McMaster INCREASING Number of Interviews for 2020/21 Cycle

[Casablanca]

https://mdprogram.mcmaster.ca/md-program-admissions/when-to-apply

See "Admissions Information Presentation" page 13.

" The number of interviews offered in the 2020/21 application cycle will be increased by the number of students who are receiving a guaranteed interview spot. "

What are your thoughts? Fair? Unfair?

[MedicineLCS]

Wow. Mac does something different again. 

I don't have any skin in this game, and I can understand partially why'd they'd want to do this looking back, but I don't think their reasoning is really fair to the guaranteed interview group. As it stands, they're hurting both new, reapplicants, and guaranteed interview people by increasing the post-interview competitiveness. GPA's typically increase, I'd imagine most people wouldn't rewrite the MCAT if they had a high enough CARS score for a guaranteed interview, and CASPer is a black box which guaranteed interviews bypass. IF 90% of the UofC's interviewed reapplicants get another interview, I can't see Mac, which doesn't use subjective ECs (but has more applicants admittedly), being massively different. 

If they hadn't increased the number of spots new/re applicants would have been slightly negatively affected by a small reduction in the number of remaining interviews filled by people who were on the margins last year and would have been in the 10+% who were not given another interview, but the guaranteed interview pool would have had the same odds and everyone would be equal to last year post-interview. 

Increasing the number of spots means everyone is negatively affected, with only a few new/reapplicants benefiting from the increased numbers. Instead of ~203 seats/550, it's not ~203/650-750. That means new applicants and everyone face more competitive odds post-interview (EDIT: Assuming that this means straight addition 550+guaranteed and not running the formula again like TheStern suggests, which would be the best solution in my opinion). 

If we run a thought experiment with 150 people eventually rejected post-interview and assume 75% of them would have received another interview that means 37 of that group would have not received another interview (leaving 113 to interview again). Under the old interview number (550) and eventual offer number (~320) that would mean 47 people rejected post-interview would be accepted (no guaranteed interview scenario). But that isn't the choice they made, so If you send all the people rejected post-interview to a guaranteed interview and don't change the number of interview you end up with 87 people from that pool getting acceptances (a 40 person difference). If you increase the number of interviews to 700, with 320 eventual offers, with guaranteed interviews, 69 of the guaranteed interview pool ends up with offers. The % of new/rejected preinterview applicants is the same as any other year with the new spots. IF all the assumptions hold, and percentages are the same (big if since reapplicants may interview better), the cost of expanding the interview pool vs. not ends up being 18 people not getting offers from the guaranteed pool. I'll leave it to someone else to weigh in on if admitting 18 more new/reapplicants is worth it. In the end, it is a zero sum game, and you need to decide if prioritizing new applicants/people rejected pre-interview is worth expanding the interview pool. 

This is all assuming 600-700 interviews won't be the new normal going forward. If they manage to pull it once without significantly complicating logistics or increasing costs, why not always interview more people to increase the power of the MMI in the process? 

This feels unfair to guaranteed interview people who were promised interviews, and I'm sure assumed (I was) that this interview would have about the same odds at the cancelled interview. I suppose you can make the argument any guaranteed interview is better than none at all, even with these longer odds, but since they're already giving guaranteed interviews that's not the point of discussion. 

[rmorelan]

you know I like to think I am pretty good at keeping up with all the changes but this year they are making me work at it! 

 

 

[TheStern]

It's still unclear (to me at least) what exactly this means. 

Let's say 100 students are re-applying next year with guaranteed interviews. Does the number of students receiving interviews immediately jump from 550 to 650? Or will they pick 550 students, and then add those who were guaranteed interviews. So let's say 30 guaranteed interviewees were not in the 550, then the number would jump to 580.

The way it's phrased kind of makes it sound like the former, but it's not 100% clear and that option makes much less sense to me

[Medfool25]

13 minutes ago, TheStern said:

It's still unclear (to me at least) what exactly this means. 

Let's say 100 students are re-applying next year with guaranteed interviews. Does the number of students receiving interviews immediately jump from 550 to 650? Or will they pick 550 students, and then add those who were guaranteed interviews. So let's say 30 guaranteed interviewees were not in the 550, then the number would jump to 580.

The way it's phrased kind of makes it sound like the former, but it's not 100% clear and that option makes much less sense to me

Probably proceed as usual offering 550 interviews, and then add the guaranteed re-applicants to that number. At least that's my interpretation.

[bearded frog]

Who knows how many people will actually be interviewing based on it, some may have been accepted elsewhere, others may not want to apply next year for other reasons.

[capoo]

1 hour ago, Medfool25 said:

Probably proceed as usual offering 550 interviews, and then add the guaranteed re-applicants to that number. At least that's my interpretation.

I think it'd be like that too tbh, so something like "take 550 people with best GPA/CASPer/CARS + extra interview spots for people who got an interview this year but fail to make top 550 next year." I mean people who got an interview this year will most likely get one again next year even without guaranteed interviews anyway (GPA and CARS will just stay the same, if not improve by a marginal amount, and CASPer performance would most likely be stable from year to year according to their studies), so basically the extra guaranteed interview spots are just a safety net for people who did well on the CASPer this year but somehow fuck it up next year imo!

[Saber223]

So it's exactly as I thought. Let's see how this one goes. 

 

 

[seewhathappens]

8 hours ago, keipop said:

I think it'd be like that too tbh, so something like "take 550 people with best GPA/CASPer/CARS + extra interview spots for people who got an interview this year but fail to make top 550 next year." I mean people who got an interview this year will most likely get one again next year even without guaranteed interviews anyway (GPA and CARS will just stay the same, if not improve by a marginal amount, and CASPer performance would most likely be stable from year to year according to their studies), so basically the extra guaranteed interview spots are just a safety net for people who did well on the CASPer this year but somehow fuck it up next year imo!

I'd agree with you, except we don't have to re-write Casper - so unless they're pulling the Casper score from previous cycle, or just the pre-interview score overall, it feels to me like its 550+X guarantees.  Which is not ideal.

[mdforme]

10 hours ago, seewhathappens said:

I'd agree with you, except we don't have to re-write Casper - so unless they're pulling the Casper score from previous cycle, or just the pre-interview score overall, it feels to me like its 550+X guarantees.  Which is not ideal.

Yeah there is a powerpoint on the mcmaster application page now that says that the additional interviews are being added for those who applied this past cycle, were invited to interview, and then were not accepted after their "new algorithm" for accepting people without holding the interviews due to COVID-19.

So original 550, if there were 100 people this past cycle invited to interview and then not accepted, goes to 650.

And then says that they are unsure if in-person interviews will be possible next cycle, but if not they are going to hold interviews virtually.

[AB27]

Idk if the odds argument is fully valid. There not drawing interviewees from a hat and accepting them (that was a one-off right??), as far as I know it is in relation to other applicants that you are ranked. So if you're a bad applicant/interviewee your chances are the same- low. The argument for fewer interview spots is that someone who wouldn't get an interview without the 550+ is better than you and would therefore out compete you. I think that's more or less fair even if it sucks. 

[GamingMD]

has anyone emailed them to ask them to clarify? if not im sending an email rn

[Remyelination]

8 hours ago, GamingMD said:

has anyone emailed them to ask them to clarify? if not im sending an email rn

Let us know what they respond!

[GamingMD]

So i got an email back and they said that "if necessary" they'll increase interview spots to accommodate ppl that qualified for an interview but didn't receive an admission. Only applies to ppl that still apply and didn't get in anywhere else. Their wording is a bit imprecise and kinda leaves me with more questions than answers. Since they said "if neccesary" im assuming theyre going to rank to top 552 applicants and anyone with a guarenteed interview not in the top 552 will be added in aswell. This would be a best case scenario since it only means not as many extra applicants.

Also for the ppl with guarenteed interviews: i wanna set up a group of us that do practise interviews and such over skype since we have so much time to prepare for the interviews in march. Im planning on doing this from fall till our interviews. if ur interested hmu

[seewhathappens]

I think we'll get more information when they email us RE: Casper.  If they mention re-using scores, it will seem that we are just "re-applying", and theoretically qualifying for an interview again.  If we don't make the normal cut, they'll give us a spot anyway.  This will have to be clarified regardless, since some people will be re-writing casper for other schools, so they'll let us know whether to release only to other schools or Mac as well.

Unfortunately, until that email comes (it may soon, since OMSAS 2021 opens tomorrow), we won't know for sure.

 

EDIT: changed info RE: how casper sends scores, was mistaken.

[DrOtter]

29 minutes ago, seewhathappens said:

I think we'll get more information when they email us RE: Casper.  If they mention re-using scores, it will seem that we are just "re-applying", and theoretically qualifying for an interview again.  If we don't make the normal cut, they'll give us a spot anyway.  This will have to be clarified regardless, since some people will be re-writing casper for other schools, so they'll let us know how to release only to Ottawa, McGill, etc, vs. to OMSAS where Mac would get it as well.

Unfortunately, until that email comes (it may soon, since OMSAS 2021 opens tomorrow), we won't know for sure.

If I remember correctly, CASPer scores are not sent to OMSAS. You just pick the different schools to send the scores to on the CASPer platform?

[seewhathappens]

24 minutes ago, DrOtter said:

If I remember correctly, CASPer scores are not sent to OMSAS. You just pick the different schools to send the scores to on the CASPer platform?

Sorry, you are correct.  

I guess the email may clarify - if you're taking it again for other schools, don't send it to us? Who knows.  That's just my guess though.  They did say they're going to send us a follow-up email RE: casper, so hopefully we get some more info then.

[TheFlyGuy]

26 minutes ago, DrOtter said:

If I remember correctly, CASPer scores are not sent to OMSAS. You just pick the different schools to send the scores to on the CASPer platform?

This is correct! Casper scores don't go through omsas they're directly released to schools

Edit: Ninja'd. But that's a good question. Def something admissions needs to answer but I would imagine that they just won't use your new score at all either way seeing as how you have an auto-interview and it isn't used post-interview 

[seewhathappens]

4 minutes ago, TheFlyGuy said:

This is correct! Casper scores don't go through omsas they're directly released to schools

Edit: Ninja'd. But that's a good question. Def something admissions needs to answer but I would imagine that they just won't use your new score at all either way seeing as how you have an auto-interview and it isn't used post-interview 

Haha sorry for the ninja.  

Yeah, we'll see I guess.  I am personally not writing it again, so it doesn't matter so much for me - I would just love some clarification on whether it is a full re-application with re-use of scores, or just a token interview being added to their otherwise normal interview cohort of ~550.  It has massive implications for post-interview scoring/rank list.

[Premedwithadream]

So has anyone figured out how the guaranteed interviews are affecting the total # of interview spots?

 

[M3P0]

.

[PleasePleasePlease]

My understanding is they are increasing the number of interviews given out.

From the website:

”The number of interviews offered in the 2020/21 application cycle will be increased by the number of students who are receiving a guaranteed interview spot”