<p>Several reasons (listed in order of importance):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many colleges define “medical schools” broadly. They include in their data osteopathic medical schools, Caribbean medical schools, Indian medical schools, Polish medical schools, etc. Thus, if their student gets into ANY medical school, they count that has a success. Note that Cornell’s data specifically states allopathic medical school, the hardest type to get into. I’m sure a lot of those 3.4/30 applicants who are borderline candidates for allopathic medical schools actually got into osteopathic med schools and are in med school right now. So, Cornell’s reporting artificially depresses their percentage.</p></li>
<li><p>Their student quality is simply inferior. The stats of their freshmen aren’t as strong as the freshmen of Dartmouth. Throw in a bunch of transfers and the students simply aren’t as strong. If you look at the trend of acceptance percentages (with the exception of LAC’s who fudge their data), the stronger your student body, the more success they have at getting into med school.</p></li>
<li><p>For some reason Dartmouth is really good at convincing their weak candidates to take time off and improve their application. 3/4 of their applicants are alumni compared to Cornell’s 1/2. Cornell should really try to encourage marginal candidates to take time off. </p></li>
<li><p>Least important is probably the actual differences between the schools. Dartmouth is smaller so it may be easier to get a better LOR at Dartmouth. Honestly though, I don’t think there’s much difference between the two schools in terms of their premed programs.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You really have to do some critical thinking when some premed advising office throws a % at you. You can’t accept the numbers at face value unless you consider the data that goes into those numbers. To Cornell’s credit, it is as open as any school in the country with its data.</p>