<p>What do you think was the most important part of your application? What area of the resume was the most likely to have gotten you into med school? Was it grades, volunteer work, ECs? </p>
<p>Also, are ECs as important as they are in undergrad applications?</p>
<p>GPA, MCAT, and Personal Statement (<- this will get you an interview)</p>
<p>ECs (shadowing, volunteering, research, etc), LORs, personality, how you present yourself (<- this will get you an acceptance)</p>
<p>I would argue that ECs are MORE important in medical school admissions. There are THOUSANDS of applicants vying for anywhere from 32 - 350 spots. What do you have that all of the vast & unfortunate majority don't?</p>
<p>Well obviously GPA/MCAT are king. Beyond that, I think it can vary what an admissions committee will value. However, I believe that once you are interviewed the interview becomes particularly important and will surely exclude you from acceptance if you are not well received. Out of my interviews I had, 2 did not go well, I was rejected only from those two without even a alternate list offer.</p>
<p>Unfortunately this is simply the wrong way to ask the question. The most important part of your application is balance: you must be good at everything. Excellence in any one area comes second. It is nearly impossible to get into an MD program with a 24 on the MCAT, no matter what your grades and EC's are. It is nearly impossible to get into an MD program with a 3.1 GPA, no matter what your MCAT and EC's are. It is nearly impossible to get into an MD program with zero EC's, no matter what your GPA and MCAT score are.</p>
<p>As a microcosm, look at the MCAT's three subsections, each out of 15 for a total of 45. A 15-15-6 is a MUCH worse score -- much worse -- than a 11-11-11, even though the total score is actually higher. The entire admissions process is the same way. Unlike undergrad, where you can make up for some deficiencies by being a savant, so to speak, at something else -- medical school applications require balance. You have to be able to do everything, and do it well.</p>
<p>I agree with BDM about balance and that stellar qualities in one area can't make up for an absolute lack of something in another area. However, Castles has a valid point as well. There's the stuff necessary to get you an interview and then the stuff necessary to get an acceptance. In my view, if your MCAT scores and gpa are good enough to grant you an interview (after your essays are taken into account as well), after that they're not particularly looked at. Put this way: if your scores and grades are so low that even a spectacular interview isn't going to grant you an acceptance, then you're not even going to be offered an interview. It wastes your time and the interviewer's time. So it's important to have grades and mcat that are high enough to get your essays and ECs considered. But on the other hand, if your grades and mcats are through the roof, if you bomb your interview, your numbers aren't going to be able to save you.</p>
<p>In my opinion, after having grades and mcats that are high enough for them to consider your application, it's being able to talk about (or write about, depending on where you are in the application process) what you've done rather than the status of what you've done. From what I saw, commitment and enthusiasm were valued more than prestige.</p>
<p>whether or not they ignore the rest of your application after they grant you an interview really depends on the school. At some (pitt comes to mind), this certainly seems to be the case; once they decide you're good enough to interview, they think your numbers are good enough to be accepted. Others use the interview as another weighted part of the application, neither ignoring all other things nor giving no importance to the interview (I think this is most schools). Some schools (the NYC schools in particular come to mind) seem to know what they're going to do with you before they even grant you an interview, and that time serves primarily as a 'psycho screen' to weed out truly unsavory applicants and to sell you on the program.</p>
<p>Penn explicitly says, in fact, that their interview is just a psycho screen. UCSF, on the other hand, explicitly says that they have done the studies themselves, and they can prove that numbers don't matter once the interview is granted. Definitely varies.</p>