Factors affecting reapplicant success at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine

Date of Completion

January 2000


Health Sciences, Education|Education, Higher




Admission to allopathic schools of medicine in the United States remains highly selective. The reapplicant pool represents an important segment of the total pool. The present study describes the reapplicant experience. Biographic and academic profile characteristics were compared for the 1993–1995 first-time and reapplicant matriculant classes, and for various subsets of the 1996 and 1997 University of Connecticut resident reapplicant pools. Reapplicant files were evaluated and catalogued with respect to initial academic profile, main enhancement activity, and outcome. The goal of the study was to determine whether and to what extent various main enhancement experiences could discriminate between reapplicant acceptance and denial within defined initial profile groups. Outcome by reapplication type was also assessed. ^ The accept rate for reapplicants was 32.4 percent. Review by initial profile group showed that 54 percent of high, 41 percent of middle, and 17 percent of low profile subjects were admitted. Review by enhancement program showed that 36 percent of academic, 33 percent of research, 27 percent of clinical/service, and 28 percent of other/unrelated groups were admitted. Review of the academic group showed that 41 percent of special masters, 42 percent of post baccalaureate, and 29 percent of related graduate program subjects were admitted. Review by reapplicant type showed that 34 percent of immediate and three or more application subjects were admitted, while 26 percent of one other application subjects were admitted. Discriminant function and logistic regression analyses were employed to identify biographic and academic variables that contributed to defining accept and deny group membership. ^ An expert review procedure was employed to determine case-by-case consensus enhancement program advice based on initial application data, and to determine if reapplicants pursued the enhancements that were recommended. There was a strong level of consensus among expert reviewers. Many reapplicants pursued main enhancements that were not recommended. ^ The study concludes that the reapplicant experience deserves more study. The investigator questions whether admissions committees give reapplicants sufficient credit for enhancements pursued and whether enhancement programs meet their objectives. The investigator concludes that medical admission and health professions premedical advisors need to provide reapplicants with more refined, sensitive, and focused counsel. ^