Get Into Med School
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 100 keywords for Get Into Med School in Apple App Store
Get Into Med School tracks 100 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 100 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 70.1, difficulty 38.2.
Tracked keywords
100
0 ranked • 100 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.1
Top keyword: competitive
Avg difficulty
38.2
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 65.6
competitive
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.0 • Rank —
Competitors: 114
- 67.6
address
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 82
- 67.5
someone
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 79
- 68.5
reduce
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 64
- 64.6
category
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 43
Unranked opportunities
competitive
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.0 • Competitors: 114
address
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Competitors: 82
someone
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.8 • Competitors: 79
reduce
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.4 • Competitors: 64
category
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.2 • Competitors: 43
High competition keywords
make
Total apps: 161,088 • Major competitors: 1,622
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.8
easy
Total apps: 143,308 • Major competitors: 1,130
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.1
create
Total apps: 116,377 • Major competitors: 1,225
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.5
using
Total apps: 116,194 • Major competitors: 808
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.3
way
Total apps: 105,111 • Major competitors: 1,085
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.0
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| level | 68 | 100 | 48 | 79 50,636 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 670 major competitor apps |
| competitive | 73 | 100 | 40 | 66 8,225 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.3 | — | — | 114 major competitor apps |
| single | 69 | 100 | 46 | 76 36,459 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 313 major competitor apps |
| order | 68 | 100 | 49 | 80 59,249 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.3 | — | — | 468 major competitor apps |
| easy | 65 | 100 | 52 | 86 143,308 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,130 major competitor apps |
| make | 65 | 100 | 53 | 87 161,088 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,622 major competitor apps |
| whether | 67 | 100 | 50 | 83 91,020 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.3 | — | — | 615 major competitor apps |
| medical | 71 | 100 | 43 | 72 18,851 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 61 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 48 | 79 50,993 competing apps Median installs: 50 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 251 major competitor apps |
| profile | 72 | 100 | 43 | 71 17,217 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 153 major competitor apps |
| created | 70 | 100 | 45 | 74 26,685 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 134 major competitor apps |
| list | 69 | 100 | 47 | 77 40,056 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 256 major competitor apps |
| way | 66 | 100 | 51 | 84 105,111 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,085 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 51 | 85 116,194 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 808 major competitor apps |
| account | 67 | 100 | 50 | 82 79,798 competing apps Median installs: 175 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,107 major competitor apps |
| score | 71 | 100 | 44 | 73 21,622 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 272 major competitor apps |
| small | 71 | 100 | 44 | 73 22,809 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 161 major competitor apps |
| helping | 71 | 100 | 43 | 72 18,891 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.3 | — | — | 119 major competitor apps |
| accurate | 71 | 100 | 44 | 73 23,439 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 145 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 51 | 85 116,377 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,225 major competitor apps |
| contain | 72 | 100 | 36 | 60 4,041 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 36 major competitor apps |
| apply | 72 | 100 | 43 | 70 14,546 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 191 major competitor apps |
| become | 69 | 100 | 47 | 78 44,850 competing apps Median installs: 125 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 637 major competitor apps |
| much | 68 | 100 | 48 | 79 54,467 competing apps Median installs: 100 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 516 major competitor apps |
| generate | 71 | 100 | 43 | 72 20,091 competing apps Median installs: 75 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 94 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