Get Into Med School
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 99 keywords for Get Into Med School in Apple App Store
Get Into Med School tracks 99 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 99 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 48.1, difficulty 39.7.
Tracked keywords
99
0 ranked • 99 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
48.1
Top keyword: easy
Avg difficulty
39.7
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 85.2
easy
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 59.0 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,246
- 88.4
make
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 62.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,773
- 83.0
way
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,067
- 84.1
account
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,073
- 84.7
create
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,155
Unranked opportunities
easy
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 59.0 • Competitors: 1,246
make
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 62.7 • Competitors: 1,773
way
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.3 • Competitors: 1,067
account
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.5 • Competitors: 1,073
create
Opportunity: 59.0 • Difficulty: 60.6 • Competitors: 1,155
High competition keywords
make
Total apps: 8,094 • Major competitors: 1,773
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 62.7
easy
Total apps: 5,849 • Major competitors: 1,246
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 59.0
create
Total apps: 5,537 • Major competitors: 1,155
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.6
account
Total apps: 5,212 • Major competitors: 1,073
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.5
way
Total apps: 4,665 • Major competitors: 1,067
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.3
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| level | 58 | 100 | 54 | 78 2,734 competing apps Median installs: 274,625 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 638 major competitor apps |
| competitive | 20 | 100 | 46 | 59 393 competing apps Median installs: 289,300 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 107 major competitor apps |
| single | 58 | 100 | 50 | 72 1,511 competing apps Median installs: 234,575 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 294 major competitor apps |
| order | 20 | 100 | 61 | 73 1,756 competing apps Median installs: 288,212 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 456 major competitor apps |
| easy | 59 | 100 | 59 | 85 5,849 competing apps Median installs: 250,625 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 1,246 major competitor apps |
| make | 59 | 100 | 63 | 88 8,094 competing apps Median installs: 266,850 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 1,773 major competitor apps |
| whether | 58 | 100 | 59 | 79 3,139 competing apps Median installs: 267,650 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 715 major competitor apps |
| medical | 58 | 100 | 39 | 59 418 competing apps Median installs: 192,125 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 60 major competitor apps |
| used | 58 | 100 | 53 | 72 1,494 competing apps Median installs: 237,800 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 279 major competitor apps |
| profile | 58 | 100 | 59 | 63 624 competing apps Median installs: 303,488 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 154 major competitor apps |
| created | 58 | 100 | 47 | 67 953 competing apps Median installs: 213,175 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 153 major competitor apps |
| list | 58 | 100 | 52 | 70 1,187 competing apps Median installs: 244,150 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 251 major competitor apps |
| way | 59 | 100 | 60 | 83 4,665 competing apps Median installs: 271,100 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 1,067 major competitor apps |
| using | 58 | 100 | 61 | 83 4,473 competing apps Median installs: 247,200 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 924 major competitor apps |
| account | 59 | 100 | 61 | 84 5,212 competing apps Median installs: 257,662 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 1,073 major competitor apps |
| score | 20 | 100 | 52 | 68 977 competing apps Median installs: 314,100 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 264 major competitor apps |
| small | 58 | 100 | 51 | 66 862 competing apps Median installs: 228,538 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 155 major competitor apps |
| helping | 58 | 100 | 45 | 63 640 competing apps Median installs: 235,312 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 128 major competitor apps |
| accurate | 58 | 100 | 46 | 66 792 competing apps Median installs: 240,225 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 140 major competitor apps |
| create | 59 | 100 | 61 | 85 5,537 competing apps Median installs: 251,325 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 1,155 major competitor apps |
| contain | 57 | 100 | 37 | 50 158 competing apps Median installs: 282,450 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 39 major competitor apps |
| apply | 58 | 100 | 55 | 66 829 competing apps Median installs: 286,275 Avg rating: 4.7 | — | — | 183 major competitor apps |
| become | 58 | 100 | 54 | 79 3,091 competing apps Median installs: 275,100 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 678 major competitor apps |
| much | 58 | 100 | 55 | 77 2,669 competing apps Median installs: 241,125 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 569 major competitor apps |
| generate | 58 | 100 | 44 | 61 523 competing apps Median installs: 229,975 Avg rating: 4.6 | — | — | 91 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
AppGoblin