Get Into Med School
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 104 keywords for Get Into Med School in Apple App Store
Get Into Med School tracks 104 keywords (4 keywords rank; 100 need traction). Key metrics: 0% top-10 coverage, opportunity 70.2, difficulty 39.5, best rank 92.
Tracked keywords
104
4 ranked • 100 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
0%
Best rank 92 • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.2
Top keyword: competitive
Avg difficulty
39.5
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 66.3
competitive
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 190
- 67.7
address
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 159
- 66.8
someone
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 154
- 67.9
reduce
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 150
- 65.1
category
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 91
Unranked opportunities
competitive
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 44.1 • Competitors: 190
address
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.3 • Competitors: 159
someone
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.7 • Competitors: 154
reduce
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.9 • Competitors: 150
category
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.4 • Competitors: 91
High competition keywords
make
Total apps: 158,924 • Major competitors: 2,938
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.6
easy
Total apps: 141,512 • Major competitors: 2,053
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.0
create
Total apps: 130,850 • Major competitors: 2,321
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.5
way
Total apps: 115,758 • Major competitors: 1,943
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.3
using
Total apps: 114,639 • Major competitors: 1,562
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.1
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eligibility | 70 | 100 | 39 | 49 834 competing apps Median installs: 1,050 Avg rating: 3.9 | 93 | 92 | 54 major competitor apps |
| admission | 70 | 100 | 31 | 50 1,020 competing apps Median installs: 200 Avg rating: 3.9 | 92 | 92 | 5 major competitor apps |
| applying | 71 | 100 | 34 | 55 2,102 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | 137 | 137 | 28 major competitor apps |
| waitlist | 71 | 100 | 33 | 55 1,919 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.8 | 148 | 148 | 15 major competitor apps |
| level | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 55,867 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,185 major competitor apps |
| competitive | 73 | 100 | 44 | 66 9,734 competing apps Median installs: 461 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 190 major competitor apps |
| single | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 41,009 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 614 major competitor apps |
| order | 68 | 100 | 51 | 80 66,456 competing apps Median installs: 444 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 801 major competitor apps |
| easy | 66 | 100 | 53 | 86 141,512 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,053 major competitor apps |
| make | 65 | 100 | 55 | 86 158,924 competing apps Median installs: 476 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,938 major competitor apps |
| whether | 67 | 100 | 51 | 82 89,248 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,093 major competitor apps |
| medical | 71 | 100 | 44 | 72 21,735 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 143 major competitor apps |
| used | 69 | 100 | 49 | 78 50,542 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 503 major competitor apps |
| profile | 71 | 100 | 47 | 71 19,947 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 292 major competitor apps |
| created | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 26,301 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 303 major competitor apps |
| list | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 43,625 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 500 major competitor apps |
| way | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 115,758 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,943 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 114,639 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,562 major competitor apps |
| account | 67 | 100 | 53 | 82 87,059 competing apps Median installs: 950 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,135 major competitor apps |
| score | 71 | 100 | 46 | 73 23,635 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 438 major competitor apps |
| small | 71 | 100 | 47 | 73 25,842 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 356 major competitor apps |
| helping | 72 | 100 | 44 | 71 18,458 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 211 major competitor apps |
| accurate | 70 | 100 | 46 | 74 27,865 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 328 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 55 | 85 130,850 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,321 major competitor apps |
| contain | 72 | 100 | 37 | 60 4,017 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 63 major competitor apps |
App Description
This system was originally created as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the already widely-utilized LizzyM scoring system. As a reference, the LizzyM score is defined as (GPA*10)+MCAT and may contain a +1 or -1 modifier in certain situations. The applicant's LizzyM score is then compared to the LizzyM score for a school to determine whether or not the applicant is statistically competitive for that school. However, the inherent simplicity of the LizzyM score, while making it quick and easy to generate and apply, also creates problems endemic to systems that reduce and generalize. The two major simplifications are the reduction of an entire application to two (already numerical) metrics and the assumption that the LizzyM score accounts for the majority of, if not all of, the variability attributed to selectivity.
While there is merit to these assumptions, which is why the LizzyM score is so widely used, there are also deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to create a more accurate system for assessing an application. One of these deficiencies is that certain schools with similar LizzyM schools may be in very different levels of competitiveness. For example, although UVA and Duke have identical LizzyM scores, it is clear that Duke is a much more selective school than UVA. Additionally, small differences in LizzyM score become significant when using this metric to assess competitiveness for two similar schools. For example, Duke has a LizzyM score of 75, while Yale has a LizzyM score of 76; both schools are similarly selective, but someone might (very mistakenly) advise a applicant with a 3.9/36 that they are more competitive for Duke than they are for Yale. Finally, the LizzyM score is used as a way to tell if someone is statistically competitive for a single school and is significantly less useful for helping an applicant come up with a list of schools.
The Applicant Rating System - Overview
The WedgeDawg Applicant Rating System (ARS) was created to address these deficiencies. It takes into account most of the factors that make up an application to medical school, gives an applicant a separate score for each one, and then gives an applicant a numerical rating. This numerical rating is then translated to a category level and a profile of schools to apply to is created based on that category.
King of the Curve does not own