UPenn MD/PhD student talks about his college "failures" - strangely inspiring video

[MyOdyssey]

A recent UPenn MD/PhD matriculant (who also had offers from Harvard and Hopkins) talks openly about all his "failures" in college.

I find this guy's candid introspection strangely moving and inspiring.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I just love how EVERY YEAR, there are people posting on youtube after their cycle about their applications and whatnot and then 10 videos later, they just disappear.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I just love how EVERY YEAR, there are people posting on youtube after their cycle about their applications and whatnot and then 10 videos later, they just disappear.

Maintaining a YouTube channel is a lot of work.

 

[DoctorFate]

I just love how EVERY YEAR, there are people posting on youtube after their cycle about their applications and whatnot and then 10 videos later, they just disappear.

Haha probably gonna be me

 

[MyOdyssey]

Haha probably gonna be me

You need a catchy heading like "525 MCAT scorer shares his secrets" or "Accepted into Harvard, Hopkins and Stanford medical schools: 10 key tips."

 

[DoctorFate]

You need a catchy heading like "525 MCAT scorer shares his secrets" or "Accepted into Harvard, Hopkins and Stanford medical schools: 10 key tips."

I got one even better. "From Rejected last cycle to 10+ IIs on the next: how to maximize improvement in a year"

That would definitely be clickbait though, as there are probably about 10 people in the entire applicant pool that could be in my very unique situation haha.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I got one even better. "From Rejected last cycle to 10+ IIs on the next: how to maximize improvement in a year"

That would definitely be clickbait though, as there are probably about 10 people in the entire applicant pool that could be in my very unique situation haha.

I'd watch your video.

 

[DoctorFate]

I'd watch your video.

haha, TL DR I had an excellent application (high stat, 3 pubs, strong leadership, and a unique skill set (machine learning/statistics)) but literally 0 american clinical experience. That's the easiest to fix, thankfully.
Not many people are dumb enough to make that mistake, and if they are, then they probably don't have these other accomplishments lol. So not exactly a typical reapplicant story. If I make a vid, I will DM it to you haha.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

haha, TL DR I had an excellent application (high stat, 3 pubs, strong leadership, and a unique skill set (machine learning/statistics)) but literally 0 clinical experience. That's the easiest to fix, thankfully.
Not many people are dumb enough to make that mistake, and if they are, then they probably don't have these other accomplishments lol. So not exactly a typical reapplicant story. If I make a vid, I will DM it to you haha.

tbh, clinical hours are overrated. I applied with 50 hrs but with an LM of 81. I really think all you need to prove is that you know what you are getting into. It's how you write about those clinical hours that really matter.

 

[DoctorFate]

tbh, clinical hours are overrated. I applied with 50 hrs but with an LM of 81. I really think all you need to prove is that you know what you are getting into. It's how you write about those clinical hours that really matter.

From experience, I can say that for me this was definitely not the case. The most significant difference in my app by far is clinical hours. At this time last year I had 1 II. Rn, I have 9. (LM 77 both years) I had 150 hours last year from international clinicals (count much less), and 600 this year. Of course, the way I wrote about it could definitely have compounded the issue, but I doubt my writing style would have given me 8 more IIs last year.

A lot of people (including the famed Dr. Gray on application renovation) have said the opposite and that research is overrated. Also something hasn't been true in my personal experience.

Do you go to a top undergrad? I was told when I applied that clinicals might matter less for those from top schools.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

From experience, I can say that for me this was definitely not the case. The most significant difference in my app by far is clinical hours. At this time last year I had 1 II. Rn, I have 9. (LM 77 both years) I had 150 hours last year from international clinicals (count much less), and 600 this year. Of course, the way I wrote about it could definitely have compounded the issue, but I doubt my writing style would have given me 8 more IIs last year.

A lot of people (including the famed Dr. Gray on application renovation) have said the opposite and that research is overrated. Also something hasn't been true in my personal experience.

Do you go to a top undergrad? I was told when I applied that clinicals might matter less for those from top schools.

Congrats on your II's. I had almost no research experience and I did go to a top Ivy. However, for the 50 hours, I wrote some big production for them, like some sentimental gut-wrenching stories. They worked wonders.

 

[MyOdyssey]

haha, TL DR I had an excellent application (high stat, 3 pubs, strong leadership, and a unique skill set (machine learning/statistics)) but literally 0 american clinical experience. That's the easiest to fix, thankfully.
Not many people are dumb enough to make that mistake, and if they are, then they probably don't have these other accomplishments lol. So not exactly a typical reapplicant story. If I make a vid, I will DM it to you haha.

How many clinical hours did you have going into your second cycle?

 

[MyOdyssey]

Congrats on your II's. I had almost no research experience and I did go to a top Ivy. However, for the 50 hours, I wrote some big production for them, like some sentimental gut-wrenching stories. They worked wonders.

How did you manage your LORs in order to ensure that they were excellent?

So what was your golden ticket to T20 land?

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

How did you manage your LORs in order to ensure that they were excellent?

So what was your golden ticket to T20 land?

I asked to see my letters. I think the golden ticket is the super high stats (everyone I know who has 80+ got into a t20) and the narrative.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I asked to see my letters. I think the golden ticket is the narrative.

So you had to indicate that you didn’t waive your right to see your letters?

Your LM > 80 was probably your Golden Ticket.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

So you had to indicate that you didn’t waive your right to see your letters?

Your LM > 80 was probably your Golden Ticket.

No. because you waive the right after you have already seen them. Just so you know, this right you waive has to do with potential litigation should you not get accepted and allege discrimination. If you waive your right, the LOR can't be introduced as evidence.

 

[MyOdyssey]

No. because you waive the right after you have already seen them. Just so you know, this right you waive has to do with potential litigation should you not get accepted and allege discrimination. If you waive your right, the LOR can't be introduced as evidence.

Interesting and good to know.

 

[DoctorFate]

How many clinical hours did you have going into your second cycle?

I had 150 hours last year from international clinicals (count much less), and 600 this year.

Congrats on your II's. I had almost no research experience and I did go to a top Ivy. However, for the 50 hours, I wrote some big production for them, like some sentimental gut-wrenching stories. They worked wonders.

When I first began pre-med, I was told that your undergrad didn't matter at all. I received admission to Cornell (lower ivy, but still probably considered a top school), and ultimately turned it down because pretty much everyone on SDN and r/premed said undergrad reputation is of little importance. I even saw that med school adcom survey showing that undergrad prestige was ranked of "low importance"

In the past year, I've begun to see how wrong that is. What blew my mind further was how that same survey 4 years prior showed undergrad prestige in "highest importance" and some adcoms here suggested the reason it was later marked lower was because of the backlash the original got rather than minds actually changing.

I've come to realize that much of this same story applies to medical schools and residencies as well. A brief look at schools match lists makes that clear, even when candidates have almost equal step scores and research productivity.

My apologies, I dont mean to say your success was solely because of your undergrad. Absolutely not, just from your scores (and I assume you have other factors) you are exceptional. But I have seen a consistent theme on these site of people from top undergrads being able to "get away" with less of things typically considered required such as clinicals or even research (for the T20). Among my friends from state schools with a gpa of at least 3.9 and and mcat of at least 520, wonderful applicants with low clinicals were mostly shut out. People with great stats but low research didn't receive a single T20 invite.

These things clearly matter more than people generally want to admit.

I asked to see my letters. I think the golden ticket is the super high stats (everyone I know who has 80+ got into a t20) and the narrative.

Another excellent piece of advice that a lot of people advise against. While letters don't generally make the difference, a bad letter will break you, and a collection of stunning letters (rare) can really help your application. I had the misfortune of having one mediocre, maybe even bad letter last year, and a close friend of mine had two. I've come to realize unhelpful LoRs may be more common than many think.

So you had to indicate that you didn’t waive your right to see your letters?

Your LM > 80 was probably your Golden Ticket.

I mentioned this misconception on this site and r/premed a few times. People seem to believe that if you waive your right to see your LoR, you are forbidden from seeing them, which is untrue. The language of the statement is very clear: you are just waiving your LEGAL RIGHT to see them, not saying that you will never see them. All the waiver does is make it so that you can't demand to see your LoRs. Your recommenders are free to voluntarily show you whatever they want. You are also free to make conditions such as "I will only submit the LoRs that are voluntarily shown to me". That is your right too.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I had 150 hours last year from international clinicals (count much less), and 600 this year.

When I first began pre-med, I was told that your undergrad didn't matter at all. I received admission to Cornell (lower ivy, but still probably considered a top school), and ultimately turned it down because pretty much everyone on SDN and r/premed said undergrad reputation is of little importance. I even saw that med school adcom survey showing that undergrad prestige was ranked of "low importance"

In the past year, I've begun to see how wrong that is. What blew my mind further was how that same survey 4 years prior showed undergrad prestige in "highest importance" and some adcoms here suggested the reason it was later marked lower was because of the backlash the original got rather than minds actually changing.

I've come to realize that much of this same story applies to medical schools and residencies as well. A brief look at schools match lists makes that clear, even when candidates have almost equal step scores and research productivity.

My apologies, I dont mean to say your success was solely because of your undergrad. Absolutely not, just from your scores (and I assume you have other factors) you are exceptional. But I have seen a consistent theme on these site of people from top undergrads being able to "get away" with less of things typically considered required such as clinicals or even research (for the T20). Among my friends from state schools with a gpa of at least 3.9 and and mcat of at least 520, wonderful applicants with low clinicals were mostly shut out. People with great stats but low research didn't receive a single T20 invite.

These things clearly matter more than people generally want to admit.


Another excellent piece of advice that a lot of people advise against. While letters don't generally make the difference, a bad letter will break you, and a collection of stunning letters (rare) can really help your application. I had the misfortune of having one mediocre, maybe even bad letter last year, and a close friend of mine had two. I've come to realize unhelpful LoRs may be more common than many think.

I mentioned this misconception on this site and r/premed a few times. People seem to believe that if you waive your right to see your LoR, you are forbidden from seeing them, which is untrue. The language of the statement is very clear: you are just waiving your LEGAL RIGHT to see them, not saying that you will never see them. All the waiver does is make it so that you can't demand to see your LoRs. Your recommenders are free to voluntarily show you whatever they want. You are also free to make conditions such as "I will only submit the LoRs that are voluntarily shown to me". That is your right too. I have a friend who requested 11 LoRs and only kept the ones in his committee packet that the recommenders showed him. Multiple times, his interviewers have mentioned his exceptional LoRs so I strongly recommend this approach.

My apologies for the dissertation lol.

@srirachamayonnaise

So I’m a little unclear on how this works in practical terms.

Is this how it goes:
1. Ask a recommender whether s/he can write a strong letter of support (perhaps attach a CV highlighting achievements the recommender may not be aware of).

2. Recommender says “of course” and uploads the letter on AMCAS’ site.

3. How do you then ask to see the letter and isn’t it already too late since the letter has already been uploaded?

 

[MyOdyssey]

I had 150 hours last year from international clinicals (count much less), and 600 this year.

When I first began pre-med, I was told that your undergrad didn't matter at all. I received admission to Cornell (lower ivy, but still probably considered a top school), and ultimately turned it down because pretty much everyone on SDN and r/premed said undergrad reputation is of little importance. I even saw that med school adcom survey showing that undergrad prestige was ranked of "low importance"

In the past year, I've begun to see how wrong that is. What blew my mind further was how that same survey 4 years prior showed undergrad prestige in "highest importance" and some adcoms here suggested the reason it was later marked lower was because of the backlash the original got rather than minds actually changing.

I've come to realize that much of this same story applies to medical schools and residencies as well. A brief look at schools match lists makes that clear, even when candidates have almost equal step scores and research productivity.

My apologies, I dont mean to say your success was solely because of your undergrad. Absolutely not, just from your scores (and I assume you have other factors) you are exceptional. But I have seen a consistent theme on these site of people from top undergrads being able to "get away" with less of things typically considered required such as clinicals or even research (for the T20). Among my friends from state schools with a gpa of at least 3.9 and and mcat of at least 520, wonderful applicants with low clinicals were mostly shut out. People with great stats but low research didn't receive a single T20 invite.

These things clearly matter more than people generally want to admit.


Another excellent piece of advice that a lot of people advise against. While letters don't generally make the difference, a bad letter will break you, and a collection of stunning letters (rare) can really help your application. I had the misfortune of having one mediocre, maybe even bad letter last year, and a close friend of mine had two. I've come to realize unhelpful LoRs may be more common than many think.

I mentioned this misconception on this site and r/premed a few times. People seem to believe that if you waive your right to see your LoR, you are forbidden from seeing them, which is untrue. The language of the statement is very clear: you are just waiving your LEGAL RIGHT to see them, not saying that you will never see them. All the waiver does is make it so that you can't demand to see your LoRs. Your recommenders are free to voluntarily show you whatever they want. You are also free to make conditions such as "I will only submit the LoRs that are voluntarily shown to me". That is your right too. I have a friend who requested 11 LoRs and only kept the ones in his committee packet that the recommenders showed him. Multiple times, his interviewers have mentioned his exceptional LoRs so I strongly recommend this approach.

My apologies for the dissertation lol.

I suspect premed prestige matters most to the most selective medical schools and less so to state schools.

There’s a certain logic to favoring the more prestigious undergrad backgrounds in that grades in STEM classes are usually curved and highly selective undergrads therefore pit excellent test takers/students against one another. The problem is that it doesn’t count for rampant grade inflation at said undergrads.

 

[DoctorFate]

I suspect premed prestige matters most to the most selective medical schools and less so to state schools.

There’s a certain logic to favoring the more prestigious undergrad backgrounds in that grades in STEM classes are usually curved and highly selective undergrads therefore pit excellent test takers/students against one another. The problem is that it doesn’t count for rampant grade inflation at said undergrads.

Haha yup, the average grade at several top schools is an A-. The average grade in many state schools science classes is typically a C+ to B-.

Of course the notable exceptions are MIT, Berkley, and Caltech. A few more exceptions, though not as extreme, are Cornell and Georgia Tech. I can easily say that a 3.5 at MIT is vastly superior to a 4.0 at my state school. In fact, my friend that is in Harvard med MD-PhD went to MIT undergrad and had 0 publications, just a very high GPA. I have no doubt that was a critical factor in his acceptance.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

@srirachamayonnaise

So I’m a little unclear on how this works in practical terms.

Is this how it goes:
1. Ask a recommender whether s/he can write a strong letter of support (perhaps attach a CV highlighting achievements the recommender may not be aware of).

2. Recommender says “of course” and uploads the letter on AMCAS’ site.

3. How do you then ask to see the letter and isn’t it already too late since the letter has already been uploaded

before you even ask them to write the letter, ask whether it's ok for them to show you the letter when it is done.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I had 150 hours last year from international clinicals (count much less), and 600 this year.

When I first began pre-med, I was told that your undergrad didn't matter at all. I received admission to Cornell (lower ivy, but still probably considered a top school), and ultimately turned it down because pretty much everyone on SDN and r/premed said undergrad reputation is of little importance. I even saw that med school adcom survey showing that undergrad prestige was ranked of "low importance"

In the past year, I've begun to see how wrong that is. What blew my mind further was how that same survey 4 years prior showed undergrad prestige in "highest importance" and some adcoms here suggested the reason it was later marked lower was because of the backlash the original got rather than minds actually changing.

I've come to realize that much of this same story applies to medical schools and residencies as well. A brief look at schools match lists makes that clear, even when candidates have almost equal step scores and research productivity.

My apologies, I dont mean to say your success was solely because of your undergrad. Absolutely not, just from your scores (and I assume you have other factors) you are exceptional. But I have seen a consistent theme on these site of people from top undergrads being able to "get away" with less of things typically considered required such as clinicals or even research (for the T20). Among my friends from state schools with a gpa of at least 3.9 and and mcat of at least 520, wonderful applicants with low clinicals were mostly shut out. People with great stats but low research didn't receive a single T20 invite.

These things clearly matter more than people generally want to admit.


Another excellent piece of advice that a lot of people advise against. While letters don't generally make the difference, a bad letter will break you, and a collection of stunning letters (rare) can really help your application. I had the misfortune of having one mediocre, maybe even bad letter last year, and a close friend of mine had two. I've come to realize unhelpful LoRs may be more common than many think.

I mentioned this misconception on this site and r/premed a few times. People seem to believe that if you waive your right to see your LoR, you are forbidden from seeing them, which is untrue. The language of the statement is very clear: you are just waiving your LEGAL RIGHT to see them, not saying that you will never see them. All the waiver does is make it so that you can't demand to see your LoRs. Your recommenders are free to voluntarily show you whatever they want. You are also free to make conditions such as "I will only submit the LoRs that are voluntarily shown to me". That is your right too. I have a friend who requested 11 LoRs and only kept the ones in his committee packet that the recommenders showed him. Multiple times, his interviewers have mentioned his exceptional LoRs so I strongly recommend this approach.

My apologies for the dissertation lol.

It's BS when people tell you pedigree doesn't matter. It's like saying belonging to skull and bones is not gonna give you any advantage in life. People SAY that because it just sounds egalitarian. We are hardly in such a utopia society. Prestige begets prestige. Pedigree perpetuates itself.

 

[MyOdyssey]

before you even ask them to write the letter, ask whether it's ok for them to show you the letter when it is done.

What do you suggest doing if I’ve already asked them to write the letter and they’ve already written it.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

What do you suggest doing if I’ve already asked them to write the letter and they’ve already written it.

Ask them whether they can show it to you now. If not, I would not select them to be submitted to schools. I contacted 5 writers and one said she wouldn't show it to me and I dropped her. I am sure she would write something nasty about me even though I got A+'s in her class. She was a bit of pissed off at how I spotted her mistakes in class and corrected her because I didn't want the class to be misled.

 

[DoctorFate]

Ask them whether they can show it to you now. If not, I would not select them to be submitted to schools. I contacted 5 writers and one said she wouldn't show it to me and I dropped her. I am sure she would write something nasty about me even though I got A+'s in her class. She was a bit of pissed off at how I spotted her mistakes in class and corrected her because I didn't want the class to be misled.

Out of curiosity why did you even ask her to write a letter, knowing that? Just in case she might have appreciated it and written you a great one?

 

[DoctorFate]

It's BS when people tell you pedigree doesn't matter. It's like saying belonging to skull and bones is not gonna give you any advantage in life. People SAY that because it just sounds egalitarian. We are hardly in such a utopia society. Prestige begets prestige. Pedigree perpetuates itself.

Yea haha, my faculty interviewer at my T5 school went to dartmouth undergrad, Stanford med, hopkins residency, then now is an attending at this T5. Somewhere in there he attended Vanderbilt too.

Breaking in is much harder than staying in.

 

[deleted1025488]

I fundamentally don't understand how you can even get a writer who will write a non-neutral, i.e. negative letter. 90% of the time most of these people are writing multiple letters and have a track record of writing letters for premed(s) successfully. They WANT to help you, and you can easily tell which ones don't; like if a prof is actively destroying their students with unfair exams, is generally inconsiderate, doesn't give a poop about their class and only focuses on their lab, etc. don't ask for a letter even if you aced the class.

All my letter writers had written for upperclassmen before me, and the TAs told me they were good letter writters, and upfront these profs were all extremely kind. Most students follow suit. I can't imagine directly asking to read their letters would have amounted to anything; it just feels weird.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Out of curiosity why did you even ask her to write a letter, knowing that? Just in case she might have appreciated it and written you a great one?

yeah. just wanted to try my luck.

 

[deleted1025488]

Yea haha, my faculty interviewer at my T5 school went to dartmouth undergrad, Stanford med, hopkins residency, then now is an attending at this T5. Somewhere in there he attended Vanderbilt too.

Breaking in is much harder than staying in.

A lot of 'prestigous' hospitals have fellows and faculty from strong flagship state programs. It's not really that skewed beyond residency tbh. Not going to deny that places like massgen have a lot of harvard MD's but it's no where near as pronounced as residency. Also those folks are making the same as docs at BU, Tufts, or any other respected hospital in a decent area.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Ask them whether they can show it to you now. If not, I would not select them to be submitted to schools. I contacted 5 writers and one said she wouldn't show it to me and I dropped her. I am sure she would write something nasty about me even though I got A+'s in her class. She was a bit of pissed off at how I spotted her mistakes in class and corrected her because I didn't want the class to be misled.

Asking to see it has to happen before the letter is uploaded to AMCAS, correct? Once uploaded it can’t be pulled back?

What about if I use Interfolio?

 

[deleted936268]

Haha yup, the average grade at several top schools is an A-. The average grade in many state schools science classes is typically a C+ to B-.

Of course the notable exceptions are MIT, Berkley, and Caltech. A few more exceptions, though not as extreme, are Cornell and Georgia Tech. I can easily say that a 3.5 at MIT is vastly superior to a 4.0 at my state school. In fact, my friend that is in Harvard med MD-PhD went to MIT undergrad and had 0 publications, just a very high GPA. I have no doubt that was a critical factor in his acceptance.

Are you saying here Cornell and GT are known for grade deflation like MIT etc

 

[deleted1025488]

Are you saying here Cornell and GT are known for grade deflation like MIT etc

Grade deflation is fake news...I go to a school in the t10 known for "grade deflation" but intro premed classes are curved to B+/A- and upper levels you almost an't get lower than an A.

Maybe only Berkeley, since they have so many people.

 

[deleted936268]

Grade deflation is fake news...I go to a school in the t10 known for "grade deflation" but intro premed classes are curved to B+/A- and upper levels you almost an't get lower than an A.

Maybe only Berkeley, since they have so many people.

I agree. But from adcom perception, are Cornell and GT deflation in the ballpark of MIT, even if just a little less? Is it that well known?

 

[MyOdyssey]

Grade deflation is fake news...I go to a school in the t10 known for "grade deflation" but intro premed classes are curved to B+/A- and upper levels you almost an't get lower than an A.

Maybe only Berkeley, since they have so many people.

At my T20 undergrad, intro bio, intro chem, non-calc physics, and orgo were curved to B-/C+. Calc physics was curved to A-/B+.

 

[DoctorFate]

Are you saying here Cornell and GT are known for grade deflation like MIT etc

Yes, but i said "not as extreme" because its not quite to the same level. Idk whether med schools are aware of, or care about those differences.

 

[DoctorFate]

Grade deflation is fake news...I go to a school in the t10 known for "grade deflation" but intro premed classes are curved to B+/A- and upper levels you almost an't get lower than an A.

Maybe only Berkeley, since they have so many people.

Idk man, my friends at MIT and Berkeley and my acquaintances at Caltech do not share that viewpoint.

 

[DoctorFate]

Asking to see it has to happen before the letter is uploaded to AMCAS, correct? Once uploaded it can’t be pulled back?

What about if I use Interfolio?

Any number of letters can be uploaded to AMCAS. You later have to choose which letters to send to schools. You can just choose the letters you are most comfortable sending.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Any number of letters can be uploaded to AMCAS. You later have to choose which letters to send to schools. You can just choose the letters you are most comfortable sending.

Same with Interfolio?

 

[DoctorFate]

Same with Interfolio?

As far as I know, interfolio is just the service amcas uses. All your letters have to go through interfolio, processed and accepted into your amcas system. Then you assign the letters you want to each school.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

As far as I know, interfolio is just the service amcas uses. All your letters have to go through interfolio, processed and accepted into your amcas system. Then you assign the letters you want to each school.

Unless this changed in the years since I applied, this isn’t true. I didn’t use interfolio and had my letters directly sent to amcas.

 

[deleted1025488]

I totally get what you're saying and 90% of the time it is true. Maybe more (95%?)

But, there are some professors that are simply terrible or outdated. One professor in particular was old, 65+. He made a point to always say all the positives and negatives of the very few students he wrote rec letters for (only the top 2% of his class, where the average was a 70%). That was just how he believed rec letters should be written.

In another case, what a recommender sees as amazing can differ from what you, as a student, need. One specific case that negatively impacted my friend is that his hospital volunteering recommender talked about his "nonclinical volunteering". Since volunteers were not directly involved in administering treatment, the hospital designated the position as nonclinical. Yet, by any admissions officers standards, it absolutely would be clinical. I figured out this issue, and helped address for all subsequent years when my friend had an unexpectedly poor application cycle.

I mean I get your point but do you seriously think a misrepresentation of the position is going to sink an application, if affect it at all? A LoR from a volunteering position is not meant to do anything other than provide a supporting voice to the notion that you are (supposed to be, at least) an empathetic, kind, caring, etc. person. Maybe they describe an encounter or anecdote. Why would them calling it nonclinical affect anything? You yourself write whether it's clinical or not, and describe is at so; if the commitee thinks it's clinical then why would it matter?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Pedigree can certainly help. It is definitely a positive factor if you go to HYPS schools. If you don’t, you’re not necessarily going to see any handicap.

 

[jhmmd]

Asking to see it has to happen before the letter is uploaded to AMCAS, correct? Once uploaded it can’t be pulled back?

What about if I use Interfolio?

A lot of med schools don't accept Interfolio anymore. Check w/individual schools

 

[jhmmd]

Yes, but i said "not as extreme" because its not quite to the same level. Idk whether med schools are aware of, or care about those differences.

Med schools are aware of it.
Most of my pre-med classes were NOT graded on a curve. Hence the name "weeder" classes. You're lucky to get a professor who curves, and a standard curve is 75% +/- 25% standard deviation around the mean.

 

[DoctorFate]

Unless this changed in the years since I applied, this isn’t true. I didn’t use interfolio and had my letters directly sent to amcas.

From the AAMC: "You can upload letters electronically via the AMCAS Letter Writer Application, or Interfolio"

You probably chose to do it directly. Interfolio is another option many choose.

 

[DoctorFate]

I mean I get your point but do you seriously think a misrepresentation of the position is going to sink an application, if affect it at all? A LoR from a volunteering position is not meant to do anything other than provide a supporting voice to the notion that you are (supposed to be, at least) an empathetic, kind, caring, etc. person. Maybe they describe an encounter or anecdote. Why would them calling it nonclinical affect anything? You yourself write whether it's clinical or not, and describe is at so; if the commitee thinks it's clinical then why would it matter?

He received that feedback from his top choice when he later contacted them to ask why he didn't even get an II when his stats were substantially above their averages.

As Goro and I think Gonnif (or maybe gyngyn idk) have said a few times, adcoms often cross check your LoRs with your activities. If there's a serious discrepancy in hours or description it can be a substantial cause for concern or rejection. Goro noted a few examples of times when such a discrepancy led to rejection. I'll try to see if I can find the post a bit later when I reach home.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

From the AAMC: "You can upload letters electronically via the AMCAS Letter Writer Application, or Interfolio"

You probably chose to do it directly. Interfolio is another option many choose.

Yes. I was responding to this:

All your letters have to go through interfolio, processed and accepted into your amcas system.

which isn’t true, as you’ve just shown.

 

[DoctorFate]

Med schools are aware of it.
Most of my pre-med classes were NOT graded on a curve. Hence the name "weeder" classes. You're lucky to get a professor who curves, and a standard curve is 75% +/- 25% standard deviation around the mean.

I would guess they were aware of it too. Sorry, what I meant was, I dont know how med schools differentiate between schools like MIT and Caltech, which are very famously extremely difficult, and a school such as Cornell, that is still quite hard, but not to quite the same level. Idk if all 3 are equally viewed (3.5 MIT=3.5 Cornell=4.0 state school) or if there's degrees (3.5 MIT=3.75 Cornell=4.0 state school) or etc.

I suspect this varies a lot by school and no one could give a standardized answer.

 

[DoctorFate]

Yes. I was responding to this:


which isn’t true, as you’ve just shown.

Ohh, gotcha. My apologies, I meant that towards the asker, and even then I assumed that all his letters went through. Terrible wording on my part sorry.