10 year rule under review

[dttran]

Hi kylamonkey:

 

Did you ever hear anything from UBC about reconsidering the 10 year rule. I would be glad to put my name on the list of people wanting this reinstated.

 

Cheers,

Dttran

[Helix]

Hi kylamonkey:

 

Did you ever hear anything from UBC about reconsidering the 10 year rule. I would be glad to put my name on the list of people wanting this reinstated.

 

Cheers,

Dttran

 

I would sign on. I was considering writing a letter. I found the abrupt removal of a rule that takes over a decade in planning and work to utilize left much to be desired.

 

Best,

Helix

[B3.572A]

Me too.

 

I hope something can be done to urge UBC to reconsider the 10-year rule.

[Robin Hood]

Good luck in changing the mind of an admission committee...

[Guest BluePin]

Good luck in changing the mind of an admission committee...

 

Potential applicants, including myself, who were excluded by UofC's admission policy change last summer met with the Dean of Admissions to make a case for the applicant demographic that was excluded by the change.

 

Lo & behold: UofC institutes a policy change for the upcoming application cycle designed to accommodate this applicant demographic (another 10-year rule type policy).

 

If you feel that you have a reasonable argument for policy change, then you should try to meet with someone who can affect policy change and make your case.

 

Be polite, be professional, be prepared, but absolutely make a case for changes you feel are warranted.

 

An applicant with a 10-year-old 4-year undergrad degree at a 54% average and a recently completed second 4-year undergrad degree at a 90% average would be ineligible to apply to UBC (= 74.57% overall average with one low year dropped, therefore will not receive full file review). Conversely, an applicant with 3 completed years at an 88% average will be within the averages of admitted applicants (i.e. competitive against those metrics).

 

Arguably, both applicants have demonstrated the academic ability to succeed in the study of medicine to an equal degree. The first applicant may have demonstrated this to an even greater degree, with one more year of schooling at a high standard and a slightly higher average, yet is still ineligible due to their past poor performance.

 

So, the argument is reasonable, and if it is not made to those who can effect policy then nothing will ever change.

 

Of course, UBC may counter that consistent academic performance is important to them and that they consider the second applicant to be superior.

 

Bottom line, you won't know if you could have changed anything unless you state your case to a dean of admissions or equivalent.

[Robin Hood]

People, including myself, who were excluded by UofC's admission policy change last summer met with the Dean of Admissions to make a case for the applicant demographic that was excluded by the change.

 

Lo & behold: UofC institutes a policy change for the upcoming application cycle designed to accommodate this applicant demographic (another 10-year rule type policy).

 

If you feel that you have a reasonable argument for policy change, then you should try to meet with someone who can affect policy change and make your case.

 

Be polite, be professional, be prepared, but absolutely make a case for changes you feel are warranted.

 

An applicant with a 10-year-old 4-year undergrad degree at a 54% average and a recently completed second 4-year undergrad degree at a 90% average would be ineligible to apply to UBC (= 74.57% overall average with one low year dropped, therefore will not receive full file review). Conversely, an applicant with 3 completed years at an 88% average will within the averages of admitted applicants (i.e. competitive against those metrics).

 

Arguably, both applicants have demonstrated the academic ability to succeed in the study of medicine to an equal degree. The first applicant may have demonstrated this to an even greater degree, with one more year of schooling at a high standard and a slightly higher average, yet is still ineligible due to their past poor performance.

 

So, the argument is reasonable, and if it is not made to those who can effect policy then nothing will ever change.

 

Of course, UBC may counter that consistent academic performance is important to them and that they consider the second applicant to be superior.

 

Bottom line, you won't know if you could have changed anything unless you state your case to a dean of admissions or equivalent.

 

I didn't know meeting a dean of admissions is possible. Since when do dean listen to people who are just candidates? But I'm sure at most schools, the dead will never accept to meet simple candidates. He won't even answer back your call/email.

[Guest BluePin]

I'm sure at most schools, the dead will never accept to meet simple candidates.

 

I'm pretty sure that at all schools the dead never meet with candidates:). I certainly hope they don't meet with me.

 

I'm not suggesting that one will necessarily be successful in advocating for policy change, but the mandate of medical schools is to produce physicians who will be successful (ideally exceptional) in the practice of medicine. Policy makers work prospectively and can't predict all of the ramifications of new or changing policies.

 

If an applicant can make a reasonable (i.e. polite, profession, and cogent) case for why a policy is excluding quality applicants, then policy makers should be (and, in many cases, are) interested to listen.

 

Of course, as you point out, this depends on the individual and the school: some may have no interest in hearing from "simple candidates."

 

You won't know if you don't try.

[B3.572A]

I agree with BluePin, and I am wondering if we can have enough people on this forum to act together.

 

BluePin, do you mind telling us how you managed to talk to the Dean at UofC last year?

[Guest BluePin]

BluePin, do you mind telling us how you managed to talk to the Dean at UofC last year?

 

I asked.

 

I was polite, flexible regarding timing, and made it clear that I was not looking for any sort of special exemption (which I don't believe any schools can provide and seeking such things is therefore a waste of everyone's time), but simply to explain the effect that the policies had on someone in my situation.

[B3.572A]

Thanks, BluePin!

 

I am wondering how many people on this forum are willing to present your argument before the admission office. Maybe we can start from drafting a formal letter. Then we can sign the letter together and mail it to the Dean's office at UBC. Or perhaps there are better ideas?

[kylamonkey]

Certainly with any change in the people on the admissions policy board it may be worth a shot.

 

I can put people in touch with each other. I'm not able to do the work, especially since I don't live anywhere close to UBC anymore. In fact, I can say that I moved to the Yukon because of the removal of the 10-yr rule.

[Helix]

Hello old timers,

 

Here we go:

 

I think it would be more impactful if each of us who wish to reinstate the 10 year rule write their own letter. It will give them a chance to hear multiple points, all of which may not be able to be included in a single letter. Plus this is easier to coordinate.

 

There are a few things we should all probably try to do:

A. Be objective, diplomatic and logical. No whining for special consideration please. Some points you may want to consider including:

1. With UBC stats indicating that the average age of an entering UBC student is declining, we should probably pose the question of what factors are contributing to this and is this intentional (unlikely) or just an unforeseen side effect of the changes in admissions proceedures in recent years. With breadth of experiences and age comes and ease of relatability to pockets of our patient population that may not connect with an MD that took a conventional path. (I know the bumps in my road have humbled me greatly, and I am more prepared now to shelve judgment)

2. Reiterate that accomplishments 10 years post the fact of academic blunderings are much more indicative of a students current capabilities. e.g. should the door be shut permenantly even though the a decade of work has shown dedication?

3. The removal of this rule should have been much more gradual since people make a lot of long-term decisions to utilize it. Use your own examples!

 

B. Can someone post details on exactly when their website notified people the rule would be remove? Also what cycle the rule was removed?

 

C. We should all write to the same person/address. Could someone post the appropriate info? Dean?

 

D. since the currentl cycle is coming to a close and historically, changes to policies tend to start to happen right around this time, we should set a deadline. Kindly have your letters mailed/emailed by April 15th 2012 (Sunday night).

 

Sound OK?

[B3.572A]

Thanks for your replies, kylamonkey and Helix.

 

I like Helix's idea to send individual letters, but there seems to be not many people interested so far. If we cannot find enough people, it may not work very well.