Learn how to use Admit.org Cycle Results to track medical school interviews and decisions, with practical guidance from a medical student who has been through the application cycle.
One of the strangest parts of applying to medical school is reaching the point where you have done almost everything you can do and still have months of uncertainty ahead of you. You know when you submitted AMCAS, when your secondaries were completed, and when your letters arrived, but once your applications are complete, much of the admissions process happens completely outside your view. Medical schools are reviewing applications, sending interview invitations, making decisions, and moving applicants through different stages of consideration, while you may go weeks without receiving any new information about your own application.
Admit.org Cycle Results helps give applicants some visibility into that process by collecting self-reported application activity from other medical school applicants. You can see reported secondary submissions, interview invitations, acceptances, waitlists, rejections, withdrawals, and matriculation, while individual school pages allow you to look more closely at the applicants who have reported results and compare activity across multiple application cycles.
I want to be transparent that I did not use Admit.org Cycle Results during my own medical school application cycle. Looking at the feature now, though, I genuinely wish I had access to something like this when I was applying because there were long stretches of my cycle when I had very little idea what was happening behind the scenes. Having years of organized application data available would have helped me understand whether schools were beginning to send interviews, how long their interview seasons had historically continued, and whether applicants who interviewed around a certain time were beginning to report decisions.
Having personally gone through that waiting period also makes me appreciate how easily a useful tool can become stressful when you begin comparing every other applicant’s timeline with your own. If I were applying again today, I would absolutely use Admit.org Cycle Results, but I would use it to understand the broader medical school application cycle rather than trying to determine what an admissions committee thinks about my individual application.
What Is Admit.org Cycle Results?
Admit.org Cycle Results is a crowdsourced medical school application tracker that shows admissions activity reported by applicants during the current application cycle. The main page allows you to search medical schools and filter results by statuses that include secondary received, secondary submitted, interview, accepted, matriculation, waitlisted, rejected, and withdrawn.
The individual medical school pages provide even more useful information because you can see key statistics for that school’s reported applicant pool alongside applicant-level dates. Depending on what users have entered, these pages may show when an applicant submitted a secondary, when an interview invitation was received, when a decision arrived, and what the eventual result was. Admit.org currently also allows you to move between the 2026–2027, 2025–2026, and 2024–2025 cycles on these school pages, which makes the historical data particularly useful when you are trying to understand whether something happening this year is actually unusual.
I think the historical element is one of the strongest parts of the feature. A random forum post telling you that somebody received an interview this morning is one data point, while several application cycles showing interview activity continuing through a similar portion of the year give you a much broader perspective on how a school has historically moved through its applicants.
You still have to remember that everything you are looking at represents reported applicant activity, rather than a complete feed directly from a medical school’s admissions office. Admit.org cannot show you every applicant who received an interview or every application currently sitting in an admissions committee’s review queue, which is why I would use the data for patterns and context rather than precise predictions.
How I Would Use Admit.org Cycle Results During My Own Medical School Application Cycle
If I were applying again, I would probably start paying serious attention to Admit.org Cycle Results once most of my secondary applications were complete and interview season was beginning. During secondary season, my priority would still be finishing strong applications rather than watching what other applicants were doing, but once I reached the waiting period, Cycle Results could provide context that I simply did not have when I applied.
During my own medical school application cycle, I finished my secondaries by the last week of July. Once those applications were submitted, the process changed substantially because there were fewer things I could directly control. I could prepare for potential interviews, continue my activities, and make sure my applications remained updated when appropriate, but I could not make an admissions committee review my application on a particular day.
That is exactly when I think Admit.org becomes most useful. I would use it to understand whether a school had begun sending interviews, whether interview activity was continuing, and eventually whether decisions were beginning to appear after certain interview periods. I would pair that information with my own application records rather than replacing them, which is why a personal tool such as my free medical school application tracker can still be useful for keeping your secondary dates, interview invitations, portals, decisions, and other school-specific information together.
I would not open Cycle Results with the goal of figuring out whether a school secretly rejected me. Unless the medical school communicates a decision about your application, other applicants’ results usually cannot answer that question.
Admit.org Is Especially Useful for Seeing Whether Medical School Interview Invitations Have Started
One of the most practical ways to use Admit.org Cycle Results is simply determining whether a medical school has begun sending interview invitations for the current cycle. If August arrives and you have not heard anything from one of your schools, you can search that program and see whether applicants have begun reporting interviews.
This is one of the main reasons applicants appear to use the feature in practice. When I searched Reddit and r/premed for this article, I found applicants specifically recommending Admit.org Cycle Results when someone wanted a way to track which medical schools were sending interviews. Users highlighted the fact that Admit.org can show applicant-level details such as secondary submission dates alongside reported interviews, which gives you considerably more context than simply seeing somebody write that they received an interview.
I think there is a perfectly reasonable conclusion you can draw when multiple applicants have begun reporting interviews: the medical school appears to have started sending interview invitations.
You should be much more cautious about what you infer after that. You do not know what percentage of the school’s total interview invitations have been sent, whether your application has already been reviewed, how applicants are divided among reviewers, which institutional priorities affected the first invitations, or how many additional interview waves are still coming.
That means Admit.org can answer the question, “Has this school started interviewing?” considerably better than it can answer the question, “Why haven’t I received an interview?”
Do Not Assume a Later Secondary Submission Should Receive a Later Interview
The applicant-level dates on Admit.org are fascinating because you can sometimes see that someone who submitted a secondary after you received an interview before you. This is probably one of the pieces of information most likely to make an applicant worry unnecessarily.
Suppose you submitted a secondary on July 8 and another Admit.org user reports submitting on July 22 before receiving an interview invitation in August. It is understandable to wonder whether the school must have reviewed your application first and decided to pass over you, but medical school application review is not necessarily one perfectly chronological line in which every July 8 application gets a decision before reviewers can open anything submitted on July 22.
Medical schools can divide applications among different reviewers, prioritize particular applicant characteristics, review residency groups differently, consider mission fit, send interview invitations in waves, hold applications for additional review, or use other internal procedures that are not visible to applicants. Your secondary submission date tells you when your application reached one stage of the process, but another applicant receiving an interview does not reveal the internal status of your file.
The AAMC’s guidance on medical school interviews is helpful perspective here because it notes that interview invitations usually begin in late summer or early fall and commonly continue from August through February, with some schools extending interviews even later. Each medical school follows its own process and timeline, which is much broader than the few weeks of activity you might see when you first begin checking Admit.org.
I would therefore look at another applicant’s earlier interview as evidence that the school is active, not evidence that my own opportunity is gone.
Compare Whole Interview Seasons Instead of Individual Interview Invitations
The ability to view prior application cycles may be even more useful than watching the current live feed because previous cycles can show you how long reported activity continued.
Imagine that it is September and applicants have already reported interviews at one of your schools. If you only look at the current cycle, it may feel like you are watching interview opportunities disappear in real time. Looking at the previous two cycles might show that applicants continued reporting interviews throughout October, November, December, or later, which gives you a much more realistic picture of how long the school’s interview season can extend.
Historical activity cannot guarantee that the current year will follow exactly the same schedule because admissions processes can change. It does, however, give you a larger dataset than relying on whichever applicants happened to report something this week.
I would use that historical view alongside the AAMC’s official interview information. The AAMC publishes MSAR Advisor Reports that include information supplied by individual medical schools about when they begin sending interview invitations, what interview formats they use, and other elements of the interview process. That official information should take priority when a school provides a clear timeline, while Admit.org can show you how reported applicant experiences actually unfolded within that broader window.
My AMCAS application timeline also walks through the complete progression from primary submission and verification through secondaries, interviews, decisions, and matriculation. Looking at the entire application cycle rather than isolating one week in September can make the waiting period much easier to interpret.
Use the Live Feed to Understand the Medical School Application Cycle, Not Score Your Own Progress
The live feed is another feature I would find useful because it lets you see medical school application activity across many programs rather than searching schools individually. Applicants can filter the feed by statuses such as interviews, acceptances, waitlists, rejections, and secondary activity, making it possible to see how the broader cycle is progressing.
This can be particularly helpful for first-time applicants because the application year can otherwise feel surprisingly abstract. Early in the summer, much of the visible activity revolves around secondaries. Interview invitations become increasingly common later in the summer and fall, while acceptances, waitlists, and other decisions become more prominent as the year progresses.
The problem begins when you use the live feed as a benchmark for how your own application “should” be performing. If you log in and see ten interview invitations from other applicants, you are seeing ten people who had something new to report, not a random sample of every medical school applicant in the United States that day.
People with exciting updates are also naturally more likely to enter them into an application tracker, post on Reddit, or mention them on SDN than applicants who have received no new information. The visibility of successful applicants can therefore make the cycle seem much further along than it is for the average person.
How Accurate Is Admit.org Cycle Results?
I think the better question is not whether Admit.org is simply “accurate” or “inaccurate,” because the underlying information can be accurate while still being incomplete or unrepresentative.
If an applicant accurately reports that they submitted a secondary on July 12, received an interview on September 4, and were accepted on November 20, that individual timeline can be completely legitimate. The limitation appears when you take the collection of people who voluntarily reported their cycles and assume they perfectly represent every applicant to that medical school.
There is already some interesting community analysis illustrating this issue. In August 2026, an r/premed user compared thousands of Admit.org applicant records from the 2025–2026 cycle with AAMC applicant data and found meaningful differences in overall acceptance patterns even after trying to make the populations more comparable. The discussion around that analysis specifically highlighted selection bias as an explanation for why applicants represented on Admit.org may perform differently from the overall national applicant population.
Another recent r/premed analysis used thousands of publicly reported Admit.org cycles to examine relationships between MCAT scores and interview outcomes. I think analyses like these demonstrate how valuable a large crowdsourced dataset can become, but they also reinforce why you should not translate a percentage shown on one Admit.org school page directly into your personal probability of receiving an interview.
I would trust the platform much more for statements such as, “Applicants have begun reporting interviews from this school,” than statements such as, “The percentage shown here means exactly this percentage of the school’s real applicants received interviews.”
The Percentage of Applicants Interviewed on Admit.org Is Not the School’s Official Interview Rate
Individual school pages can show an applications count alongside the number and percentage of represented applicants reporting interviews. These numbers are useful for describing the applicants represented on Admit.org, but I would not present them as the school’s actual admissions statistics.
The denominator is not every person who applied to the medical school. It is the applicants represented in Admit.org’s data. The same issue applies to acceptances, rejections, and other outcomes because participation is voluntary and users may update different portions of their cycles at different rates.
There is another timing issue that becomes especially important with acceptance percentages. An applicant might enter a secondary and interview in August or September but not have an admissions decision until months later. If you look at acceptance numbers too early in the year, the dataset naturally contains many applicants whose final outcomes have not happened yet.
I found an r/premed discussion specifically asking whether Admit.org Cycle Results could be trusted because the interview-to-acceptance numbers looked unusual. Other users pointed out that the cycle was still underway and many schools had simply not released their acceptances yet. That conversation is a good example of how an accurate live dataset can still be misleading when you interpret incomplete outcomes as final statistics.
Do Not Treat Admit.org Applicants as a Perfect Picture of the Average Premed
When I searched Reddit and r/premed for this article, one warning appeared repeatedly enough that I think applicants should know about it before spending too much time comparing profiles: people who actively participate in online premedical communities and application-tracking platforms may differ from the overall applicant population.
In one r/premed discussion about tracking current-cycle interviews, users specifically recommended Admit.org and CycleTrack while warning that the people using those platforms may disproportionately include highly engaged and high-achieving applicants. Another discussion asked why Reddit, SDN, and Admit.org seemed full of people receiving large numbers of early interviews while medical students the poster knew remembered getting most of theirs much later. The leading explanation from the community was sampling bias, with highly involved applicants being more visible on these platforms than the average person going through the cycle.
Recent Admit.org profile discussions make the opposite point interesting as well. Applicants have looked through profiles with extremely high GPAs and MCAT scores and been surprised to see many rejections alongside only one or two eventual acceptances. Those profiles can actually be useful reminders that medical school admissions remain unpredictable even for applicants whose statistics look exceptional.
If you see an applicant with a 525 MCAT receive an interview before you, that is not evidence that the school only wants applicants with a 525. If you find an applicant with similar statistics who was rejected, that does not mean your application will have the same result. The parts of your applications that cannot be represented neatly in a table still matter.
What I Found When I Searched Reddit and r/premed About Admit.org Cycle Results
For this article, I specifically searched Reddit and r/premed for discussions about Admit.org Cycle Results because I wanted to see how applicants actually use the feature rather than relying entirely on Admit.org’s description of its own tool. The overall reaction was positive, and applicants repeatedly recommended Admit.org when people asked how to track current medical school interview invitations and application-cycle activity.
The applicant-level information appears to be one of the biggest reasons people like it. Users specifically mentioned being able to see secondary submission dates for applicants reporting interviews, while newer 2026 discussions continue directing applicants toward the live Cycle Results page when they want to filter current-cycle activity by interviews, acceptances, and other outcomes.
At the same time, the Reddit discussions contain a remarkably consistent warning about comparison. Applicants repeatedly describe checking Admit.org profiles and wondering why somebody with particular statistics has so many interviews, why someone with exceptional numbers received surprisingly few acceptances, or why other applicants seem so much further along in the cycle. Community responses frequently remind them that people actively posting and tracking their applications are not necessarily representative of the entire applicant population.
My takeaway after searching r/premed is therefore strongly positive toward Admit.org itself. Applicants clearly find the information useful, but much of the anxiety associated with the platform comes from asking the data to answer questions it was never capable of answering about an individual application.
What I Found When I Searched Student Doctor Network About Admit.org Cycle Results
I also searched Student Doctor Network for Admit.org Cycle Results discussions for this article, and SDN shows even more clearly how the tool has become part of the way applicants follow individual medical schools during the cycle. In school-specific threads, applicants reference Admit.org when somebody reports a new interview invitation or acceptance, and other applicants sometimes immediately open Cycle Results to see the reported date or applicant information themselves.
For example, in one SDN school-specific discussion, an applicant reported that two acceptances had just appeared on Admit.org, which immediately led other users to ask what Admit.org was and begin discussing the reported decisions. In another school thread, applicants were comparing the number of interviews appearing on Admit.org and CycleTrack only days after the secondary application period began.
These discussions show why I think Admit.org is genuinely useful. Before platforms like this existed, applicants often had to scroll through dozens of pages of school-specific forum posts to piece together whether interviews or decisions were appearing. Cycle Results organizes much of that information into a format that is substantially easier to interpret.
The SDN discussions also show how quickly useful information can become speculation. Once one acceptance appears, applicants may immediately wonder whether all decisions for the day have already been sent or whether the absence of their own update has some hidden meaning. One applicant reporting an acceptance can reliably tell you that at least one acceptance was reported; it usually cannot tell you whether an admissions office has finished sending decisions for everyone else.
Admit.org Can Be Particularly Helpful After Your Medical School Interview
Cycle Results becomes useful again after you interview because the uncertainty does not disappear once the interview is finished. Depending on the school, you may wait days, weeks, or months for an admissions decision.
If applicants who interviewed around your date begin reporting decisions, that can provide some indication that the admissions committee is moving through that portion of its interview calendar. Historical cycles may also give you an approximate idea of how long applicants previously waited between their interview dates and reported decisions.
I would still avoid creating an unofficial deadline based entirely on somebody else’s result. One applicant may be reviewed at the next committee meeting while another is held for additional consideration, and schools can have different processes for acceptances, waitlists, and rejections.
For MD programs participating in AMCAS, the AAMC also establishes important admissions protocols. For example, regular MD acceptance offers generally cannot be issued before October 15, although schools may communicate certain other admissions decisions earlier. Using those official rules alongside Admit.org’s reported activity gives you much better context than relying exclusively on crowdsourced results.
Seeing Rejections on Admit.org Does Not Mean a Rejection Wave Is Coming for You
The same caution applies when rejections begin appearing.
If several applicants report rejections from one of your schools, you know the school is making at least some rejection decisions. You do not know whether those applications were reviewed for the same reasons, at the same time, or in the same internal group as yours.
Applicants sometimes interpret the appearance of a rejection wave as reassuring when they survive it, while other times they become worried that their own rejection must be arriving soon. Neither conclusion is especially reliable because you do not know why particular applications were included in that group.
I would treat rejection activity as information about the school’s overall cycle, not information about the status of an application that remains active.
The Same Rule Applies to Acceptances and Waitlists
Later in the cycle, Admit.org becomes increasingly interesting because reported acceptances and waitlists begin appearing alongside interviews and rejections. At that point, you can start seeing how a school’s reported applicant pool changes as decisions accumulate.
This is another place where looking across multiple years can be useful. If you are waitlisted, historical activity may show that prior applicants eventually reported acceptances after initially being placed on the waitlist, while official AAMC resources can provide additional school-specific information about waitlist procedures.
The AAMC publishes current MSAR Advisor Reports containing information supplied by medical schools about their waitlist processes, including typical waitlist sizes and historical acceptance activity from the waitlist. I would consider that official information more authoritative for understanding how a school’s waitlist functions, while Admit.org can provide an additional applicant-level view of what people have reported experiencing.
A reported waitlist acceptance from another applicant can be encouraging because it demonstrates that movement is happening. It still cannot tell you exactly where you personally stand on the school’s internal list.
How Often Should You Check Admit.org Cycle Results?
I would use Admit.org regularly enough to understand what is happening during the cycle, but I would not use it as something I refresh throughout the day.
During my own application cycle, I remember how easy it was to think about medical school admissions when there was nothing new I could actually do about them. If I had been able to watch interviews appear in real time, I am sure there would have been moments when I was tempted to compare my application with every person who reported something.
I would probably check school-specific results periodically when I genuinely wanted context about a school’s interview or decision timeline. If nothing about your application has changed and you checked the page yesterday, looking again several times today is unlikely to give you information that changes what you should do next.
There are more productive things you can do during that waiting period. I spent time preparing for interviews, including watching interview-preparation material, practicing mock interviews with mentors, and continuing my extracurricular activities. Continuing your clinical work, research, volunteering, employment, or other meaningful activities also gives you genuine updates to discuss later rather than allowing your application cycle to become the only thing occupying your attention.
My Rule for Deciding Whether Admit.org Data Are Actually Useful
If I were applying again, I would judge information from Cycle Results by whether it helps me understand the application process or make a reasonable decision.
Learning that a school has started sending interviews helps me understand the cycle. Looking at prior years and seeing that interview activity historically continued several months longer gives me context about the school’s timeline. Seeing that applicants who interviewed around my date are beginning to receive decisions tells me that the committee appears to be moving through that portion of the cycle.
By contrast, seeing that an applicant with a higher MCAT received an interview does not tell me whether I will receive one. Finding somebody with similar statistics who was rejected does not predict my outcome, and noticing that a person who submitted after me received an interview does not prove that my application has already been reviewed.
I think that framework allows you to take advantage of what makes Admit.org Cycle Results so useful without turning a valuable source of transparency into a source of unnecessary stress.
Admit.org Cycle Results vs. CycleTrack
Admit.org Cycle Results and CycleTrack overlap because both allow applicants to contribute application-cycle information and learn from the experiences of other applicants. I think both resources can be useful, and I would have been happy to have either of them when I was going through the application process.
CycleTrack places substantial emphasis on visualizing and analyzing application-cycle data, while Admit.org Cycle Results provides a particularly straightforward live feed and school-level view of reported secondaries, interviews, decisions, and applicant timelines. I do not think applicants necessarily need to choose one and ignore the other because seeing similar activity across multiple independent applicant communities can occasionally provide additional context.
The same interpretation rules apply regardless of which platform you use. Neither one receives a complete internal admissions database directly from every medical school, and neither can tell you what a committee thinks about your particular application until the school actually communicates with you.
Should You Contribute Your Own Medical School Application Results?
If you are comfortable doing so, I think there is real value in contributing your cycle because these tools only become useful when applicants continue adding information.
The reason a future applicant can look back and see that interview invitations continued into a certain month is that previous applicants recorded what happened. The same applies to secondary dates, decisions, waitlists, and acceptances.
I would also encourage applicants who choose to participate to continue updating the later parts of their cycle rather than stopping after receiving an interview. A dataset containing many interview invitations but relatively few final decisions becomes harder for future applicants to interpret because the absence of an outcome can mean many different things.
As with any platform where you contribute information, review Admit.org’s current privacy policies and only share information you are comfortable providing. You do not need to surrender your privacy to contribute useful application data.
Is Admit.org Cycle Results Worth Using for Medical School Applications?
I think it is, particularly if you understand what the data are actually capable of telling you.
I did not use Admit.org Cycle Results when I applied to medical school, so I cannot give you a firsthand account of keeping my application updated on the platform throughout an entire cycle. I can speak firsthand about the problem it solves because I experienced months of waiting, uncertainty, interview preparation, and wondering what was happening with applications after I had done everything I could reasonably do.
Looking at Admit.org now, I genuinely wish I had access to several years of organized applicant results when I was going through that process. I would have used it to see when schools began sending interviews, understand how long interview seasons had historically continued, follow reported decision activity after interviews, and gain some perspective during periods when my own inbox was quiet.
I would not use it to compare the worth of my application with another applicant’s GPA or MCAT score, assume silence means rejection, or calculate my personal chances from self-reported interview percentages.
Admit.org gives medical school applicants considerably more visibility into an admissions process that historically offered very little transparency. I think that is extremely useful as long as the additional information helps you understand the cycle rather than convincing you that every other applicant’s update contains a hidden message about your own application.
Frequently Asked Questions About Admit.org Cycle Results
What is Admit.org Cycle Results?
Admit.org Cycle Results is a crowdsourced medical school application tracking feature that displays application events reported by users, including secondary applications, interview invitations, acceptances, waitlists, rejections, withdrawals, and matriculation. Individual medical school pages can also show applicant-level submission, interview, and decision dates along with data from prior application cycles.
Is Admit.org Cycle Results accurate?
The individual results can be genuinely useful when applicants report their information accurately, but the users represented on Admit.org should not be assumed to represent every medical school applicant. I would use Cycle Results to understand admissions activity and historical patterns rather than interpreting its percentages as official interview or acceptance rates.
Can Admit.org tell me when medical schools are sending interviews?
Yes, and I think this is one of the best uses of the feature. When multiple applicants begin reporting interview invitations from a medical school, it is reasonable to conclude that the school has started sending at least some interviews. It does not tell you how many interviews remain or whether your own application has already been reviewed.
Should I worry if someone who submitted after me received an interview?
No conclusion about your own application should be based solely on that information. Medical schools do not necessarily review applications in exact chronological order, and differences in reviewers, residency, mission fit, institutional priorities, application characteristics, or internal review procedures can cause applicants who submitted at different times to move through the process differently.
Does Admit.org show every medical school interview invitation?
No. Cycle Results depends on applicants participating and entering their results, so many interviews occurring during the cycle will never appear on the platform. A school showing ten reported interviews does not mean it has only sent ten interviews.
Is the interview percentage on Admit.org a medical school’s official interview rate?
No. The percentage is based on applicants represented within Admit.org rather than the entire applicant pool reported directly by the medical school. Use official medical school information and AAMC resources when you need authoritative admissions statistics or policies.
Why does everyone on Admit.org seem to have so many interviews?
Applicant communities such as Admit.org, Reddit/r/premed, SDN, and CycleTrack may attract unusually engaged applicants who submit early, actively research admissions, and sometimes have stronger-than-average academic or extracurricular profiles. This selection effect can make the applicants you see online look different from the national applicant population.
Can I use Admit.org to predict whether I will get an interview?
I would not. You can use it to understand when interviews are being reported, how activity is distributed across the cycle, and what happened in previous years, but your own admissions outcome depends on information and institutional decision-making that cannot be reconstructed from another applicant’s timeline.
Should I compare my GPA and MCAT with applicants receiving interviews on Admit.org?
You can look at other profiles for context, but I would not treat applicants with similar numbers as admissions twins. GPA and MCAT scores are only parts of an application, while experiences, writing, letters, service, research, state residency, mission fit, and many other factors can influence admissions decisions.
Can Admit.org help after my medical school interview?
Yes. Reported decision dates can help you see whether applicants who interviewed around a similar time are beginning to receive decisions, while prior cycles may provide broader historical context. You should still follow the timeline communicated by the medical school rather than assuming another applicant’s decision date establishes your own deadline.
Should I check Admit.org every day?
You can, but I do not think you need to. I would check when I genuinely wanted information about a school’s current activity or historical timeline rather than repeatedly refreshing the page because I was waiting for my own interview invitation. Once your applications are complete, preparing for interviews and continuing your extracurricular activities are usually more productive than monitoring every update from another applicant.
Is Admit.org Cycle Results better than CycleTrack?
Both tools can provide useful crowdsourced information about medical school application cycles, and I do not think you necessarily need to choose only one. Admit.org offers a straightforward live-results and school-level applicant view, while CycleTrack provides its own application-tracking and historical-data features. I would apply the same caution to both platforms and use their information for patterns and context rather than individual admissions predictions.
Would I personally use Admit.org Cycle Results if I were applying again?
Yes. I did not use it during my actual medical school application cycle, but after going through that process myself, I can immediately see where it would have helped me. If I were applying again, I would use Admit.org Cycle Results to follow interview activity, compare current and previous cycles, understand when schools were making decisions, and gain context during the long periods of waiting, while making sure that another applicant’s result never became a prediction about my own.