Residency Advisor
Activity Descriptions That Sound Fake to Med School Committees
What do admissions committee members actually say to each other when they read an activity description and think, “This does not sound real”?
If you are writing your AMCAS or AACOMAS activities right now, you are in dangerous territory. Strong stats are not enough. One “too perfect,” exaggerated, or obviously template-based activities section can quietly move your file into the “no” pile.
(See also: 10 Secondary Essay Mistakes That Quietly Sink Strong Applicants for more details.)
Let’s walk through the mistakes that make activity descriptions sound fake to medical school committees—and how to avoid them before you hit “submit.”
1. The “Hero Narrative” That No One Believes
The most common way students lose credibility is by turning a simple experience into a heroic transformation story that reads like a movie script.
Red flags committees see immediately
Watch for these patterns:
- Overly dramatic language for routine tasks
- “Transformed patient care in a busy clinic” (when you were checking patients in)
- “Revolutionized lab workflow” (when you restocked pipette tips)
- You always appear as the protagonist
- “I took the initiative to completely restructure…”
- “Everyone turned to me when…”
- Unrealistic impact or responsibility for your level
- As a sophomore: “Led the emergency response during a code blue”
- As a 19‑year‑old volunteer: “Coordinated multidisciplinary care for complex patients”
Real example (fictionalized from committee stories):
A student wrote that as an ER scribe they “made critical diagnostic suggestions that led to life-saving care.” That sounds heroic. It also sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen and absolutely not within a scribe’s scope. Several committee members immediately questioned the applicant’s judgment and honesty.
How to sound real instead
- Describe what you actually did, not what it meant for the universe
- Keep the heroics out; keep the specifics in
- Put the spotlight on:
- Skills you gained
- Patterns you observed
- How you interacted with patients, teams, or data
Bad:
“Led complex patient care coordination to improve outcomes and optimize satisfaction.”
Better:
“Roomed patients, obtained vitals, updated medication lists, and prepared charts for family medicine visits. Observed how physicians adjusted communication styles when discussing sensitive topics such as pregnancy loss and end-of-life decisions.”
The “better” version sounds humble and precise. It is not flashy. That is exactly why committees trust it.
2. Vague, Buzzword-Heavy Descriptions (The “Corporate LinkedIn” Trap)
Another way activity descriptions sound fake: they read like recycled corporate resumes rather than like the life of a premed.
Buzzwords committees are tired of
If your activities list is built from phrases like these, you are in trouble:
- “Utilized strong communication and leadership skills to…”
- “Demonstrated adaptability in a fast-paced, dynamic environment…”
- “Leveraged interdisciplinary collaboration to maximize impact…”
- “Proactively engaged stakeholders to optimize outcomes…”
Sometimes, it is obvious a student has copied language from lab websites, company mission pages, or consulting internship blurbs.
Remember: medical school committee members are not impressed by business‑school jargon. It signals:
- You do not know how to describe what you actually did
- You may be inflating routine tasks to sound “consulting‑level important”
- You care more about sounding impressive than being honest
Replace buzzwords with concrete actions
Ask yourself:
“If someone shadowed me for one full shift, what would they actually see me do?”
Write that.
Bad:
“Leveraged cross-functional teamwork to enhance patient-centered care.”
Better:
“Collaborated with nurses and techs to help transport patients, change linens, and restock supplies in the ED. Learned how small tasks kept the department functioning smoothly during high-volume shifts.”
Bad:
“Applied analytical skills to optimize experimental workflows and drive innovation.”
Better:
“Ran PCR reactions to test for gene expression changes in mouse cardiac tissue. Tracked error patterns in failed runs and worked with my PI to adjust primer concentrations, which reduced repeat runs.”
Every time you notice a buzzword, ask yourself: “What did I actually do that made me write this?” Then write that instead.
3. Inflated Titles and Misleading Roles
Nothing ruins credibility faster than a title that clearly does not match your level of training or authority.
Titles that make committees suspicious
- “Clinical coordinator” when you were a front-desk employee
- “Research scientist” as a first-year undergrad with 6 months of lab work
- “Surgical assistant” when you were an OR observer who handed in case logs
- “Program director” when you ran a student club of eight people
- “Mental health counselor” as a crisis hotline volunteer without licensure
If your title is technically what an organization gave you, but it sounds misleading in medicine, clarify it. Committees have seen too many students hide behind inflated titles.
Example:
A “medical assistant” title from a dermatology office might be accurate. But were you trained in injections and minor procedures? Or were you mainly scanning documents and rooming patients? If the description suggests you did things outside a typical MA scope, readers get suspicious.
How to correct this without underselling yourself
- Use the official title plus a clarifying phrase:
- “Medical Assistant (front-desk + rooming)”
- “Research Intern – basic science lab”
- “Surgical Observer (non-sterile; shadowing role)”
- Spell out limitations of your role when there is any doubt
Stronger—and safer—example:
“Surgical Observer (shadowing role only). Observed ~40 orthopedic procedures from the OR corner, focusing on team communication, pre-op checklists, and intraoperative teaching. Did not participate in direct patient care.”
That level of clarity never hurts you. Evading it often does.
4. Overclaiming Impact from Short or Shallow Experiences
Committees are very good at estimating what is realistically possible in:
- 10 hours of shadowing
- One-semester volunteer work
- A 6-week summer research program
- Occasional club meetings
When students claim deep transformation or major impact from very limited contact, it feels forced.
Examples that set off alarms
- “From my 8 hours shadowing neurosurgery, I gained a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and rewards of surgical practice.”
- “During my single-semester hospital volunteering experience, I made a measurable difference in patient outcomes by providing comfort and support.”
- “Over 3 weeks in the lab, I developed a deep appreciation for the scientific process and became confident in independent bench research.”
You do not need to pretend every experience was life-altering. Committee members have done medicine and research for decades. They know what comes from time and repetition.
Fix: match depth of reflection to depth of experience
Short-term experience? Keep your claims modest:
- Focus on:
- What you noticed
- Questions that arose for you
- One or two concrete takeaways
Example:
“Shadowed a pediatrician for 12 hours across clinic and newborn nursery. Saw how she modified explanations for parents vs. children and how much time she spent charting after visits. Left more curious about how pediatricians balance education and time pressure.”
This sounds real. It does not pretend 12 hours equals mastery.
5. Robot Voice: Copy-Paste, Template, or AI-Sounding Entries
Many committees are now on alert for activity descriptions that sound artificially generated or mass-produced. They read:
- Overly polished
- Emotionally flat
- Repetitive in structure across all entries
Patterns that raise suspicion:
- Every entry starts with the same structure:
- “In this role, I…”
- “Through this experience, I…”
- Overly formal vocabulary that does not match a 20‑year‑old’s natural voice
- No specificity tied to location, patient types, or personal details
- Generic ideas that could be pasted into any activity description
Example that sounds generic/AI-like:
“Through this role I learned the importance of empathy, teamwork, and communication in healthcare. I developed leadership and time-management skills and strengthened my commitment to becoming a physician.”
Committees see this 100 times per cycle. It carries no information, and it quietly signals “I tried to sound impressive, not honest.”
How to restore a human voice
- Use concrete nouns and verbs: “linens,” “pipettes,” “triage,” “check-in desk,” “anesthesia consent”
- Include specific images:
- “Folding pediatric gowns the size of my hand”
- “Standing behind the OR blue drapes, only seeing the anesthesiologist’s monitor”
- Vary sentence length; allow one occasional shorter, punchier line
More human version:
“Stocked pediatric gowns and blankets, checked wristbands, and escorted families to pre-op. Watched how anesthesiologists reassured anxious parents in the few minutes before their child was taken to the OR. The quiet hallway conversations, not the surgeries, stayed with me the most.”
This does not try to be poetic. It just sounds like a real person who was actually there.
6. “Too Perfect” Reflection That Reads Like a Textbook
Reflection is necessary. Forced, over-optimized reflection is not.
When every activity description ends with a well-packaged, textbook lesson about:
- Empathy
- Cultural humility
- Lifelong learning
- “Service to the underserved”
…readers start to doubt how much of it you truly lived versus how much you think they want to hear.
Signs your reflection is overengineered
- Every entry concludes with a moral lesson
- Your reflections sound interchangeable across experiences
- You rely on abstractions: “vulnerable populations,” “healthcare disparities,” “holistic care” without any specific example behind them
Example that reads fake:
“This experience showed me that all patients, regardless of background, deserve compassionate, patient-centered care, and reinforced my desire to practice medicine in underserved communities.”
Maybe you do want to serve underserved communities. But if every entry ends this way, it stops sounding believable.
Stronger, grounded reflection
Connect reflection to a concrete moment:
“During one clinic afternoon, I watched the physician spend 20 minutes with a Spanish-speaking patient using a phone interpreter because the patient was worried about her insulin dose. The visit ran behind, but the physician never rushed her. I left thinking more about how language access affects diabetes management.”
No big universal claims. Just a clear observation and what it made you think about. Committees trust this much more.
7. Numbers and Hours That Make No Sense
You may not realize how quickly your credibility can vanish when your numbers look unrealistic.
Common numerical mistakes
- Reporting thousands of hours that conflict with your timeline
- 3,000+ clinical hours while taking a full course load, doing research, and leading two clubs
- “Rounded up” hours to look more serious
- 147 hours becomes 300
- 20 hours becomes 100
- Counting passive time as active involvement
- Including commute time
- Counting study time for a club as leadership hours
Committees frequently do the math:
- How many hours per week is this over the date range?
- Could someone in this major, at this school, with these other commitments reasonably do this?
If the math does not work, they may assume you exaggerate—possibly throughout your application.
How to avoid this credibility trap
- Be conservative with estimates
- Track hours contemporaneously whenever possible
- If hours were heavily front-loaded or back-loaded, you can briefly note that:
- “Most hours completed during summer 2023 (~25 hrs/week).”
Err on the side of slightly under-reporting rather than inventing heroic totals. Committees respect modest, believable numbers far more than spectacular but dubious ones.
8. Overstating Clinical Exposure or Patient Contact
Many premeds are terrified of looking like they did “not enough clinical.” So they overstate what they did have.
This backfires.
Problematic phrases
- “Worked closely with physicians to manage patient care plans” when you were mainly observing
- “Provided emotional support to patients and families during difficult diagnoses” when your interactions were minimal
- “Participated in medical decision-making” as a scribe, volunteer, or MA
One committee member from a large Midwest school shared that they routinely downgrade applications where students seem to blur the line between observing and practicing medicine. It raises concerns about ego, boundaries, and professionalism.
Safer, better phrasing
- Emphasize exposure rather than participation:
- “Observed how…”
- “Watched the team…”
- “Listened as physicians explained…”
- For actual patient interaction, be specific:
- “Escorted patients to exam rooms and asked basic intake questions about pain levels and chief complaints.”
- “Sat with patients on the oncology ward and played cards or listened to music; did not discuss medical care.”
That level of honesty does not hurt you. Pretending you were a junior physician very much does.
9. Ignoring the Context of the School You Are Applying To
Some activity descriptions sound fake not because they are untrue, but because they reveal no awareness of how medicine actually looks in different contexts.
Problem pattern:
- Writing exclusively about high-tech, prestige environments (e.g., “cutting-edge neurosurgery,” “NIH translational research,” “Harvard-affiliated clinics”)
- Using language that implies all meaningful medicine happens in such settings
- Then applying heavily to community-focused, primary care, or rural-serving schools
Committee thought process:
“This person seems obsessed with prestige environments only. Their activities list contains no sign they understand or respect the type of medicine we actually train for here.”
Nothing in your description has to fake interest in primary care or community medicine. But if every activity is framed around prestige, competition, and technology, it can feel misaligned.
Better: spotlight real human experiences—regardless of the setting:
“At the community health fair, I screened blood pressures for mostly uninsured adults who had not seen a physician in years.”
That sounds like someone who has at least touched what non-academic medicine looks like.
10. Cutting and Pasting Personal Statement Themes into Activities
Finally, a subtle but damaging mistake: repeating personal statement language in activity descriptions, especially “theme sentences.”
When the same phrases appear in both your personal statement and multiple activities—almost word-for-word—committee members notice. It can make the entire application feel manufactured.
Problem pattern:
- Personal statement: “I learned that listening is the first step to healing.”
- Activities:
- Entry 1: “This activity taught me that listening is the first step to healing.”
- Entry 3: “I again realized that listening is the first step to healing.”
Recycling “signature lines” feels inauthentic, like you built your application around slogans.
What to do instead
- Let your activities supply raw material—specific experiences and skills
- Let your personal statement synthesize meaning
- Avoid “taglines” or repeated catchphrases
If an idea is genuinely important, it will appear naturally in different words and contexts. Committees trust that much more.
FAQs
1. Can strong activities compensate if my descriptions are not perfect?
Strong underlying activities help, but poor descriptions can absolutely weaken them. Committees only know what you actually write. If your descriptions sound fake, inflated, or vague, they may assume your experiences are shallower than they are. You do not need perfect prose, but you must be clear, honest, and specific.
2. How emotional is too emotional in an activity description?
You can briefly mention how something affected you (e.g., “This was the first time I saw a patient die, and I felt unprepared for how heavy that would feel afterward”). It becomes too emotional when the description shifts away from what you did and learned into a long, dramatic narrative aimed at eliciting sympathy. Reserve deeper emotional processing for the personal statement or secondary essays. Activities should focus mainly on actions and concrete takeaways.
3. If I already submitted with some of these problems, am I doomed?
No. Many applicants submit with imperfect activities and still get interviews. However, if you recognize serious exaggeration, misleading titles, or obviously inflated hours, you should correct those issues in future application cycles or updates. For now, prepare to answer questions honestly in interviews. Own your actual role, clarify any overstatements verbally, and do not repeat the same mistakes in secondaries or future applications.
Key protections to remember:
- Specific beats dramatic: describe what you actually did in concrete terms; avoid buzzwords and hero narratives.
- Honest scale beats inflated importance: match your level of reflection and “impact” to the real depth and length of the experience.
- Credibility is cumulative: consistent, modest, precise descriptions build trust; a few fake-sounding lines can quietly erode it.
