Uoft Interview Discussion 2015

[acciaccatura]

Does anyone know if the MPI is open or closed file?

[PurpleS]

The GPA is just insane. I mean a 3.99 or 4.0 meant all except maybe 6 of your courses is not 90+. Do you guys think someone with a 3.89 would still have a chance at interviewing?

 

I know, it's crazy ): Practically unheard of over here at UofT Life Sciences.

 

I got an interview with a 3.90, but that was in the MD/PhD stream. I think they consider research as part of the 60% academic score, so if your GPA is a bit on the lower side (3.89 is still fantastic), having a strong research background would definitely help boost that academic score.

[new2018]

Does anyone know if the MPI is open or closed file?

Both, some of them will be closed and others will be open (you will know)

[AmJa]

Its Feb 2nd and I haven't gotten an invite or a regret? what does that mean?

[RichardHammond]

Its Feb 2nd and I haven't gotten an invite or a regret? what does that mean?

Invites and rejections are sent out in batches in a rolling basis until mid March as applications are assessed along the way. If you haven't heard back yet, it just means your application has not been assessed yet so there is no need to worry.

 

Also this thread is just for stats. Please use the other pinned thread for discussions. I hope you read this soon because non-stats will be removed (your post and my reply too).

[Colonel]

Invites and rejections can't be made as files are being assessed. If that was the case, we would be seeing some rejects right now.

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Actually, last year they were sending out rejections on a rolling basis too. Then there was a mass wave of rejection emails sent out around march with a couple more people who didn't hear back receiving invites afterwards.

But no news is still good news at this point!

[decentcigars]

I certainly hope this is the case. To me, the whole idea of 'holistic' review goes out the window when I see that 90% of interviewees have 3.99 or 4.0.

 

"Treating you holistically" doesn''t mean throwing out your GPA. It's not like one groups is 4.0 nerds with no ECs and the other has 3.8 and balanced CV; the majority of candidates have great ECs AND stellar GPA.

[1919]

"Treating you holistically" doesn''t mean throwing out your GPA. It's not like one groups is 4.0 nerds with no ECs and the other has 3.8 and balanced CV; the majority of candidates have great ECs AND stellar GPA.

 Yes but hollistic should mean that someone who does not have a beyond stellar (I'd call 3.9+ stellar and 3.99 beyond stellar) GPA still has a reasonable shot at an interview. I don't think a 3.9 GPA is anything to scoff at.  That shouldn't decrease your chances by much. But we may just be seeing above average interview invites on this forum. 

[ArchEnemy]

 ...But we may just be seeing above average interview invites on this forum. 

 

I believe this is the case too.

[medhope15]

-

[bbsare]

Medhope15, aside from the fact that most students who do an undergraduate in science could probably not do as well as they think in the arts, the MCAT cutoffs account for the other part of the equation. Schools determine which courses they feel are necessary for prerequisites. Quite frankly, the amount of science courses someone takes in their undergrad is irrelevant if they have adequately demonstrated their aptitude through the MCAT. Further, I think you'll already find that most applicants interested in big research schools like U of T are science students who are drawn to the opportunities U of T offers.

[1919]

Medhope15, aside from the fact that most students who do an undergraduate in science could probably not do as well as they think in the arts, the MCAT cutoffs account for the other part of the equation. Schools determine which courses they feel are necessary for prerequisites. Quite frankly, the amount of science courses someone takes in their undergrad is irrelevant if they have adequately demonstrated their aptitude through the MCAT. Further, I think you'll already find that most applicants interested in big research schools like U of T are science students who are drawn to the opportunities U of T offers.

 

Agreed. It is more about difficulty of courses, something that is very hard to quantitatively evaluate than type of course. There are some "easy" science  courses and many "difficult" arts courses. But these are relative to the student. Maybe looking at averages in classes makes sense or requiring upper level courses  

[medhope15]

-

[medafter30]

I think that everyone has his/her own strengths and weaknesses. You might view English as an easy topic, but I might have a different opinion about that.

 

As the process gets more competitive, all we can do is to work hard and hope for the best. At the same time, we hope that the adcom from medical schools will recognize the possible flaws of the system and continues to optimize the selection process to be as fair as it can be . 

 

And at the end of the day, just try hard and have fun with what you do! And hopefully if this door is not open at the moment, a better one will come along!

[Goku]

Medhope15 I relate with you as I also took many advanced science courses. When choosing courses I never looked for the bird ones, just those that interested me. People would warn against this but I never listened. Looking back, it may have been wiser if I did not put myself through those challenging courses. But I don't regret it.

Btw, no invites this week yet?

[bbsare]

Sure but I think you may be naive if you think people don't play the game to their advantage and take 'bird' classes without challenging themselves. The way the system is set up right now nothing exists to account for those facts. Would it make you discouraged to know that there are plenty of med students who never took sciences beyond 1st year. Medicine is a clinical science. Sure you need other qualities and critical thinking but at the foundation you need a strong understanding of anatomy and molecular biology chemistry and ability to analyze research. Sure you can learn a lot of this in med but how do you select someone with a 4.0 in English lit classes over someone with a 3.8 in advanced science. This is not just about MCAT prep. How does an admission board know that someone with zero science background will enjoy and contribute to medicine? It's not just about memorizing which scripts to write. MDs need to critically analyze constantly and enjoy the science behind illness. I think there needs to be rigorous screening of what students are studying and showing interest in.

 

hope that didn't come across too harsh. Again I write this as someone who now feels like I messed up for taking too many difficult courses. And yes I have taken more advanced English class... Reading a few books and subjectively analyzing them was a piece of cake compared to my advanced labs

 

 

I feel you, it's not harsh haha. I'm aware there are people who game the system, frankly I wish I had taken a few bird courses myself....taking courses out of interest, rather than for ease has also come back to bite me in the butt a few times. However, when I think about people who game the system it comes from a place of bitterness, not because I truly believe someone needs cognitive neuroscience and advanced lab work to do well in med school. The differences between a 4.0 and a 3.8 are negligible in my opinion- both demonstrate a capacity to learn and produce work to meet expectations. Further, I wouldn't call someone who has taken bio, chem, physics, biochem, cell bio, orgo etc someone with "zero science background". Not everyone wants to go into academic medicine, specialize, etc. Hell, I could sit here and argue that an advanced bio class is levels easier than an advanced physics class

 

If you feel like you're being shafted by taking a more "difficult" program, I understad that sucks, but the reality is that there are tons of science applicants who have 4.0s, and focus on doing the best they can in what they've chosen to pursue. I understand what you're saying, but it's unfounded. Do your best at what you love to do. If that's science, arts, engineering, whatever. If there was proof that stoopid arts kids with their easily earned 4.0s turned out to be awful doctors who don't produce research, contribute to the field, and hate their jobs, there would be more impetus to make changes.

[marauder4life]

Hey,

 

Does anyone know of people who heard back from UofT this week?

 

The wait is making me so anxious! UofT said they would be sending invitations all of this week, but the invite/regret thread is rather quiet. I guess no one's posting 

[PurpleS]

Hey,

 

Does anyone know of people who heard back from UofT this week?

 

The wait is making me so anxious! UofT said they would be sending invitations all of this week, but the invite/regret thread is rather quiet. I guess no one's posting 

 

I think they only sent out invites all week for the Feb. 21/22 date if people cancel their interview or if they need to move it to the next interview weekend due to conflicts. If the Feb. 21/22 weekend is full, they won't be sending out any more invites.

 

My gut feeling is that the next round of invites will come out on Feb. 11th, approx. 3 weeks before the next interview weekend. But take that with a grain of salt : P

[decentcigars]

 Yes but hollistic should mean that someone who does not have a beyond stellar (I'd call 3.9+ stellar and 3.99 beyond stellar) GPA still has a reasonable shot at an interview. I don't think a 3.9 GPA is anything to scoff at.  That shouldn't decrease your chances by much. But we may just be seeing above average interview invites on this forum. 

 

 

You're shot at an interview has everything to do with how you stack up against other people trying to get an interview. This is true in both cases (when using strict "objective" cutoffs and holistic measures). 

 

I'm not saying 3.9 is bad (its actually great compared to 99% of university students). But again, if you have 100 other applicants with the same quality of ECs, the ones with a 4.0 will get an interview over the ones with 3.9. Holistically = looking at everything, INCLUDiNG GPA.

[gwr2013]

To whoever already got an invite to this year's interview: can you please tell us what the EXACT subject line was so we'll all know as soon as we receive the email...

[PurpleS]

To whoever already got an invite to this year's interview: can you please tell us what the EXACT subject line was so we'll all know as soon as we receive the email...

 

"University of Toronto Medicine: Interview Invitations"

[SpencerV]

Hey,

 

Does anyone know of people who heard back from UofT this week?

 

The wait is making me so anxious! UofT said they would be sending invitations all of this week, but the invite/regret thread is rather quiet. I guess no one's posting 

 

I suspect a few more will come out today or tomorrow. Last year, they posted updates on their facebook page when they were done sending out invites for particular weekends.

[gwr2013]

"University of Toronto Medicine: Interview Invitations"

Peace and love

[1919]

You're shot at an interview has everything to do with how you stack up against other people trying to get an interview. This is true in both cases (when using strict "objective" cutoffs and holistic measures). 

 

I'm not saying 3.9 is bad (its actually great compared to 99% of university students). But again, if you have 100 other applicants with the same quality of ECs, the ones with a 4.0 will get an interview over the ones with 3.9. Holistically = looking at everything, INCLUDiNG GPA.

 

 

That is true and with so many qualified applicants there needs to be some way to limit who gets interviews. Unfortunately those who are very capable of being physicians sometimes will get left behind because of others who have higher GPAs (sometimes for being more intelligent sometimes not). No admission system can be perfect and there will always be people left behind and people who are not and should have been. I would think it would still be holistic to have a GPA cutoff of 3.85, MCAT of 9 9 9 and then use essays and extra curricular from there. Anyone making those cut offs is likely intelligent enough to be a physician, no? But as you say this may not be realistic with so many applicants having similar extracurricular experiences. I'm sure its a tough job to make these decisions.