<p>Be aware that none of these schools post the percentage of students who initially were interested in med school upon entry, but were discouraged from ultimately pursuing it, before the point of applying to them, due to poor grades and discouragement of the pre-med advisory people at their college.</p>
<p>“Be aware that none of these schools post the percentage of students who initially were interested in med school upon entry, but were discouraged from ultimately pursuing it, before the point of applying to them, due to poor grades and discouragement of the pre-med advisory people at their college.” </p>
<p>Wouldn’t that (discouragement of the pre-med advisory people) also be true of other schools and as such kind of even things out a bit…</p>
<p>I am not saying an 84% admit rate “proves” anything just that it is an “indicator” that a person can use along with other indicators to reach an informed decision. At least one other poster thinks going to a small LAC college hurts your chances of getting into med school…I just want to give that poster a little information that may cause him/her to pause and think about his/her preconceived notion.</p>
<p>monydad:</p>
<p>But they don’t have a “committee” that will decide whether to allow that student to apply, do they? I think I heard they have such a committe at JHU and other universities.</p>
<p>Post 37….</p>
<p>The Citadel…The Pride of South Carolina, at 149…. more information for me to use when I trash talk South Carolina….</p>
<p>I was speaking generally, I don’t know which specific schools have or don’t have particular committtees. I know that some do, and I know that some people do not make grades to justify applying to med school. </p>
<p>And I’ve read a couple specific posts to this point by LAC alums too, right here on CC.
Here’s one of them:</p>
<p>"My alma mater, a top LAC and rival to Amherst, claims 90% admissions - but the reality is that, given the weed out, the real number is closer to 25-30%. "</p>
<p>As for other schools which have less than 84% acceptance rate: differing weed-out practices aside, maybe more of those other students aren’'t as smart. The schools may have a less homogeneous student body. If a person with poor grades and poor MCATs applies from a given school, he may have a poorer chance of admission. That does not mean that you, with better grades and better MCATs from the same school, are in any way necessarily going to share his fate. At the end of the day each person applies on his own individual merits. In a very homogeneous student body the range of merits will be narrower. If it is homogeneously high more of them will get in. That does not mean you will get in, from that same school, if your individual merits are not comparable.</p>
<p>that’s assuming that weed-out is not the real issue.</p>
<p>In order to know something objective about the undergrad school’s influence on success at med school acceptance, how about taking the normalized difference of SAT/ACT at entrance and MCAT at exit of those who were accepted to some med school? The bigger the difference, the more the school’s influence and the less the student’s influence. Rough, but something objective. Is there a table somewhere?</p>
<p>“In order to know something objective about the undergrad school’s influence on success at med school acceptance, how about taking the normalized difference of SAT/ACT at entrance and MCAT at exit of those who were accepted to some med school?”</p>
<p>That would be great so long as you can persuade the entire student body, or a statistically significant random sample, to take the MCAT, so that the MCAT test-takers do not represent a biased sample of the underlying student population there, as is undoubtedly the typical case.</p>
<p>Interestingly, I now see that the quote I cited in #45 has been subsequently changed, months after it was posted, by it’s poster to be more completely institution non-specific. For what that’s worth. Must have taken some heat for it from the “protectors of the faith”, after I referenced it on his school’s sub-forum previously. He retained the gist of it however, as a general matter. And the original post was as I quoted.</p>
<p>“That would be great so long as you can persuade the entire student body, or a statistically significant random sample, to take the MCAT, so that the MCAT test-takers do not represent a biased sample of the underlying student population there, as is undoubtedly the typical case.”</p>
<p>Actually, I really am thinking very narrowly of only those who were admitted to some med school. The goal would be to rank schools by their influence on the success of med school acceptees. E.g., School A has a (normalized MCAT average - normalized SAT average) of, say, 100, and school B’s value is 200, meaning that school B has twice as much influence on successful med school acceptees as school A, thus removing the inherent SAT quality of students admitted at the undergrad level. It could mean the school B teaches twice as well as school A, even if school A’s MCAT and SAT scores are higher than school B’s. School B does more for the students.</p>
<p>Armed with this knowledge, a pre-med HS student with a given SAT score could choose among undergrad colleges admitting those in her score range, looking for the ones with the highest average MCAT score at graduation.</p>
<p>I stand corrected. Can’t read. Poor MCAT score, no doubt.</p>
<p>What vossron is suggesting is, very roughly, the kind of method Washington Monthly’s “social mobility” ranking attempts to apply (not using score differentials but predicted v. actual graduation rates.) I’ve seen no other public measurement that tries to isolate the effects of the school experience from the effects of the admissions process. </p>
<p>Williamsdad’s list appears to track average SAT scores closely. So you cannot assume it tells anything about the relative value each school adds. Or not enough, in my opinion, to override personal “fit” preferences. As vossron suggests, the best way to increase your med school chances may not be to go to the most selective college that admits you, but the one most likely to bring out your best performance (which may or may not be 2 different things).</p>
<p>The relatively strong performance of many LACs is interesting. But how significant is the 5-pt. spread between, say, Cornell and Harvard?</p>
<p>The Citadel 149… 42% The Pride of South Carolina </p>
<p>Cornell 161… 87% best school song</p>
<p>Harvard 166… 94% warm and friendly people </p>
<p>6% of all test takers did better than the mean of the test takers who went to Harvard</p>
<p>13% of all test takers did better than the mean of the test takers who went to Cornell </p>
<p>58% of all test takers did better than the mean of the test takers who went to The Citadel</p>
<p>Why don’t you like the Citadel, goeast?</p>
<p>williamsdad…</p>
<p>More dislike for the whole of South Carolina’s power structure than just The Citadel, however I do dislike the Citadel independent of it being located in South Carolina.</p>
<p>Between the duplicity of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and the rest of the South Carolina power structure during the election of 1800, and the recent rude breech of decorum of Rep. Joe Wilson just a few weeks ago there is much to dislike about the State of South Carolina’s “social elite.” If I was force to give just one reason for my dislike of South Carolina’s best families I would choose the shabby way they treated the Capitan Butler.</p>
<p>I googled “Capitan Butler” --sounds like a ship’s name-- and all that came up was an old TV series. So I suppose it’s something that was in the news lately and I don’t have a clue because I never watch the news.Could you clarify?</p>
<p>Gone with the Wind</p>
<p>Captain Butler and Gone with the Wind </p>
<p>perfect example of why it would be foolish to ignore vossron</p>
<p>From today’s New York Times</p>
<p>Charlene Marshall’s decision to marry Anthony D. Marshall, the only son of the New York socialite Brooke Astor, lifted her into a stratosphere that few people have ever known. But it has also pulled her into an untenable position: a central figure in the trial of her husband.
On Oct. 8, 2009 Mr. Marshall was found guilty of 14 of the 16 counts against him, including one of two first-degree grand larceny charges, the most serious he faced. Jurors convicted him of giving himself an unauthorized raise of about $1 million for managing his mother’s finances. Prosecutors contended that Mrs. Astor’s Alzheimer’s had advanced so far that there was no way she could have consented to this raise and other financial decisions that benefited Mr. Marshall.
Elizabeth Loewy, a prosecutor, said that Mr. Marshall defrauded his mother, who died in 2007 at age 105, because of his “preoccupation for getting money for Charlene.” Mr. Marshall, a Broadway producer and former diplomat who also worked for the C.I.A. for several years, married Charlene, his third wife, in 1992.
Charlene Tyler, born in Charleston, S.C., came from a well-respected, if not wealthy, family that claims President John Tyler as an ancestor. The second of five children, she was the daughter of a former Miss Charleston and an insurance salesman. She was known as respectful and gregarious, involved with the church from a young age. She attended Ashley Hall, a well-known prep school for girls, many from the upper reaches of Charleston society.
Ms. Marshall married her first husband, the Rev. Paul Gilbert, in Charleston, in 1968. A few years after serving at a church in New Jersey, Mr. Gilbert became pastor of St. Mary’s by the Sea in Northeast Harbor, Maine.
Ms. Marshall did not live like the affluent summer residents the church served, among them Mrs. Astor and her son. When she showed up at Cove End at 7 a.m. one day in the late 1980s to meet Mr. Marshall for a walk, the staff at Mrs. Astor’s home became alarmed, said Sandra Graves, 65, an assistant cook at the estate.
And Mrs. Astor was not happy when she found out her son was courting her pastor’s wife, she said. “She was very angry,” Ms. Graves said.
John Dobkin, a friend of Mrs. Astor’s, testified that as he once sat with her on the patio at Cove End, Mrs. Astor pointed toward the road and said, “That’s where Charlene would walk back and forth day after day trying to get Tony’s attention.”
Even Mr. Marshall’s lawyers have conceded that Mrs. Astor was not fond of her daughter-in-law (Mr. Marshall’s third wife), though they contend Mrs. Astor eventually realized Ms. Marshall made her son happy and that that - not trickery or forgery - was why she changed her will in her final years to restore her son’s inheritance, about $60 million.
Ms. Marshall, who is nearly 20 years younger than her spouse, sat mostly stone faced as prosecutors have invited witness after witness to talk about her. As she sat in the second row of the courtroom gallery day after day, she heard herself referred to as Miss Piggy; as a social climber who left her husband and their three children; and as the daughter-in-law Mrs. Astor never wanted.</p>