New Cornell Data

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
1

<p>I think Cornell's the first school to release data for the last applicant cycle:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.career.cornell.edu/downloads/AaChart2007ForWeb.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.career.cornell.edu/downloads/AaChart2007ForWeb.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The acceptance rate absolutely tanked. Usually Cornell is in the high 70's to low 80's. The student performance doesn't look terrible (GPA's were a little low as there were only 12 seniors w/ 3.9+ GPA's out of 200 students but the MCAT performance was excellent in my opinion w/ seventy-three 35+ scorers).</p>

<p>Cornell's terse explanation: "In 2007 applicantions were up significantly and Cornell's acceptance rate was 68%." (their typo, not mine)</p>

<p>The number of applicants is increasing by approx. 6-7% each year and we are now approaching 1996 numbers (where Cornell's acceptance rate bottomed out at 55%). The number of applicants reached a low in 2002 at 33,000 (not surprisingly, Cornell recorded a record high in acceptance rate at 81%). We stand at 42,315. In 1996, there were 46,000+. My prediction is that we'll hit 44,000+ this year (that's the application cycle I'm in) and by next year or the year after, we will set a new record high in applicants.</p>

<p>Another note: Always compare school data from the same years if you're going to look at med school acceptance rates.</p>

2

<p>National rates have been declining, too, if memory serves. Again, this just tells you that this is a bad metric. At least a national average adjustment would be more useful</p>

3

<p>As long as the economy continues to tank (or at least there are reports of its demise) expect application numbers to increase. There have been plenty of good reports about the job market for new grads in recent years, but a poor economy usually results in more people staying in school.</p>

4

<p>I'm actually quite annoyed. The economy was spectacular for so long while people kept talking about how awful it was. Eventually the reality catches up to the hype for a little while, and now the economy actually DOES seem to be going downwards a little bit.</p>

<p>My gosh, if spectacular GDP growth, low unemployment, and high wages make the media talk about how bad the economy is, just think what they're going to do when we return to normal...</p>

5

<p>Wait, 2007 data refers to kids who are currently in their first year of med school, right?</p>

6

<p>It said they excluded URM's from the data. That seems a little odd.</p>

7

<p>Yes, the 2007 data is for people who are currently first years.</p>

<p>I think Cornell excluded URM data because it would paint a false picture of what is required to get into med school. The fact a URM can get into med school with a 3.4/28 is irrelevant to the vast majority of applicants.</p>

<p>The # of spots has risen by about 2% each year while the number of applicants is climbing by 7% each year so, yes, the acceptance rate has been declining (in 1996, only 37% of med school applicants got into med school). Also important is the fact that apps are up over 10%. The avg. applicant is now applying to more schools. Obviously, each person can still only attend one school but that means the competition for interviews is tougher and we will potentially see more "late" movement (late interviews, waitlist acceptances, etc.).</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I'm actually quite annoyed. The economy was spectacular for so long while people kept talking about how awful it was. Eventually the reality catches up to the hype for a little while, and now the economy actually DOES seem to be going downwards a little bit.</p>

<p>My gosh, if spectacular GDP growth, low unemployment, and high wages make the media talk about how bad the economy is, just think what they're going to do when we return to normal...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the dispute is that the economy may not have been so good for most people. For example, I don't believe that wages have been that high, I believe median real wages have actually declined or remained stagnant in the last few years. Yes, GDP growth has been excellent, but the lion's share of the benefits have gone to capital owners and the top percent of wage-earners (i.e. hedge fund managers). The only benefit that most people have enjoyed has been a low unemployment rate, but that has been somewhat mitigated by the greater perceived uncertainty of health care and pensions.</p>

9

<p>Here's a two-year old graph using four-year-old data. Economics</a> Unbound The right way to measure growth? - BusinessWeek</p>

<p>It's true and a legitimate complaint that this is old. I wonder if I can find something more recent? The other objection (that hourly is worse than overall income, or that the axes are off) are both silly.</p>

<p>Oh -- and if benefits are included (which is proper), I'm sure wages are spiking.</p>

10

<p>These numbers do not look so bad to me. Of students who are generally considered to have a reasonable chance of admission (gpa 3.4 or better, MCAT at least 30, and- not presented in this table, but usual guideline "no score below a 10") the admission rate was quite respectable.</p>

<p>Even students with 25-29 MCATs did well if their GPA was 3.6 or higher.</p>

<p>The bigger problem is that this apparently covers less than half of the Cornell applicants. According to the aamc, there were 471 med school applicants from Cornell, but this table shows only 208 people. </p>

<p>FACTS</a> Table 2-7. Undergraduate Institutions Supplying 100 or More White Applicants to U.S. Medical Schools</p>

<p>NB use the "total" column. The aamc page also shows number of white applicants. Even here- assuming none are URM, there are plenty not accounted for. Cornell had 405 white and Asian applicants. So 208 results leaves out a lot.</p>

<p>This also does us nothing about bad application strategy. One must assume that happened to the three people with 35+ MCAT and 3.8+ gpa who did not get in anywhere. Of course I don't know what occurred in these cases, but some such students apply only to Harvard and Hopkins, with perhaps Stanford as a "safety" and are surprised when invited to try again next year.</p>

<p>Some colleges (Amherst for example) give the total admit success of their grads, including reapplications from those who do not get in the first time. This appears to pick up the large majority of well qualified students, which I would say characterizes the 3.4/30 and above applicants.</p>

<p>Med school applications are up right now, but class sizes are slated to expand substantially. If the democrats win the elections, they are proposing changes that would depress interest in medicine again, and reduce applications. So the competition may peak this year, then turn down again as demand for spaces decreases, and supply increases.</p>

<p>People who go to medical school, on average, come from well to do families. The median family income for medical students is about double the national median. As sakky points out, the economy has been good to people higher on the income scale. In fact, it is only now that financial markets are tanking that politicians are agreeing there is a problem.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
It's true and a legitimate complaint that this is old. I wonder if I can find something more recent? The other objection (that hourly is worse than overall income, or that the axes are off) are both silly

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I found something more recent.</p>

<p>"The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh -- and if benefits are included (which is proper), I'm sure wages are spiking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They probably are, mostly because health-care costs (and hence health insurance costs) continue to rise rapidly. But that's an invisible rise in welfare that almost certainly plays no role in decision-making. </p>

<p>Ultimately, what we are actually debating a point that is ancillary. For the purposes of career decision making, i.e. whether to go to medical school or not as opposed to just getting a job, what matters are not the actual wages, but rather the perceived wages. It doesn't matter whether the wages are great if you don't think they're great. For example, the fact that you may be getting better "compensation" because your employer is shelling out more for your health insurance doesn't really feel like a gain in social welfare to you (even though it is in reality).</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
what we are actually debating

[/quote]
Maybe what we were debating. The NYT article seems pretty conclusive to me. (i.e., you're right.)</p>