<p>Kal- it seems like we are going in circles. What is it you are trying to prove or change? None of us can change this trend, so why are we nattering on about it? It is what it is.</p>
<p>RE; Post #29.</p>
<p>Did you actually read what I posted ?(As opposed to filtering it thru your bias). I said that ex had high stats and very little community service. Facts. I did NOT say he was rejected because of this. In fact, in Post #36, I explicited stated that I didn’t not know why this individual was rejected because he did not attend any of his exit interviews where he would have received feedback on his areas of weakness. I also said I had my own conjectures on why he was rejected–but I did not share them.</p>
<p>Post #10 etc. refers to the success of our state med school in increasing the number of physicians committed to serving in rural and medically underserved areas. I specifically said “in our state”–I didn’t make any claims for any other state. And in the case of our state, admitting students from rural areas who are committed to returning to practice medicine in their home county has worked better than the use of contracts. Better in the sense that while contractually obligated students do practice in rural location for 2-4 years they leave when their contract is up; whereas students who grew up in a rural location go back to practice and stay there for longer periods–including in many cases for their entire careers–which provides a better continuity of care for the residents of those areas.</p>
<p>Acad Med. 2010 Oct;85(10 Suppl):S13-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed1bee.
Early predictors of physicians’ practice in medically underserved communities: a 12-year follow-up study of University of New Mexico School of Medicine graduates.</p>
<p>Rural Rx: a program developed in New Mexico may change how health care is delivered in rural America.
Ewing J.
State Legis. 2012 May;38(5):20-2.</p>
<p>And more on how holisitic admission improves the recruitment and retention of physicians in rural and medically underserved areas:</p>
<p>Can J Rural Med. 2013 Spring;18(2):47-55.
Perceived preparedness for family practice: Does rural background matter?
Szafran O, Crutcher RA, Woloschuk W, Myhre DL, Konkin J.</p>
<p>Am Board Fam Med. 2013 Jan-Feb;26(1):24-7. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.01.120122.
Retention of rural family physicians after 20-25 years: outcomes of a comprehensive medical school rural program.
Rabinowitz HK, Diamond JJ, Markham FW, Santana AJ.</p>
<p>Hawaii J Med Public Health. 2012 Apr;71(4 Suppl 1):21-5.
Addressing the physician shortage in Hawai’i: recruiting medical students who meet the needs of Hawai’i’s rural communities.
Schiff T, Felsing-Watkins J, Small C, Takayesu A, Withy K.</p>
<p>Can J Rural Med. 2004 Spring;9(2):82-8.
Effectiveness of financial incentives in exchange for rural and underserviced area return-of-service commitments: systematic review of the literature.
Sempowski IP. </p>
<p>Fam Med. 2000 May;32(5):331-7.
US medical schools and the rural family physician gender gap.
Ellsbury KE, Doescher MP, Hart LG.</p>
<p>Resilience=reapplying to medical schools after your high GPA and MCAT, ECs and research failed to gain you admission to medical school when those with who had the foresight to be born and raised in a rural community or the inner city were chosen with lesser qualifications.</p>
<p>^Ahhh yes. I remember talking with my kaplan MCAT tutor that cost several thousands of dollars from the center that was a few blocks from my ivy league school that my parents paid for in full without any financial impact in our daily lives that my life would have been so much easier if I had just grown up with darker skin and poorer parents.</p>
<p>But seriously: Lower GPA/MCAT does not equal “less qualified”. I’ll admit it can be dangerous to put too much weight into “hardship” as you want to make sure that removal of such hardship really will lead to success (which i’ll admit is impossible to be sure).</p>
<p>But let’s step away from medicine for a second. Which CEO gives you more confidence: The one who inherits a fortune 100 company from his dad or the one who builds a fortune 500 company from the ground up?</p>
<p>The thing that makes it complicated is that there are a plethora of variables to receive different amount of weight, and I’m certainly not going to say that anyone has a perfect system - but don’t kid yourself that someone who has made the most of their very limited opportunities and therefore has a less impressive looking resume is automatically less qualified.</p>
<p>“Lesser” or “different”? That med schools value things other than grades and scores really shouldn’t surprise anybody at this point in their education, should it? </p>
<p>Is this just the med school version of “why did my high stat kid from a great high school get rejected from HYP when a kid with a lower SAT from a crappy school got accepted?”</p>
<p>Tatin–different medical schools have different missions. </p>
<p>If you want to go into rural medicine–then yes coming from a rural location is an advantage when it comes to admissions to RURAL MEDICINE PROGRAMS.</p>
<p>
Very aggressive and unnecessarily personal! In fact, these kind of responses, were the reason why I kept going for too long on this thread. </p>
<p>Here is a direct quote from post #29:
</p>
<p>My reading comprehension may not be what it used to be. Yet, I think I interpreted that quote (especially the bolded portion) quite correctly, given the context of the topic of the thread. The highlighted portion clearly points out overcoming obstacles, which is an important tenet of holistic reviews, as the basis for the understanding as to why the others (probably with lesser stats) were selected over this kid with 3.9/40. </p>
<p>Is it possible that, it was yet misunderstood? Sure. Now that the actual explanation is given, I will go with that.</p>
<p>As an aside - so much can be wrongly interpreted by well meaning people, as it may have happened here. In my 25 year career, I may have interviewed close to a thousand people for various positions. I never claim that we got all of our decisions right - we surely didn’t. But, we have a way out with our mistakes. Sure, we can’t get back the good ones we missed out on. We certainly get rid off the bad ones by letting go the bottom 5% performers every year. </p>
<p>OTOH, with medical college admissions the decisions are so very final. That kid with 3.9/40, who got admitted by Pritzker, but got rejected by this state school 3 times - he could have been the one that discovered cure for cancer. It’s too bad for him that he had to go that sate school for other reasons … And the folks with inferior stats that got in based some ADCOMs evaluation of stuff - if they turn out to be lemons, is there a way in the system to weed them out, before they cause serious damage? </p>
<p>
somemom,
I agree that nothing can be changed by ranting on a bulletin board. Real change, if it is possible, comes from other means. This thread, right from the very first post, has been academic.</p>
<p>IWBB - you would have been golden with darker skin and the money! :D</p>
<p>When son interviewed at HMS it was made clear that those there for the interview would all be able to handle the workload of HMS and would all make excellent physicians, the narrowing down process from interview to acceptance was based on “fit”. It seemed to son that they really meant what they said.</p>
<p>After individual interviews there was a group thing and it was once again stressed that their numbers and ECs got them in the door, it was more of a discussion of who should stay.</p>
<p>Maybe it is like HYP undergrad admissions, stats get you over the threshold its all the other stuff that gains a student an acceptance. The schools stress that they are building a class that is well-rounded not a class of well-rounded individuals.</p>
<p>The med schools that son interviewed with and met with again after acceptance all stressed leadership abilities and other goals he had not just his MCAT score and undergrad GPA. It was rarely if at all mentioned. </p>
<p>It appeared to me that again the stats just establish a student can academically handle the work. Its all the other stuff that makes a physician. As each school has its own “mission” that would explain why son was desired at some schools and not others. He had a pretty large sample of 24 schools with of course the same stats and application.</p>
<p>It has been remarked that schools use a computer to filter out lower stats apps and there is no chance they will even get an interview. So maybe the “holistic” admissions is what happens beyond that filter. </p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>Kal–would it make feel any better to know the ex lived in a designated rural county and grew up in a household where English was not the language of record? That he/his family had overcome their share of disadvantages, including a decade-long forced separation based upon international politics? That the family had received means-tested benefits for a period of time? (Both parents hold PhDs in mathematics and engineering, but had a bumpy landing in the US.)</p>
<p>That over the course of the ex’s 3 application cycles, he applied to no fewer than 12-15 schools each cycle with only a singe overlap for the state med school—and he was rejected not only by the state med school but by 35-44 other medical schools?</p>
<p>Clearly with that many rejections, there was some deficit in his application that you or I are not privy to.</p>
<p>As for his lack of community service–that was D1’s interpretation (Note the she said…) based upon her reading of the mission statement and state U’s–which the ex attended-- pre-med advising. She told him she thought he needed to beef up his community service, but he rejected the idea saying he “shouldn’t have to” because his academics were a sufficient reason to get him accepted. (Note this was after 2 previous rejections from the state med school. D1 only met him when she was prepping for her own application and they applied the next cycle together-- together meaning at the same time, not together as a couple.)</p>
<p>As for the ex curing cancer—he’s getting his PhD in a biomedical research field. If he’s going to cure cancer–he’s still has a shot at it. </p>
<p>RE: weeding out those “inferior stats” lemons. Yes, there’s way to do this. Just like there’s a way to weed out those “superior stats” lemons.</p>
<p>“shouldn’t have to” </p>
<p>I suspect some of this shows up in essays inevitably. There are things people need to do and jump through the various hoops whether they like it or not in order to have a well rounded app.</p>
<p>I would think that the admissions process at no US med school has (as of late) been based on numbers only…admissions people just seem to be getting a little more organized about their bullet points. </p>
<p>IMHO, there is a bar an applicant must cross academically to get in the door that can be somewhat fluid depending on what one brings to the table but If I am going to go all top-drawer about it…the cure for cancer is more than likely going to be worked on by one type of intelligent person and major global health issues will be worked on by another. Dr. Global Health very possibly does not have the personality or skill set for cancer research and the same would apply to Dr. Cancer Research in the reverse.</p>
<p>If that is a holistic approach I am all for it. I read nothing in the article that says medical schools are looking to accept inferior minds or people who cannot cut it.</p>
<p>
I agree with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Best line in this thread. :-)</p>
<p>I admit to skimming this thread. Also, I admit to going (way way way) off topic. Apologies in advance.</p>
<p>The following is a fact commonly pointed out by Gregg Easterbrook a few years ago and applies to NFL predictions, NOT medical school admissions.</p>
<p>Step #1: Try out the following simple rule: How do you know which team will win? Pick the team with the better record. If they’re the same, pick the home team.</p>
<p>Step #2: This is a preposterously stupid rule. It’s stupid because nobody thinks that the team with the better record is always the better team. There are plenty of streaks, anomalies, and flukes in the NFL. Referees overrule obvious touchdowns, sometimes the wrong guy just gets hot, or sometimes a quarterback is injured but comes back midway through the season. Obviously, a human element is needed to override this preposterously stupid metric, right?</p>
<p>Step #3: Well, here’s the thing: That preposterously stupid rule gets about 80% of games right. That’s not perfect, but it VASTLY outperforms any member of ESPN’s “panel of experts,” who had outcome rates ranging from about 40 to 65% and were wildly inconsistent year to year.</p>
<p>Step #4: Apparently, when you introduce the human element, these so-called experts perform WORSE THAN RANDOM at identifying which those teams are. A LOT worse than random. You’d be better off, it seems, just following the numbers and living with the failures of that system. Trying to correct them just makes things worse.</p>
<p>I am definitely picking the Texans this season because they are my home team.</p>
<p>texaspg, </p>
<p>How is our boy Kareem Jackson (former DB of my beloved Crimson Tide) doing?</p>
<p>He did reasonably well last year. Hopefully he has the best year this year on the way to … We have a gambling defense that gives up big plays when they play the really good teams.</p>
<p>I want all the Bama boys to do well at the next level. Living here in NJ, I don’t get to follow them all. He was certainly a good un on that 2009 national champion team. That team was full of super stars like Julio Jones, Mark Ingram & Trent Richardson. This guy held is own and got drafted by the Texans in the first round, I believe. Good luck this year.</p>