After being inspired at the conference, I got on the phone Monday and today and started talking to a couple of the different admissions officers at schools I thought might be particularly “friendly” to particularly “old” med applicants. The one college that was very welcoming a number of years ago was just as welcoming yesterday. (I spoke with the dean of admissions). However, they no longer post age ranges, MCAT and GPAs on their website as they did in the past. “We look more at the overall package” was the type answer I kept getting. “Age isn’t a factor with us.” How do I tell if this is hype to keep them from getting sued under age discrimination laws or if they’re really serious? If they’re really serious, then the school requires state residency to get in…and that requires a move…Just initial wonderings. I am not going to get up and move at the moment.
Vicki
To be honest, I don’t think this is a good use of your time. Work on putting together the best application package you can, and apply to the places that appeal to you. There is no list of “non-trad friendly schools,” and there won’t be. Yeah, there are probably some schools less likely to take an OPM but you aren’t going to be able to get that information anywhere.
You also can’t go by what has worked for others, so referring to a list of where people have gotten in doesn’t help either. Every single application is unique. They really DO look at each application and they really DO consider the “whole package.” So make your application kick-ass and make your list the one that includes any school you’d like to attend.
Mary
There are lies, damn lies, and then there statistics
I have to concur with the illustrious Dr. Renard on this. One of the most frequently asked questions asked on the forums is “what schools are non-trad friendly?” and the answer is “schools are good candidate friendly.” Even the the notion that more prestigious schools maybe more conservative in their candidate selection is not a useful concept as we have had members go to Harvard and one who will enter Columbia this year. These older members applied to these most competitive schools (columbia limits 9 interviews per seat!) and got in.
What is more important is working with a school to see what they would suggest to bolster your application. Sitting down with a dean BEFORE you apply and going over grades, MCAT, background, would be much more useful than trying to see if they are somehow non-trad friendly.
- gonnif Said:
I think most top schools acan be VERY conservative in the admissions of nontrads depending in large measure on that particular students academic background. For example, if a nontrad student has some academic deficiencies from say 15 years ago they have significantly overcome, my experience has been that many "top schools" consider this a death sentence since they can attract both traditional and nontraditionl students with perfect academic records. The ONLY exceptions I've ever seen to this are with those nontrads that have unique backgrounds, you're a URM, or can claim disadvantaged status.
Of course, I think this is the case for trads as well so perhaps my point is moot!
As for my own application to med school for the class entering in 2009, I haven't looked at ANY schools student make-up regarding trad versus nontrad. I think the fact that I've spent the past 2 summers with enrolled in medical school courses with VERY traditional students and had a complete blast with NO problems making friends, finding study partners, keeping up, ect, makes a HUGE difference for me as well.
Having said that, being around other URM students has become much more important to me and this is the ONLY selective criteria I used to select schools. This factor much more so that trad versus nontrad I believe can affect the academic experiences of students.
As you suggested. it is likely that the more conservative schools simply will look at previous bad grades, both trad and non-trad, and just use that as a reason to reject. In any case, being the best candidate is the best method for getting in.
I’m new. But, this is a question that I’ve been pondering as I make a decision as to whether or not to start this journey.
I read somewhere that medical schools don’t like to “waste spots” on candidates who will have a limited time to practice. For example, if I start now, I’ll be somewhere around 58 when I complete my residency. The “wasting spots” theory makes sense to me. Limited resources need to be allocated in the best manner possible. And, there are a lot of terrific traditional candidates out there.
I’m so glad I stumbled on this site. While I’m older than anyone I’ve seen here, it’s nice to know I’m not alone.
- L.Sullivan Said:
I read somewhere that medical schools don't like to "waste spots" on candidates who will have a limited time to practice. For example, if I start now, I'll be somewhere around 58 when I complete my residency. The "wasting spots" theory makes sense to me. Limited resources need to be allocated in the best manner possible. And, there are a lot of terrific traditional candidates out there.
- ihopetobeado2 Said:
I think another quite common question for those who visit this site is how to respond to the notion that older applicants won’t practice as long as their younger counterparts. First of all, realize that this notion is an ageist, specious sophism. Followers of this fallacy assume that medical practitioners will have to stop practicing at a certain age—usually somewhere around the 60s because that’s when Social Security kicks-in. This can’t be further from the truth. Easily, I can find surgeons and physicians who have practiced or who are currently practicing well past their 80s and 90s. On the other hand, I can easily find a sizeable number of medical students, residents, and physicians who while in their 20s left, by force or by choice, medicine altogether. “But,†these ageist minions may reply, “by the average lifespan. . .†Well, exactly, “by the average†we’re all going to get sick and die. “By the average†medicine is a colossal failure (how many people who are still healthy and alive today divided by how many people are living and have lived on this earth). So using your logic shouldn’t we just demolish the medical complex altogether and put the resources into something more productive? Like eugenics, maybe? We continue to support this behemoth medical complex because it is right and moral at least to try to alleviate sickness and to prolong life in spite of the overwhelming odds. “But,†the desperate ageists retort, “there are such limited resources. . .†Exactly. Residences and medical schools (no matter private or public) receive nearly all their funding from tax-supported Medicare, tax-supported student loans, and/or tax-supported government budget allocations. Who, “by the average†has paid the most in taxes? Yes, the older medical school applicants are the ones who have. The older applicants have more claim to these “limited resources†and are far more invested in becoming physicians. This is usually enough to shut the ageists down.
My own experience is that it is somewhat of a moving target. A lot of schools acutally prefer candidates with a bit of life experience to balance the academics. But even within a given school it varies from year to year. The year I entered UNECOM the average age of the entering class was 27 – with a range from probably 21 to 45 (me) – 2 years later and they were taking mostly straight throughs from undergraduate programs. I don’t know where they are now.
I do agree that most schools do try to look at the over all package, though there are some routine cut offs(usually for MCAT / GPA) that have to be imposed simple to get through the vast number of applications any one school recieves.
It was wise to talk to admissions ahead of time - if for no other reason than to be a possibly known and recognized name when the application goes in. It may make the difference between a second look and the reject bin .
I would not worry overly much about age though, except in making it an assest in every way possible during your application. Sell Life experience - …
With applying to medical school the adcoms are looking for candidates that they believe will not only complete their programs but will also be a source of pride as an alumnus. They do not want someone who will be pompous and arrogant, have poor bedside manners, or misdiagnose patients all of the time.
As such you should not be too concerned with wether or not schools are “non-traditional friendly”. You should concentrate on having your credentials optimal for admission and ensure that the school that you are accepted to is a right fit for YOU. Remember, at the same time that they are interviewing you, you are interviewing them. In addition, as a nontraditional student, especially if you are older than the average student, you will see that you have less in common than the average student. You will not want to go out clubbing or drinking every weekend. Rather, you will want to stay home and relax. Not to mention there are other expenses that you can use that drinking money for.
In a nutshell, do not make a list of schools that say that they are “nontraditional friendly”. They cannot discriminate based on age. Rather, look for schools that you believe you will be successful in, you agree with their philosophy, and is in an area that you like.
I actually don’t think that med schools are the ones promoting the “don’t waste a spot on an older candidate” idea. I only see this being spouted by pre-meds who pass these ideas around as if they were gospel truth. Yes, there probably is an age that is in the back of some AdComs’ minds as “too old” simply because it’s too old [in their minds, and they’ll never admit it or discuss it publicly]. But those who’ve worked in med schools for years (i.e. AdCom members) know that their graduates go on to all sorts of careers, not just practicing medicine, and this ‘too old = too short a career to practice’ isn’t on their minds.
Mary