happening, I am not saying that I like it. The sad fact is that med-school admissions are highly numerical. Not completely numerical - nobody is saying that the process is purely mechanical. But it is highly numerical such that if you do get a 2.0 GPA, you are going to have serious problems, even if you did get those grades at a tough school like MIT. Personally, I wish this wasn't true. I happen to think that they shouldn't consider grades at all, and should just replace grades with a standardized admissions test. If you can prove that you know the material, then who cares what your grades were? If you know it, you know it. But that's not how it works. Whether we like it or not, the process keys heavily on your grades. Whether we like it or not, for the purposes of med-school admissions, it's better to not take a class at all than to take it and get a bad grade. It's, sadly, a rather unforgiving process. I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To give you an example, I strongly suspect that a guy who just barely graduated from MIT with a 2.0/4.0 GPA is still arguably better than somebody who got, say, a 3.5/4.0 GPA at a 4th tier grade-inflated no-name school. {Heck, I would say that even many of the people who completely flunk out of MIT are still better than most students who graduate from lower-tier schools. I say this because I know some students who flunked out of MIT and ended up at lesser schools where they simply dominated. For example, I know a guy who flunked out of MIT and eventually transferred to his local branch of his state university where he ended up easily graduating with top grades while admittedly doing very little work. } The question is who the med-school adcoms tend to admit, and whether we like it or not, they tend to key on grades. Most med-schools adcoms use a system of numerical screens to place applicants into various 'buckets' without much regard for how difficult it was for you to get those numbers. If you get placed into a low bucket because you have low numbers, you have a tough row to hoe.</p>
<p>Again, consider MIT's overall premed stats. In 2005, the average admitted MIT premed had a 3.7/4.0 GPA. Nor is 2005 an anomaly. In 2003 and 2004, the numbers were approximately the same. If med-school adcoms really respected the fact that MIT was a difficult school, then you would logically expect the average admitted MIT GPA to be a lot lower.</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. By pointing out what is happening, I am not saying that I like it. The sad fact is that med-school admissions are highly numerical. Not completely numerical - nobody is saying that the process is purely mechanical. But it is highly numerical such that if you do get a 2.0 GPA, you are going to have serious problems, even if you did get those grades at a tough school like MIT. Personally, I wish this wasn't true. I happen to think that they shouldn't consider grades at all, and should just replace grades with a standardized admissions test. If you can prove that you know the material, then who cares what your grades were? If you know it, you know it. But that's not how it works. Whether we like it or not, the process keys heavily on your grades. Whether we like it or not, for the purposes of med-school admissions, it's better to not take a class at all than to take it and get a bad grade. It's, sadly, a rather unforgiving process. I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sakky, I'd like to know how you base your observations? Have you talked with medical school advisors? Have you applied to medical schools? Have you talked with medical school admissions?</p>
<p>In short, what are your credentials ?</p>
<p>I might just as easily ask the same to you. But trust me, I know what I am talking about. </p>
<p>But look, we don't have to get into a snip about 'credibility', because data doesn't lie. Like I said before, we all have the right to our own opinions, but we don't have the right to our own facts. And the facts are, admitted MIT premeds have grades that are no different from the grades of admitted premeds nationwide, and that indicates that med-school adcoms are not providing any lenience to MIT students with substandard grades.</p>
<p>In fact, MIT kids have better grades than many of their "peer" schools in order to get into med school, and even a little bit better than nationwide, which indicates that they are not only not receiving a boost but actually taking a hit.</p>
<p>If the metric is whether or not they get into med school - an insufficient but partly useful metric, then a 3.7 from MIT is equivalent to a 3.6 from the average premed's school - probably something in the lower top 60 or so, unless I'm mistaken. (Of course, MIT kids may simply apply to inappropriate schools, etc. In fact, I think this is the dominant explanation - poor advising.)</p>
<p>Here is video that deals with University of Michigan graduate law school and medical school admissions:</p>
<p>and here is superman:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I might just as easily ask the same to you. But trust me, I know what I am talking about.
[/quote]
Why should we trust you? Tell me your credentials. You seem to imply you know so much, unless you tell me your credentials, I have no reason to believe anything you say. Data doesn't tell the whole story.
I have revealed myself substantially on these posts. Nowhere in any of your posts you've done so.</p>
<p>Give us some facts......Are you a student? Have you taken the MCAT? Have you talked to medical school admissions?</p>
<p>Again , what are your credentials? I am very worried the posters who have come here to get some credible advise are completely misled by you. And you have spent a lot of time posting..........why do you have so much time?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should we trust you? Tell me your credentials. You seem to imply you know so much, unless you tell me your credentials, I have no reason to believe anything you say. Data doesn't tell the whole story.
I have revealed myself substantially on these posts. Nowhere in any of your posts you've done so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then don't believe me. I am not asking you to believe anything that I say. I am simply asking OTHER READERS to believe what I say, and I provide data to back it up. Data that is checkable and referencable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Give us some facts......Are you a student? Have you taken the MCAT? Have you talked to medical school admissions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, I ask - would it matter? If it wouldn't (and I don't think it would), and you're not going to change your mind no matter what, then I see nothing to gain by playing your game. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again , what are your credentials? I am very worried the posters who have come here to get some credible advise are completely misled by you. And you have spent a lot of time posting..........why do you have so much time?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gosh, you seem to be quite worried about other readers, all of a sudden. Can't you let them make up their own mind? That's why I provide all of my raw data whenever I can find it, so people can check it themselves and draw their own conclusions. If they don't think I am interpreting the data correctly, they are invited to check the data for themselves. </p>
<p>And why are you so worried about what I do with my time? That's my business, not yours.</p>