10 year rule under review

[maybeadoc]

I would still consider a 30 year old to be young enough. I'm talking about people who are 50 years old (granted, not at all common), who will be 55 or so once they graduate from medical school. Add on residency time, etc., and they only have a good ten years of service left in them.

 

that service though might of much higher quality though due to life experience. this person might also be fulfilling their dream, so who are we as society to say they shouldn't. it become a slippery slope when we start calculating/speculating who will contribute most and then choosing those people rather than choosing people by merit. there are otherways the medical system can be improved. rather than choosing people who will serve longer, why not make it easier for foreign trained doctors to practice in canada. this would be an inclusive way to enhance medicine, ratherthan choosing younger people which is exclusive!!!

[songofdovely]

Just in my defense, as someone who used the 10 yr rule, I'd argue that I was a very different person 10 yrs ago, and that is why I should have a chance to not have those marks counted. Not a different person in the sense that you're a different person from 1st yr to 4th yr university, but the same level of difference from a 16-yr-old to a 26-yr-old. That's all.

 

The 10 year rule is an entitlement that rewards those who are older and may have changed their life goals sometime during those 10 years. I get that. But for some people that change in their life goal can happen in the span of months. For me, I ended up failing 2 courses in my first year, but was able to bring my average up to a point where I received an interview because I worked my ass off for the past 3 years since then.

 

My problem with the 10 year rule is this - anyone who argues for it, please explain to me why you deserve to have your bottom credits omitted and I don't? Because you're older? Because you have more 'life experience' (which I would argue against, I did not get my >20 in NAQ without some hardcore exposure to this world..fyi I calculated based off of posted scores that my AQ can be no larger than 8) That's my point. The rule should be replaced with one that can benefit all applicants.

[songofdovely]

i know it reflects some people's thinking AND this is on many occasions true, but does that mean women shouldn't doctors? NO!!!

 

from a taxpapayers perspective perhaps it would make sense, but as a canadian I am proud that we as a society make decisions that do not always boil down to money! People should follow their dreams including pursuing an education that they want to - it is a privilige yes, BUT also a right!

 

I agree with this . Like I said, it was not my point of view. I was just trying to point out that unfortunately some people really do hold this view.

[zunik]

Just in my defense, as someone who used the 10 yr rule, I'd argue that I was a very different person 10 yrs ago, and that is why I should have a chance to not have those marks counted. Not a different person in the sense that you're a different person from 1st yr to 4th yr university, but the same level of difference from a 16-yr-old to a 26-yr-old. That's all.

 

I was thinking since they took off the 10 year rule, the AQ for this cycle will be more flexible than last cycle?

[MarathonRunner]

I’ve been a lurker here for a while and just wanted to make some comments.

 

The mandate of admissions committee is to admit the best applicants. The committee is not in the dream-making business. When you look at the mandate from the perspective of the taxpayer, it is even stricter. They have to pick not only the best candidates, but the ones that will provide the greatest return on investment (ROI). Medical school education is highly subsidized in Canada.

 

By the same token, you could argue that you shouldn't admit women to medical school (which would be absolutely ridiculous) because (as one employer told me): "women get married, have children, and leave the workforce." (Yes, sadly that attitude exists even today.)

 

So I don't think you can look at these things as a pure "return on investment." It is also impossible to judge. A 40 year old might end up working until he or she is 70+ whereas a 20 year old might only practice medicine until 40.

[The Ace of Spades]

By the same token, you could argue that you shouldn't admit women to medical school (which would be absolutely ridiculous) because (as one employer told me): "women get married, have children, and leave the workforce." (Yes, sadly that attitude exists even today.)

 

So I don't think you can look at these things as a pure "return on investment." It is also impossible to judge. A 40 year old might end up working until he or she is 70+ whereas a 20 year old might only practice medicine until 40.

 

Yes, but statistically, that won't happen. And I also pointed out that the benefits in having female doctors far exceeds the lower job output in a small number of cases. Your argument is invalid as it doesn't apply in today's world.

[hking03]

I agree with your point that the adcom is going to admit the best applicant, but I highly doubt that age comes into the equation... They assess enough information to be able to rank the interviewed applicants from best to worst (in their eyes).

 

ROI probably doesn't play a part in it because you can't say for certain whether or not a 25 year old will practice medicine for 50 years and a 40 year old will only practice for 30 years... that 25 year old might decide she/he wants to get into something completely different using their medical career to launch off from... they might also get hit by a bus. It is certainly more likely in terms of number of potential years of service that a younger applicant will garner more years, but that wouldn't be a part of the selection criteria. The tiebreaker would never be age... that's ageism... If anything, the fact that they have used the 10 year rule may work against them... because they are only equal to that younger applicant because of a rule that allowed them to drop their previous years. That raises the argument of whether or not excluded work or the fact that you've utilized the 10 year rule working against you...

 

Think of it this way... all things being equal between a woman and a male of the exact same age... they've scored exactly the same on all components and even come from rural areas... what's the better ROI? The man? The woman? The taxpayer would say the man because he can continue to work while having children... but, sex, age, race, sexuality, religion cannot be used as criteria in a ranking for employment or school... it's an unethical practice and I'm pretty sure it violates the charter... So the ROI theory would fly out the window with that one.

 

It works both ways- an older applicant may be held to higher standards in terms of the NAQ portion and as such, should have some amazing EC's in order to get a high NAQ score. Just the same, a younger applicant with a good AQ isn't held to as high of a standard on the NAQ portion of the application and could garner an interview/acceptance with very minimal activities (relative to a more seasoned applicant).

 

I think somebody should just call the school and ask why the 10 year rule was implemented and why it is being removed to verify so we can stop speculating as to why it was imposed (they probably won't tell us:P). Having said that, here's my take- the 10 year rule gave an applicant an opportunity to remove grades that otherwise would have prevented an application from proceeding to file review or interview/acceptance. It would benefit those that performed significantly better later on down the road in their university education, but were hindered by grades from a decade ago (so a very bright person would benefit and would also show great determination, work ethic and drive... all great characteristics). If we look at it in terms of criminal acts, it would be like getting a pardon granted after serving your time and being an upstanding member of society for 10 years. I think the reason why it is being removed is because the number of accepted applicants that utilized this rule was much lower than 5% of the class and they are going to revamp it with a rule that benefits everybody and establishes an equal playing field completely void of age. If everybody is able to drop their worst 30 credits then it satisfies the 10 year rule requirements (unless you have more than 30 credits) and it also benefits the rest of the applicants.

 

My comments are also purely speculation, and I hope they do not come across as anything more than a comment (not trying to start a battle, just expressing my thoughts). I simply do not believe age can play a role, nor would we as applicants be able to find out... if we did... well, that probably wouldn't be a good thing for the school. So, we have to assume age doesn't factor in.

 

This was taken directly from the website: The selection of candidates for admission to the UBC distributed MD undergraduate program is governed by guidelines established by the Admissions Policy Committee and Senate of UBC. The selection process reflects the values of the UBC Faculty of Medicine and all university partners in the UBC distributed MD undergraduate program. The process is designed to choose well-rounded students from a variety of backgrounds who meet the goals of the expanded, distributed program; who can be expected to perform well in the rigorous curriculum and problem-based learning format; and who can balance and enrich their academic experience with strong non-academic skills and interests.

 

The UBC Faculty of Medicine’s Associate Dean of Equity oversees the selection process to ensure that all applicants are given careful consideration without regard to age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, marital, or economic status.

 

I’ve been a lurker here for a while and just wanted to make some comments.

 

The mandate of admissions committee is to admit the best applicants. The committee is not in the dream-making business. When you look at the mandate from the perspective of the taxpayer, it is even stricter. They have to pick not only the best candidates, but the ones that will provide the greatest return on investment (ROI). Medical school education is highly subsidized in Canada.

 

So if, on average, there is no difference between a candidate who takes advantage of the 10-year rule and the younger candidate who doesn’t need it, then it makes sense to admit the younger candidate. Everything else being equal, the younger candidate will have a greater ROI. The “tiebreaker” is age, not how much someone dreams about it.

 

There is only so much tax money to go around. If taxpayers want greater ROI over making someone’s dream come true, why is that un-Canadian? It’s not. Especially when you consider that most med school applicants want it just as badly as all the other applicants do.

 

I suspect that when the 10-year rule was implemented, the rationale was that applicants who take advantage of it would bring skills to the table that younger applicants wouldn’t. But perhaps, on average, that has turned out to not be true. Maybe they’ve found that once in medical school, the more mature applicants perform no better than the younger applicants. Or perhaps, they’ve found that a few years down the road, the initial maturity advantage that the 10-year applicants had, has greatly diminished. There may be a big maturity gap between a 32-year-old and a 21-year-old, but 9 years down the road, for example, the maturity gap between a 41-year-old and a 30-year-old is much smaller.

 

I also wonder if they’ve abandoned the rule because they thought it might be a bit unethical. Maybe 10-year rule applicants have had a relatively low success rate. Their extra-currics might be better, but they’ve also had a lot longer to accumulate them, and I’m sure the adcom committee takes that into account. So the 10-year-rule may have been giving people unrealistic hope. If the adcom committee was aware that lots of people were putting their lives on hold in some way, in order to take advantage of the 10-year-rule, and their chances weren’t that high of getting in, it would be a little unethical to keep the rule in place.

 

(Please note. These comments are pure speculation. I do not know anyone on the admissions committee.)

[hking03]

Hey Mick,

First off- I just want to reiterate I'm not trying to discredit or start some sort of debate. I think that it's important to have differing viewpoints and to also approach situations with an open mind and come to a conclusion based on all of the evidence presented.

 

I stand by what I said- ROI has nothing to do with acceptance to medical school. There are gender biases... that I do not doubt, but I think it stems from an "old boys club" attitude vs. what benefits the taxpayer. As for the links you presented, they indicate that more females got into McMaster than males because they had higher grades... so... that doesn't really support the ROI theory. Schools are trying to create an equal playing field void of potential biases... that's why McMaster introduced CASPer and we have the MMI... it's not perfect, but progress is being made.

 

As for the 10 year rule- I think you and I are on the same page... The 10 year rule was implemented to allow applicants to proceed to full evaluation without grades from 10 years ago destroying their application. If they were average students, well then they don't proceed... if they have a stellar application then they get to interview and see where it takes them. Like I said before, I think the school is revamping the rule because they want to come up with something more beneficial to a larger group that makes it more equal... if everybody gets to drop their worst 30 credits then the average of accepted students goes up (makes the school look better), the younger applicants are on the same page as the older applicants and everybody is happy.

 

I had a much better post with a lot more to say, but I stupidly closed the window.

 

Oh, and I'd also like to think that UBC is pretty equal in terms of it's acceptance rates. If we look at the last 3 years it's about 50/50...

 

http://www.med.ubc.ca/education/md_ugrad/MD_Undergraduate_Admissions/MD_Undergraduate_Admissions_Statistics.htm

 

Suppose you have two groups of people, Group A and Group B. Everyone in group A lives a healthy lifestyle. They have a healthy diet, don't smoke, don't drink much, get lots of sleep, and train for triathlons in their spare time, and are all at an ideal weight. Everyone in Group B is the exact opposite. They eat nothing but junk and high fructose foods, smoke, never exercise, and are very overweight.

 

Who's more likely to have to get a foot amputated? Someone in Group A or someone in Group B? It's impossible to say, isn't it? Actually, no it's not.

 

 

 

I'm not so sure it flies out the window in practice:

 

http://thesil.ca/blog/news/med-school-adapts-to-gender-gap/

 

The current gender ratio at McMaster (about 65% I believe) would suggest they did something about it.

 

Also:

 

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys/is-affirmative-action-for-men-the-answer-to-enrolment-woes/article1766432/?service=mobile

 

Anyway, I'm just saying that unless 10-year-applicants bring something truly exceptional to the medical profession, it's unfair to make a special rule for them. And I bet that, on average, they were not exceptional. In which case, removal of the rule is fair.

[rmorelan]

In general, I just wanted to say that if people think that the adcom committee should sit around talking about how to make people's dreams come true, that is a little naive. They want to advance and uphold the profession to which they belong, and pick the candidates, who in the future, are most likely to advance the profession.

 

They are not trying to pick people whose life story would make a compelling "based on a true story" movie.

 

ha - quite true!

 

Although I should say they cannot have any particular policy that biases things based on age, simply because it is illegal. That is one of the main reason every single site says they do not discriminate based on age, religion, race...... This kind of blocks them from actually using the "how many years left argument at all" - if that ever came out, and at some point it would, then they school would be in hot water. There is always the risk they are doing something like that unofficially but of course the entire MMI system most schools use is supposed to block stuff like that

[notmeadoc]

There's many females practicing medicine, and certainly there's many females who take longer to complete their residencies taking mat leaves, going back 0.6 or 0.8, BUT I ASSURE YOU THAT A PERSON'S GENDER, OR FUTURE CHILD BEARING/REARING POTENTIAL IS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DECIDING WHO GET'S IN. NOT AT ALL.

 

I speak as someone who has several family members(some by blood, some by marriage) who are a mix of adcom/former adcom, interviewers(usually one member of my family interviews in a particular year). Obviously the year that I interview, my whole family will have to sit out.

 

When I first decided to pursue medicine(and it was a late choice that I made and is likely in my genetic makeup) I obviously opened my ears to anything and everything coming from my family and our circle of friends who are mostly composed of physicians. I had this idea that I would learn "UBC's secret formula" for getting in. I sort of had this idea that perhaps adcom sat around a smoke pit and tossed applicants names into the pit and beat on drums etc.

 

What I have learned is this:

 

UBC takes sexism, racism, and any type of discrimination extremely seriously and absolutely does not discriminate against anyone - what they say on their website is extremely true. It's a fair(though competitive) process and adcom and the interviewers are just normal people. There's nothing secretive or hush hush about what goes on. A discussion about "oh, this applicant is 34 and won't be able to contribute as much to medicine" would NOT OCCUR.

 

UBC is very aware that the socio-economic status of the majority of the incoming medical school classes at UBC is not/have not been reflective of the variation in socio-economic status' found in the population - and UBC is very aware that they need to have physicians from a wide variety of backgrounds because it's important that physicians can relate to a particular patient population - and it's important that there are physicians who will move into/return to lower socio-economic areas because everyone/every area needs doctors! Currently the admissions criteria favours students who come from wealthy stable backgrounds. Those students are able to flourish in the face of the demanding rigour that a pre-med education requires - they are able to invest lots of time volunteering and doing all the hoop jumping while they don't have to work and their mommy cooks them dinner and does their laundry. UBC knows this and is currently trying to make medical school more accessible for a greater variety of students from all sorts of backgrounds.

 

This is my gut feeling and I believe it is shared by a few members on here -

 

Some students have a rough start in university - this can be for a variety of reasons - not always within students control. Some of those students end up doing extremely well in university later and then end up sitting around for 3-4 years waiting for the 10 year rule to kick in(sorry kylamonkey - i stole your tag). That's a waste of time for those students and taking away time that they could be practising medicine.

 

I think that the new rule will be to eliminate your worst 30 credits or something like that.

 

Have faith in this process. It's going to be fair and equitable.

[simpy]

In general, I just wanted to say that if people think that the adcom committee should sit around talking about how to make people's dreams come true, that is a little naive. They want to advance and uphold the profession to which they belong, and pick the candidates, who in the future, are most likely to advance the profession.

 

They are not trying to pick people whose life story would make a compelling "based on a true story" movie.

 

I think this is generally true.

 

But I think your ROI argument is a little one-dimensional. It's true, that ROI could theoretically be the best way of determining which applicants to accept.

 

ROI is about more than just academics. Experience can certainly play into this - for instance, you might imagine someone who is from rural community who has difficulty adjusting to a university in a metropolitan environment and does poorly in two years of school but then does exceptionally well the following two. At UBC, this person would have very little chance. This person might have the experience, drive, and support network to do amazingly well in a rural environment but the lens through which UBC views them is quite negative. This person might have a very high ROI.

 

The issue of your description of ROI stems from the fact that it involves age. You note that "other things being equal," it would make sense to take a younger applicant. The problem is that this is impossible: there is no way to make other things equal. If two applicants had the same GPA and MCAT scores, an older applicant would still have more experience, maturity, wisdom, etc. These applicants may work fewer years on average, but on the other hand, their experience might still give them a higher total return (for instance, a leading researcher in a field who decides to enter medical school might be able to contribute a whole lot).

 

But the rationale for your ROI argument makes sense given UBC's policy which specifically involves time. I think, as you also noted, that this isn't a very fair policy. It leads to arguments such as the one you make, in that applicants who take advantage of this rule are necessarily older. To be honest, this position may have been contestable in court as it may involve "reverse" age discrimination. That is, you can imagine someone who would be a very strong candidate if they were eligible for the 10-year rule but who was not old enough to qualify for it (i.e. they were 25).

 

So there's a big issue of fairness there. Of course, there is always a trade-off as you noted: a person who has had made mistakes will need to bring enough to the table to compensate for these mistakes. Their ROI should be clearly higher than someone who has not made similar mistakes in the past. The test to determine if someone meets this criteria should not involve age in any way.

 

So I think it makes a lot of sense for the 10-year rule to be under review. I just hope that it is replaced by a fair system that allows for people to have made mistakes and still have a chance (provided they have something that can compensate for and overcome a poor past performance) - a system that might predict and reflect "real" ROI irrespective of age.

[songofdovely]

There's many females practicing medicine, and certainly there's many females who take longer to complete their residencies taking mat leaves, going back 0.6 or 0.8, BUT I ASSURE YOU THAT A PERSON'S GENDER, OR FUTURE CHILD BEARING/REARING POTENTIAL IS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DECIDING WHO GET'S IN. NOT AT ALL.

 

You'd be surprised. I won't go into too much detail, but recents years in medical interviews have had a shift to the types of questions they have asked. Yes, they are MMI questions, but the TYPES of MMI questions have changed. MacMaster was the first university to put forth the MMI concept and they found that their entering class was about 75% female. Is it possible that the types of questions they asked gave females an advantage?

 

For people who interviewed this year, ask yourself if you were surprised by the types of questions that came out. Compare these questions to the types of questions that MacMaster initially put out (perhaps some of you got a hold of these questions during your MMI prep). Do you see a difference in the type of intelligence they are trying to measure? Why do you think so many people were surprised the reading Doing Right was so handy this year?

 

Notmeadoc, you come from a background of adcoms. I have my own connections to individuals who are on the board of medicine as well. I can tell you that the composition of MMI questions that are chosen are not random by any means. Every station has a purpose of what they are trying to measure, and I can tell you that IN SOME STATIONS, WOMEN OUT PERFORM MEN ON AVERAGE (and vice versa of course).

 

I agree with your statement that a person's gender will not come into play on the basis of reviewing and individual file, but on a greater scale the questions are massaged to ensure that the entering population is closer to a 1:1 ratio (I believe last years class had the first M>F ratio, but correct me if I'm wrong).

[mssblue]

In general, I just wanted to say that if people think that the adcom committee should sit around talking about how to make people's dreams come true, that is a little naive. They want to advance and uphold the profession to which they belong, and pick the candidates, who in the future, are most likely to advance the profession.

 

They are not trying to pick people whose life story would make a compelling "based on a true story" movie.

 

Are you an applicant?

[kylamonkey]

Sorry to butt in here, as I don't really have anything to say in response, I think it's all been covered.

 

I'll just say one thing, and it's the last thing I'll say about the 10-yr rule.

 

When I decided in 2006 to start down this road, I had a GPA of lets say, about 1.5-ish. Or something along those lines- it really doesn't matter. I knew about the 10-yr rule. I knew that after a certain point, I wouldn't have to worry about them anymore- that 10% in differential equations in 1998, or whatever. And then (this is my own fault), I kind of assumed that other schools had policies in place that were similar. I know what they say about "assume"-ing.

 

I was within striking distance this year of an interview, and I've taken more courses to up my GPA even more. BUT I AM NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO APPLY! It's kind of amazing. I don't know if some of you who "know" me on here even realize I am no longer eligible... but at this point I am not, and it's kind of leaving me in limbo.

 

It's just... with the removal... it's really hard to not take it personally. That's all. I KNOW they're not looking at my file individually, but it's still just a little difficult.

 

I'm not asking anyone to make my dream come true, but I am the kind of person who gets what she wants, and I make it happen for myself. I always have, with everything I've ever done. So with that, I'm making plans to move and to complete a second (actually, third) degree, because I want it. This forum is really the only place I have to vent any sort of frustration or disappointment I feel, I'm too polite to phone the office more than once every 2 weeks or so, especially when they're doing important things like interviews.

 

So it's back to the drawing board. When you start out with such a handicap, like I did, it's really important to follow the rules. It's tough when they change the rules on you, though. I calculate I'll hit the minimum 75% by the end of the 2011-2012 school year, and then I'll apply again, unless they change the rules to make it possible for me to apply this year. But until then, I am really considering UBC to be out of my reach and I'll be taking advantage of moving to another province to hopefully broaden both my horizons and my application potential. I'll be leaving my significant other, my job (the business I have started with him), and my home to do so (see what I mean when I say I do what it takes?)

 

Anyways, that's all. It meant a lot to me, but I don't expect anything to be handed to me. I'll work for it, and that's what I intend to do.

 

Maybe I should change my sig now?

[Chaplin]

There's one activity in which I absolutely outperform everyone else here at. I can kick all your butts at procrastinating. Seriously.

 

How many NAQ points do you think I'll get for so very highly outperforming everyone else in this arena? If you have any insight, let me know.

 

Thanks!

 

you're likely to get a -5 for slacking .

[Larrivee]

There's one activity in which I absolutely outperform everyone else here at. I can kick all your butts at procrastinating. Seriously.

 

How many NAQ points do you think I'll get for so very highly outperforming everyone else in this arena? If you have any insight, let me know.

 

Thanks!

 

Is that a challenge? IT'S ON!!! ...tomorrow...

[simpy]

I agree.

 

1) Bob

 

Let's call the person you've profiled above "Bob". Let's add to his profile. Bob comes out of undergrad with a heavy debt load. Bob did his undergrad in something that doesn't directly lead to a job (not engineering, teaching, etc). Let's say he did a biochem degree.

 

He goes out on the job market and finds that having a BSc doesn't exactly make the world your oyster because so many people have degrees these days. So he gets a job at job at a lab making $15 bucks an hour. His parents are keen to point out that his brother is a high school dropout and is making way more at a sawmill. They also like to point out that they own their own business even though they never went to university, and the way to make it in the world is by working really hard, not by going to school.

 

Now, a few years after graduating Bob decides that he'd like to go to med school. But he needs to get his grades up. Which means going back to school, incurring further debt, and having his family tell him he's crazy for going to university again. After all, there is no guarantee one will get into med school.

 

Also, Bob lives with roommates to save money, and he is tired of having roommates. He would like a place of his own. If he goes back to school, it would mean living with roommates for years to come.

 

So what does Bob do? Does he take the risk or does he just accept that med school is not in the cards.

 

2) Steve.

 

Now let's profile "Steve". Steve is the son of an architect and a lawyer. He grew up in Kerrisdale. His mom and dad gave him every advantage in life.

 

Steve just scrapes by through university. He never really had much of a desire to be there in the first place. He's also never worked very hard at anything in his life because mommy and daddy ensure that he's always taken care of.

 

He graduates with bad grades but no student loans.

 

After undergrad, his parents fund a soul-searching backpack trip so he can gambol around Thailand and Europe in order to find himself.

 

He gets back from his trip and works low paying jobs for a few years. His parents understand how hard it is for Gen Y to find well-paying jobs, so they buy him a car and help him out with his rent - because Steve is saving his money for a second soul-finding trip - this time to a location that tourists haven't discovered yet - because Steve isn't a vulgar tourist. He's a true adventurer and understands the world in a way that others don't. No Lonely Planet for him.

 

During the plane trip back from his second trip, he realizes he wants to be a doctor. Just like dad. So he looks up the admission criteria when he gets back. It's a no-go.

 

He'll have to go back for a second undergrad. He talks to his parents about it. They agree to fund all of his expenses while he pursues the second undergrad. If he needs a car, and money for food, and an apartment of his own, then that's what he'll get.

 

So what does Steve do?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

In real life, Bob is a lot less likely to go back for a second degree than Steve. (Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying there are NO Bobs at all that don't go back for a second degree. You may be a Bob yourself, but I would guess you are outnumbered by the Steves.)

 

I laud UBC's mouth service to the recent directive that they need to get more Bobs into med school, but their policies have always favoured the Steves of the world.

 

I am not entirely convinced that the adcom committee will put its money where its mouth is, so to speak, when it comes to admitting people from lower socioeconomic and non-urban brackets. But we'll see. Maybe they'll surprise everyone.

 

Yeah I tend to agree with you here. And I am a Bob (I am paying for my second degree on my own out of savings earned through several years in a job doing manual labour); although I do have a relatively well-off family, I want to make up my mistakes on my own. I'm posting here because I think it's an interesting discussion - without any adjustment to my marks (10 year rule, dropping of courses etc) I would have absolutely no chance of getting into UBC.

 

Not that I necessarily disagree with that. Many of the schools in Canada are siloed, they pursue different goals and thus recruit different types of students. Barring any more major changes in admissions policies, I will have a good shot at Queen's, Western, Ottawa and potentially Calgary and McGill as well next year (if it doesn't work out for me this cycle). Not bad coming from a 4-year 2.0 GPA!

 

It's so interesting though to see schools working to refine the balance that we've been talking about - the balance of real world experience against academic excellence, or the challenge of balancing how fiscal reality affects opportunity in Canada. Perhaps McMaster is onto something with CASPer - certainly we can agree that the MMI is an innovative way to move towards someone who can interact with people in a more meaningful way.

 

In any case I suppose we can agree that the 10 year rule doesn't serve much utility. Kylamonkey, I can only imagine your frustration (I'm not far off from you in a number of respects, and even if UBC were to move to the "drop one lowest class per year" I'd still most likely be ineligible). We can only continue to try our best though, and in the end, I believe that if we work hard enough, we will get there. And hopefully whatever new rule UBC implements will be able to give a better chance to nontrads.

[notmeadoc]

Have faith. I also wonder if they may come out with some sort of way that people with exceptional situations can identify themselves.

 

A true example of a student who's an applicant(enough details altered to protect identity).

 

Current applicant - Jane. Had an alcoholic bipolar mother who was frequently hospitalized while she was growing up. Mom would blow income assistance on alcohol so at 12, girl started babysitting in order to make $40 per week so she could buy food for her younger brothers and sisters. At 15 she started working full time at McD's and became the "mother" of the family. Every so often her father would come in to town to see his children and he sexually abused the females. Jane was abused from about 5 to about 16. It's been through the courts and he is now in jail.

 

Jane obviously had some major issues to overcome. She was out of control from 17 to 20 managing to complete 45 credits with a 2.1 GPA. She was hospitalized several times and left university at 20 spending several years finding and healing herself.

 

Fast forward a few years. Jane is a married mother of 1. She has custody of 2 of her younger siblings. Her mother died of cirrhosis. Jane is a phenomenal mother, wife, and student. She is finishing her degree this year with a 4 point something GPA, multiple awards, and a publication. She carries a full course load. She volunteers 4 hours a week and has for over 10 years.

 

Without the 10 year rule Jane is screwed.

 

I have no doubt that Jane will be an excellent physician.

 

If Jane doesn't get in this cycle - she's screwed for next cycle without the 10year rule.

 

Does UBC want to eliminate applicants like Jane? I doubt it. She brings life experience to the table that cannot be taught and that experience will come out in her practise and how she relates to her patients. She is also likely to pursue an area of medicine that will allow her to help underpriviledged children. That's her plan anyway.

[bloh]

I think a better compromise to the rule would be to "drop 1 course for every year after the first undergraduate year". It acts like a 10-year rule but allows people to take advantage of it sooner than 10 years.

 

I'm afraid that a blanket "drop x courses" would not give any advantage to a traditional applicant at all.

[iwh333]

bottom line is there is no way you can determine that without being discriminatory to one group. that was my first reaction when i read that article by Finkler. his vision sounds logical enough but i really don't see it working out.

[meds400]

I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this, but according to the agenda materials for the UBC senate (open to the public), it looks like the Med AdCom is recommending the following changes (although nothing has been approved yet):

 

http://www.senate.ubc.ca/vancouver/schedule.cfm

 

****

C) Doctor of Medicine – Changes in Admission Requirements (approval)(circulated)

The Admissions Committee has reviewed and recommends to Senate for approval changes in admission requirements for applicants to the Doctor of Medicine program. The academic year with the lowest academic average (30 credits) may be excluded from the calculation of an admission average so long as the applicant still presents a minimum of 90 graded credits by the application deadline.

 

Motion: That Senate approve changes in admission requirements for applicants to the Doctor of Medicine program, effective for admission to the 2012 Winter Session and thereafter.

 

****

 

Kind of interesting...we will see if it gets approved.

[TankMasterFlex]

I had a feeling they would do this, it's what dentistry and other medical schools do.

 

It looks like this is another incentive to take a full course load as it seems that they will only exclude one year where 30 credits were taken?

[maybeadoc]

it not clear about that, but my interpretation is that at most 30 credits can be excluded. ubc has never required a minimum coarse load so now why would it especially with their mandate of diversifying the class wrt ses, culture, etc...

[TankMasterFlex]

it not clear about that, but my interpretation is that at most 30 credits can be excluded. ubc has never required a minimum coarse load so now why would it especially with their mandate of diversifying the class wrt ses, culture, etc...

 

Good point. Dentistry says the year must have at least 24 credits, maybe that's what they will use (if they even do put a minimum).

[hking03]

Good point. Dentistry says the year must have at least 24 credits, maybe that's what they will use (if they even do put a minimum).

 

here's another twist... what if that lowest year has a pre-requisite in it?

 

does the pre-req grade from that year still get used or do you have to retake the course to have a valid mark?

 

what if it's your first year and you have- 7 pre requisites... do you have to retake all of those courses?

 

it's funny when a potential rule change creates more questions than answers.