Abstract: Faculty serve three to four year terms on admissions committees, so they can vary significantly year-to-year with shifting priorities over time. Committee members filter applications through their experiences with past students, including both successful “rough diamonds” and problematic cases, creating informal risk assessment frameworks influenced by survivorship and affinity bias. Rather than trying to “stand out,” the strongest applicants demonstrate clear program fit by showing community impact and demonstrating how their target program will help them achieve their career goals, as committees prioritize building engaged learning communities over selecting the highest-scoring candidates.
It’s never a good idea to predict what admissions committees will do. While many admissions professionals, consultants, and influencers offer the same general advice about what admissions committees want, the behavior of hundreds of committees cannot be generalized. This article provides insights into how admissions committees make decisions as they build a class of future professionals.
Voters and Influencers
Admissions committees are permanent standing committees of their program with the charge of ensuring that entering students possess the required qualifications to succeed. Faculty members run the admissions committee as voting members, supported by non-voting administrators and deans. Ideally, every department has a representative on the committee; medical schools can have dozens of members that represent the preclinical and clinical faculty. Sometimes, alumni or upperclassmen are approved by the faculty to serve on the committee. In contrast, the admissions committees of other health professions programs may have around a dozen members.
Unlike the designated dean or director of admissions, each faculty member on the admissions committee serves a fixed term of three or four years, with an elected chair serving in their last two years. Chairs vote on files only when a tiebreaker is needed, but they can also steer decisions towards a consensus. The chairs can empower a small executive subcommittee (for example, with a vice chair who will be chairing the next cycle and the immediate past chair) to oversee screening, review primary applications (including situational judgment tests or recorded video screening interviews), and extend interview invitations. Consequently, the preferences of an admissions committee, especially when selecting alternates for offers, may evolve and change from year to year.
Each committee’s term typically starts after commencement (May or June). All committee members (including ex officio non-voting members) must complete onboarding, interviewing, and implicit bias training as admissions office staff and other contracted reviewers screen applications. In addition, any changes to admissions policies need to be approved by February/March so they can be posted on websites and catalogs like the AAMC Medical School Admissions Requirements or the ADEA Dental School Explorer in April.
File deliberations within a large medical school admissions committee are difficult to manage. An applicant is presented by a staff member (like the assistant director of admissions), followed by an initial evaluation impression (for example, from an executive subcommittee member). Sometimes another faculty member who has also reviewed the entire file and interview day evaluations recommends an action (offer-eligible, alternate/waitlist, or reject); usually, the outcome is obvious, and an action is taken by consensus. Those who are “borderline” receive more attention.
Other non-voting ex officio committee members may also have standing to recommend candidates. Liaisons for special educational tracks – such as dual-degree or scholarly tracks for community health, research, business, or health policy/law – arrange these applicants’ schedules to interview with program directors and current students. Their recommendation is also taken into consideration when a candidate’s file is presented.
Ultimately, the admissions committee must fill all the seats in their class, as permitted by accreditation, even if this means sending midnight-hour offers to candidates on the alternate list. Admissions staff document the decisions made, the rubrics used, and recruitment outcomes for school leadership, accreditation reports, and public reporting. Reporting for the prior cycle is finalized by October, and all medical schools receive the list of matriculated students, allowing them to compare their admissions outcomes with those of their peers.
Accusations of improper decisions made by admissions committees, which already face outside scrutiny, are handled very seriously. University counsel works closely with admissions leaders to develop policies managing conflicts of interest. Faculty with close relationships with individual applicants must declare potential conflicts of interest in advance and are excluded from participating in those applicants’ files. “Pressure” from significant donors or university leadership to encourage admission of a desired candidate must be mitigated by admissions committee leadership and properly documented by the admissions office for review by the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME) or a similar body during accreditation visits.
Impressions and Ghosts: Who Lives in a Faculty Voter’s Head
Each admissions committee faculty member must reserve time for “service to the program,” especially if they do not run a research project. Most participate in file review (up to 10 hours in their 40-hour work week), which is not part of their job description or usually given much weight in tenure decisions. However, each faculty member brings in their experience working with current students and alumni, which informs the filters they use to view applicants.
One of the most important questions admissions deans and directors can ask prospective or onboarding admissions committee members is to describe their most memorable student or mentee. All faculty members take their educator role seriously, and many will have memories of “troublesome” peers or students etched in their memories. They remember seeing the red flags and the frustrating remediation process. When such memories are shared by multiple faculty and administrators, applicants with similar profiles to the troublesome ex-students often require more consideration.
Many medical school student influencers enjoy commenting on their social media accounts about what makes an applicant stand out, often inviting administrators or faculty members who have served on admissions committees. Most admissions committee veterans share their idealized candidate based on the aggregate impressions they have had with applicants and students. Premeds who view these videos often feel they must judge themselves against these ideals, as if all candidates meet a template that the influencers and their classmates happen to match. At the very least, faculty members don’t want more troubled students who may fail academically or pose serious liabilities when working with patients. For every student who drops out, another who could have been successful is denied their dreams.
Risk-Taking: Predicting Success or Failure
The difference between an offer, an alternate priority placement, or a rejection could lie in the memories of past students who were successful or who failed. Longstanding admissions committee members – especially those in leadership positions – should vocally remind others about several “rough diamond” candidates whom the program accepted despite a suboptimal profile, and who have become star graduates and alumni. Many witnessed the miracles their student services offices have performed.
When do admissions committees take a chance if an applicant’s statistics or academic record do not match ideal expectations? Early in my career, a senior admissions professional commented that some faculty look at such candidates by assessing their “risk of failure.” To help the committee make its decision, one can ask: Will the program’s student services team be able to help the student when the first signs of trouble appear? Is the candidate willing to participate in a pre-orientation study skills boot camp? Can the candidate isolate their family’s challenges from their studies during critical exam periods? Are faculty members willing to mentor the student weekly during their first few months? The answers help the committee come to a final decision on how urgently they wish to extend an offer and a success plan.
Some committee members also serve on the student standing committee that identifies or remediates students at risk of not advancing in the curriculum or of failing. Due to the challenging situations they encounter regularly, their opinions tend to be highly influential. These faculty members do not want to participate in more than the usual number of difficult discussions on suspending or expelling students who fail classes or have professionalism citations.
Finally, every admissions committee wants to know if you have a teachable, pleasant personality to become a successful peer. Faculty at smaller institutions or in high-touch programs with an on-campus clinic (such as dentistry or optometry) want students who they would welcome working with every day.
The Safety of Affinity and Survivorship Bias
Anyone involved in admissions and strategic enrollment knows that the process is never bias-free. While outsiders may want a formulaic selection process that uses numeric inputs and outputs, committee members understand that metrics alone cannot create an engaged learning community. Many admissions committees want students at their best and most engaged on interview day, and some programs will deliberately connect candidates with potential faculty or students as possible mentors (often for casual conversations that are not formally evaluated). Admissions committee members should be straightforward and honest about their affinity biases, especially when discussing candidates’ hobbies or travel experiences. The challenge is ensuring that candidates are not viewed solely through or scored higher because of affinity bias.
Admissions committees and student influencer-mentors also share a perspective that is influenced by survivorship bias. Most succeeded as academic physicians by jumping through the hoops with excellent GPAs, test scores, clinical experience, community service, and reference letters, along with assertive personalities that helped them secure leadership positions and plum residency positions. Other less-experienced committee members may compare the applicants before them to the “exceptional” applicant they once were. Furthermore, student seats on admissions committees are awarded to exemplars of the program’s excellence, not to those who have barely passed their classes. As a result, admissions committees choose to interview confident-sounding “sure bets” that resemble themselves or reflect the school’s “brand” or reputation. The school administration often values the admissions committee as a guardian of quality control and improvement; it wants students whose high quality reaffirms the reputation of the program or school that also hired them as faculty.
Ex officio admissions, student services, and diversity representatives must be adept at challenging survivorship bias to ensure fair consideration of all applicants, including those from backgrounds unfamiliar to most committee members. The survivorship experience is significantly different for candidates from immigrant, first-generation, or under-resourced backgrounds, who often have limited access to mentors or guidance. By addressing how each applicant can thrive with their program’s curricular, community, and academic resources, admissions committees choose applicants eligible for an offer as members of the next incoming class. Over the long term, the proportion of first-generation students – currently estimated at around 15% at AMCAS programs – may more closely reflect the US college undergraduate population (according to FirstGen Forward, it’s over 50%).
Standing Out or Not?
Ironically, these biases may work against the premed applicant mantra of trying to “stand out” as an applicant. Successful applicants generally make an impression on the impact they have on their communities to date. The best applicants demonstrate how their target program will help them achieve their career goals through specific educational opportunities and resources. These applicants resemble other successful graduates who have gone on to become respected or distinguished innovators, clinicians, or educators who gladly cite the mentoring and opportunities their programs gave them. Even applicants with the highest metrics can fall short if they have not clearly identified the many ways a program will train them for success.
Frequently Asked Questions
Faculty typically serve fixed terms of three to four years, with elected chairs serving during their final two years. This rotation means committee preferences can evolve from year to year.
Faculty members are the voting members, while administrators, deans, and sometimes alumni or upperclassmen serve as non-voting participants. Chairs typically only vote to break ties but can guide consensus-building.
Yes. Faculty members filter applications through experiences with current students and alumni, particularly memorable “troublesome” cases and successful “rough diamond” admits who exceeded expectations.
Faculty with close relationships to applicants must declare conflicts in advance and are excluded from those decisions. Pressure from donors or leadership is documented and reviewed during accreditation visits.
Committees assess whether their student services can support the candidate, if the applicant will engage with remedial resources, and whether faculty are willing to provide additional mentoring during challenging periods.
Affinity bias is acknowledged but should be transparent. Committee members may connect more with candidates sharing similar backgrounds or interests, which diversity representatives work to balance.
No. While metrics matter, committees focus on building engaged learning communities. The strongest candidates demonstrate clear program fit and articulate how specific resources align with their goals.
Influencer advice often reflects idealized candidates based on aggregate impressions, but individual committee preferences vary significantly across programs and cycles.
Committees are increasingly recognizing that survivorship experiences differ greatly for candidates from immigrant, first-generation, or under-resourced backgrounds who may lack traditional mentorship access.
Rather than trying to “stand out,” focus on demonstrating community impact and showing clear investment in your chosen field through experiences that align with your target program’s mission and resources.
AI Disclosure: Gemini was used refine human drafted text. Claude.AI was used to generate drafts of the Abstract and Frequently Asked Questions sections.
