University of Colorado

Received rejection via e-mail today.

was able to confirm preferred date within 20 minutes of responding

Ditto.  Ouch. 

Reject 250. Top 15 med school

Also rejected. No clue what some of these programs are looking for. Would be nice to see why your application was filtered out.

I agree, this totally sucks. How are schools picking out interviewees?? Why do you get interviews to some of the top 10 programs and then middle tier schools reject. 

Step I >250 

Step 2>270

Talk about frustrating. 

Agreed. I have board scores in the same range as you and have the same problem. I was very interested in Colorado... Turns out they don't share that same interest. Also, ruins your weekend when you find that in your inbox on a saturday. I figured interviews/rejections were a M-F thing.

I get the frustration in the fact that it can affect one's confidence in the system.  But, if you're getting interviews at what you consider "top tier" programs and come from a "top" med school, why exactly does it bother you that what you consider a "middle tier" program decided not to interview you?  Why should they waste their time or yours if you would not want to go to their program or would much rather go somewhere else?  They probably only have a limited number of interview spots and would like to focus on people who might actually want to go to their program.  

The anonymity of this site also perpetuates the fallacies of ranking and randomness in this process.  Ranking, in that there are "top" or "middle" or "lower" tiers.  If you are going into clinical medicine, medicare dollars do not care from which program you trained.  If you are going into research, you are already versed in the field and recognize that advisors matter but that research ideas also are worth something for NIH dollars.  And with the exception of one particular brand, patients cannot really tell the difference.  It is foolish to "rank."  This is a "matching" process for a reason...connecting the applicant with the program with which they most connect.  

As for randomness, despite it all, medicine is a small professional community.  Surgery is a small field, and urology is one of the smallest specialties.  This is not merely a matter of board scores, it's a matter of people.  These programs are run by real people (who also read these message boards occasionally) and real people who are not just choosing what test score in whose company they want to spend 6 years, but which person. [There's a real administrative staff person at Georgetown, by the by, who may or may not have read the commentary, but consider their opinion of the vitriol spewed in their direction for choosing a way to go through a process that was most efficient for their needs].  Every program is different, but I will say that my natural instinct would be to give spots to people who have letters from people I trust, or people whom I've met, and maybe candidates with good scores as time permits.  But if I'm going to spend 6 years working with someone, I'd rather they have a 250 and a note from my friend Dr. Bob saying "Good gal, fun to work with, works hard, smart" than from someone with a 255 and no such letter.  Perhaps that could explain the differences in the interview habits?  

I do not know if I will match into urology, but I certainly hope that whatever should come to pass, that I will enter a field with colleagues who believe in a tincture of humility and an ounce of decorum.  

stop whining.  Its not all about board scores.

agreed. if everyone whined about something everytime they got a rejection then the threads would be littered with useless information.

Im a 3rd year student so take what I say with a grain of salt. Still remember from the process of med school applications that people with super high MCATs used to get rejected from some schools because those schools used to think why waste an interview on someone who will definitely get in in a better school. Could some programs think this way?

Nobody said it was all about board scores. I believe the main frustration is that people get interviews from some of the top programs in the nation, but rejected from much smaller programs. Board scores are just an objective way to judge the strength of someones application. Are they the end all? No... but they do correlate with the strength of the applicant more often than not.

maybe the "much smaller" programs dont get 400 applications and can spend more time thoroughly reading through the applications and letters of recommendation and determine who would be a good fit. there is more to the application than board scores (as objective a measure as that may be) and that's partly why the personal statement and letters of recommendation that are personalized carry a lot of weight because they can comment on the intangibles.

I'm starting to think that LOR's and the school you come from count just as much as board scores....after speaking candidly with an ex-program director of 7 years, I realize how much it truly is about "who you know" and who THEY know..meaning, they'll see a letter from a big-name, go "hey, I know and trust this guy", and then BAM, they invite you to interview.  Urology is a small world.  I was conflicted before the beginning of 4th year whether to take away rotations at "big-name" places for a "big" letter, or do aways at places where I thought I'd be a good fit.  I did the latter.  We'll see how it turns out :-O

I would not be so ignorant as to attempt to judge character based on what one spews onto a piece of paper in hopes of impressing an institution. I agree with your opinion concerning LOR's coming from people of highly respected positions and personal friends, but also argue that their numerous applicants who did not have the opportunity to work with friends of the programs applied to or high ranking individuals in the field of urology. In my opinion, this leaves the insitution to judge the application in terms of being qualified and the applicant in terms of character during the interview.

yes... alot to be said for friends of the program

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are a couple of additional comments to be made about the application process (and mid-level programs).

Keep in mind that each program has a minimal number of interview spots and ALL programs vet each applicant fully.  Also, it is pretty well known that with the ERAS system, many applicants apply to over fifty programs and, given the competitive nature of Urology, most applicants look phenomenol on paper. Hence, mid- and lower level programs try to evaluate how competitive they are for the applicant knowing that the top applicants will generally choose top programs if given the opportunity. 

Most programs use multiple factors when deciding which applicants to interview. These include the applicant's medical school, his/her board scores, his/her transcripts, his/her "C.V." (accomplishments), and the letters of recommendation.  Urology is a sufficiently small enough field that most faculty know each other; many have gone to school with one another, trained in residency/fellowship together, or even worked together on faculty somewhere. Hence, key phrases in letters of recommendation from friends/colleagues and/or phone calls from these friends/colleagues hold tremendous weight and can often help a candidate with lower grades/scores and occasionally hurt a candidate with stellar grades/scores/research history.  While scores are important, many programs use them as a baseline screening test (a cut-off below which no-one is offered an interview).  Then the other issues come into play.

An applicant's "fit" is crucial.  Faculty (and residents in the program) are looking for candidates who will "fit" into the program.  They often are looking for candidates who might show similar personality traits, hobbies, passions, academic interests, location, etc.  Tangentially, some programs might put more weight on collegiate/professional athletes (allegedly better at being team players) or those with a military background (allegedly better at not rocking the boat) or those with an accomplished history of research.  In regards to the latter, programs that might have minimal opportunities for research might feel that candidates with such a background or stated interest in research might not be interested in a program with minimal research activities. Programs also try to assess how happy a person would be at that program.  For example, an applicant who writes that surfing is his/her passion and spends every minute outside of medical school at the beach surfing might be viewed with some skepticism at a program in a land-locked state. 

The process is far from perfect and often seems unfair and illogical.  Still, rest assured that each program is trying to attract the best applicant they can just as each applicant is trying to get into the best program that they can.  Just wait until interviews; ultimate decisions are based on a very brief and often forced twenty minute interview.