-

[BernieMac]

-

[insomnias]

 

Makes the waiting a little less painful, at the same time I can totally feel how it must be so disheartening getting so close and knowing your chance of an offer is very good past getting the interview and not getting in ): 

 

Source: https://afmc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/en/Publications/AdmissionRequirements_en.pdf

 

Haha, yeah, I didn't quite do the math on how sad my two post-interview rejections from last year really are. But it's a bit easier to reapply successfully when you know what you need to fix!

[Mithril]

When I was applying the stats never made me feel good because it's not like they just pick names out of a hat. If you're the bottom 10% you'll always be the bottom 10% unless you make some serious changes to the way you interview.

[BernieMac]

-

[Mithril]

well of course, that is obvious....for instance UBC offers acceptances to 50% to interviewees, which means if they interview 600 they will rank everyone (total score-pre and post) from 1 to 600 and accept the top 300, you just have to be in the top 300....not downplaying the difficulty (heck I will look silly if I don't get in this year) but I only got 1 interview but how hard is to really just be in the top 300 out of 600 people, odds were much worse to get the interview. Also don't understand how someone can get 3+ interviews and not get in anywhere... if you apply at 3 schools who have a 50% interview acceptance rate that is 1- (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2) = 88% chance you will at least get into 1 of them.

 

I have a friend that got SEVEN (7) !!! interviews in Canada,  he has a 99.2% to get in get into at least one....it is literally almost statistically impossible for him to not get into at least one. 

Your post still is implying that acceptance is based on just chance or binomial probability, but you can't just make calculations like that because it doesn't follow that kind of probability at all.

[justwannabeadoc]

Your post still is implying that acceptance is based on just chance or binomial probability, but you can't just make calculations like that because it doesn't follow that kind of probability at all.

 

I think what they're trying to say is that if an applicant performs just "average" across all those interviews its highly probable that s/he will get at least one acceptance. But if someone is a below average interviewee, that probability is meaningless...

[Borborygmi]

well of course, that is obvious....for instance UBC offers acceptances to 50% to interviewees, which means if they interview 600 they will rank everyone (total score-pre and post) from 1 to 600 and accept the top 300, you just have to be in the top 300....not downplaying the difficulty (heck I will look silly if I don't get in this year) but I only got 1 interview but how hard is to really just be in the top 300 out of 600 people, odds were much worse to get the interview. Also don't understand how someone can get 3+ interviews and not get in anywhere... if you apply at 3 schools who have a 50% interview acceptance rate that is 1- (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2) = 88% chance you will at least get into 1 of them.

 

I have a friend that got SEVEN (7) !!! interviews in Canada,  he has a 99.2% to get in get into at least one....it is literally almost statistically impossible for him to not get into at least one. 

 

I'm sure if you reread your message, you might be able to see how it is insulting to very qualified individuals who have unsuccessfully interviewed, often multiple times. Might be a good idea to check yourself a bit.

 

I think it's also important to realize that the top 600 candidates (and especially the top 300, 150, or however many people a school accepts) are all very highly qualified individuals. Sometimes it's not so easy to be in the top 50% of this sort of group of individuals. I'm sure you can appreciate that. At the end of the day, there is a large lottery component to the interview process because of just how qualified the vast majority of interviewees are in the Canadian system. I would consider myself very lucky to get into a Canadian medical school--especially if I was only interviewing for my first time and at only a single institution (as was also my case). Statistics aren't just about the numbers, it's about the context as well.

[End Poverty]

well of course, that is obvious....for instance UBC offers acceptances to 50% to interviewees, which means if they interview 600 they will rank everyone (total score-pre and post) from 1 to 600 and accept the top 300, you just have to be in the top 300....not downplaying the difficulty (heck I will look silly if I don't get in this year) but I only got 1 interview but how hard is to really just be in the top 300 out of 600 people, odds were much worse to get the interview. Also don't understand how someone can get 3+ interviews and not get in anywhere... if you apply at 3 schools who have a 50% interview acceptance rate that is 1- (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2) = 88% chance you will at least get into 1 of them.

 

I have a friend that got SEVEN (7) !!! interviews in Canada,  he has a 99.2% to get in get into at least one....it is literally almost statistically impossible for him to not get into at least one. 

 

 

 

I think your statement is quite presumptuous. Although from the statistics, it seems that an interviewee has around a 50%  chance of getting accepted at each school they interview at,  you have to understand that most people who get interviews are very qualified applicants and competition is very difficult.   You are getting compared to people who are beyond amazing, and are great in a lot of ways. Additionally, some people don't have high pre-MMI scores ( because of low GPA and/or MCAT scores, and/ or mediocre extracurriculars), which sometimes drop someone chances to 20-30%.  Furthermore, interviewing for the first time and unfamiliarity with MMI and its structure is another factor that could lower someone's chances, especially if other applicants are familiar with the question style and have done MMIs previously ( a large proportion of the application pool has the advantage of being a repeat applicant). Lastly, although an applicant may look great on paper, they may not have the necessary critical thinking or tactfulness -- that would allow them to score well on the interviews, despite the many chances that they are given to interview.

 

At U of C, although according to your calculation, an applicant has 48.1% chance of acceptance, the average applicant has to apply 3.7 times before they get in ( according to Dr. Walker).

[BernieMac]

-

[End Poverty]

Its 2.7, not 3.7. Plus, I know of multiple people who got in on their third or fourth try not because they were getting interviews each year and getting rejected but they were getting rejected pre-interview each year, and then got in on their first time being offered an interview. 

 

Great, thank you for the correction, I hope you are one of these people who get in from their first interview trial  

[MountainAmoeba]

well of course, that is obvious....for instance UBC offers acceptances to 50% to interviewees, which means if they interview 600 they will rank everyone (total score-pre and post) from 1 to 600 and accept the top 300, you just have to be in the top 300....not downplaying the difficulty (heck I will look silly if I don't get in this year) but I only got 1 interview but how hard is to really just be in the top 300 out of 600 people, odds were much worse to get the interview. Also don't understand how someone can get 3+ interviews and not get in anywhere... if you apply at 3 schools who have a 50% interview acceptance rate that is 1- (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2) = 88% chance you will at least get into 1 of them.

 

I have a friend that got SEVEN (7) !!! interviews in Canada, he has a 99.2% to get in get into at least one....it is literally almost statistically impossible for him to not get into at least one.

Statistically impossible if it's chance. Which it isn't. Don't downplay the requirement to have successful attributes to succeed. Also. Your post has a nice way of telling people that didn't get in that they are failures. Seems a bit. Harsh. A bit reductionist. Many many people get multiple interviews and don't get it, for many may reasons. You could try to be a bit sensitive to that?

[HiHopes]

YesICan55,

 

Think of Calgary's system, where people get an interview with a score of roughly 102 points (100=mean). 

For people to get accepted, they need a score of about 209 points overall. Again, roughly and slightly varying each year. This means that people who go into interviews with 102 points are at the 0th pre-MMI percentile in the pool of interviewees. It also means that they need 107 points (100=mean) to get in. SD is 7.5 score points in Calgary, right? So These people have to do really really well in the interview to get in. Almost a whole standard deviation from the mean. They basically have to get at least 15/20 in the interviews, when the mean is around 13.3 and the mean for accepted applicants is around 14.5/20 with an SD of 0.87. Naturally, someone with a killer pre-MMI score may still do at mean-level in interviews and still be almost guaranteed to get accepted (unless they really screw up the interview).

 

So, if you're that kind of person whose pre-interview stats are just good enough at this point in your life that you make it to interview stage in multiple universities, but for whatever reason your interview skills aren't a whole SD above the mean of already incredibly talented and smart interviewees who've been selected from a huge pool of similarly top-notch candidates, you will find yourself in a state of post-interview rejection unless you either improve those pre-MMI scores or you really rock that interview. Remember that statistics in this case does not consider the fact that you, as an applicant, are the same across all applications. Unless a particular university really makes a certain trait of yours shine much more than others, you are going to have a relatively similar pre-interview score at most universities. 

Pretending that the chances are simply based on the numbers of people interviewed versus the people who are accepted off that pool is simply ignoring that some will already go into interviews with a higher chance of getting in than others. I understand that the simplification makes it look more positive; that, in your case you'd be looking at a 48% chance of getting in instead of a chance that could be anything from almost zero to almost a hundred. You should, however, be really careful about simplifying like this, when it implies that some of the kindest, most hard-working people out there will be considered statistical anomalies or failures.

[bobbyshmedder]

OP, you're misunderstanding the difference between probability and percentile. Those number you calculated are more like percentiles as opposed to probability. Assuming offers are made from descending order starting from the highest scored candidate, for Toronto you'll need to perform better than 100-54.6 = 45.3% of applicants, not that you're odds of getting into Toronto is 54.6%. It's the same as how your probability of getting a perfect 132 on CARS is not 1%, but rather you need to perform better than 99% of candidates.

[Curiousaboutapps1]

well of course, that is obvious....for instance UBC offers acceptances to 50% to interviewees, which means if they interview 600 they will rank everyone (total score-pre and post) from 1 to 600 and accept the top 300, you just have to be in the top 300....not downplaying the difficulty (heck I will look silly if I don't get in this year) but I only got 1 interview but how hard is to really just be in the top 300 out of 600 people, odds were much worse to get the interview. Also don't understand how someone can get 3+ interviews and not get in anywhere... if you apply at 3 schools who have a 50% interview acceptance rate that is 1- (1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2) = 88% chance you will at least get into 1 of them.

 

I have a friend that got SEVEN (7) !!! interviews in Canada,  he has a 99.2% to get in get into at least one....it is literally almost statistically impossible for him to not get into at least one. 

That's based on the idea that these things are random. I interviewed at three schools last year and didn't get in (which frankly was good because I wasnt mentally or emotionally in a place to be a med student). If you have problems with interviewing/nervs/dont do your research you are unlikely to get in regardless of how many school you interview at. 

[m_jacob_45]

That's based on the idea that these things are random. I interviewed at three schools last year and didn't get in (which frankly was good because I wasnt mentally or emotionally in a place to be a med student). If you have problems with interviewing/nervs/dont do your research you are unlikely to get in regardless of how many school you interview at. 

 

Just wanted to reinforce the point about nerves. I think nerves can really change how some people come across in an interview, so its really difficult to take the probabilities mentioned in the original post and apply them in a meaningful way to real people. Some people will be much more affected by their nerves than others (amongst other factors of course), so the accepted applicants may be very different than the applicants who would have appeared to be most eligible (on paper) prior to interview. Basically, if somebody has multiple interviews, but does not get in anywhere, I would definitely not jump to the idea that this means they are less cut out for medicine than others who got in as there are so many factors that are difficult to quantify affecting each interview in possibly different ways. 

[mdjdot]

 

I was curious so I looked up the number of offers sent to interviewees at various schools: 

*This includes waitlist movement, but does not separate chance for IP/OOP or take into account varying pre-interview score*

 

Dalhousie   135/321= 42.1% of interviewees offered 

Ottawa        256/575=  44.5% of interviewees offered

Alberta        224/478 = 46.9% of interviewees offered

Calgary       251/522= 48.1% of interviewees offered

Manitoba    138/285=  48.4% of interviewees offered

UBC             328/656 = 50.0% of interviewees offered

Toronto       327/599 = 54.6% of interviewees offered 

McMaster   336/552 = 60.9% of interviewees offered

Western       264/427= 61.8% of interviewees offered 

 

Makes the waiting a little less painful, at the same time I can totally feel how it must be so disheartening getting so close and knowing your chance of an offer is very good past getting the interview and not getting in ): 

 

Source: https://afmc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/en/Publications/AdmissionRequirements_en.pdf

 

this is great! thank you!

[MacMed2018]