rmorelan Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Would you say the interview is worth MORE Than 50% then????! ages ago it was posted by Western (and by ages I mean over 10 years ago now) that it was exactly 50%. I mean we cannot trust data that old, with nothing official posted since but it gave some insight at least. I would say it would be worth in a very speculative estimate with incomplete data (ha, I am hedging here) about 50% still - although I wouldn't want to commit of course to that my point stands I think though - it is worth enough that it alone can majorly impact your chances. So prepare and do well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almighty Saguaro Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 ages ago it was posted by Western (and by ages I mean over 10 years ago now) that it was exactly 50%. I mean we cannot trust data that old, with nothing official posted since but it gave some insight at least. I would say it would be worth in a very speculative estimate with incomplete data (ha, I am hedging here) about 50% still - although I wouldn't want to commit of course to that my point stands I think though - it is worth enough that it alone can majorly impact your chances. So prepare and do well Hedging, eh? What are you, a radiologist or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amichel Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Hedging, eh? What are you, a radiologist or something? Hahahah. He can't exclude the possibility that it may be worth 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Hedging, eh? What are you, a radiologist or something? well clinical correlation is required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 top of the class! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stones Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 So western takes the best two GPA years to decide who gets an interview, but does it only use those 2 years for the post-interview evaluation or all 4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razer Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 SWOMEN Post-Interview Acceptance Rates 2006 - 81% 2007 - 73% 2008 - 77% 2009 - 64% 2010 - 70% 2011 - 75% 2012 - 96% 2013 - 76% 2014 - 76% 2009 had 50 SWOMEN acceptances, while 2012 had 94. It's less of a number quota and more of a post-interview boost. In case anyone is curious, the 2015 Dean's Report shows the 2015 SWOMEN rate is 58%, a historical low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davisfenos Posted April 20, 2016 Report Share Posted April 20, 2016 In case anyone is curious, the 2015 Dean's Report shows the 2015 SWOMEN rate is 58%, a historical low. This makes me so sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmatt1122 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 Phew. Squeezed in right there at the end of the easy streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t93 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 In case anyone is curious, the 2015 Dean's Report shows the 2015 SWOMEN rate is 58%, a historical low. Do you think that's because they lowered the number of seats for SWOMEN or stopped giving them a post interview boost or can that just be coincidental? (i.e. fewer SWOMEN applied / fewer were qualified) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingKiwi Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Do you think that's because they lowered the number of seats for SWOMEN or stopped giving them a post interview boost or can that just be coincidental? (i.e. fewer SWOMEN applied / fewer were qualified) Perhaps it was just a bad batch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t93 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Perhaps it was just a bad batch? hmm that's significantly lower than before though..Schulich still states on the website that special consideration is given to SWOMEN but from the reports, it's hard to tell if the boost is pre interview (lower mcat scores) or post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1D7 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Another possibility may be that SWOMEN applicants opted to head for other medical schools this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indefatigable Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Since Western instituted a writing summary component this year, it's possible that the SWOMEN interviewees were less advantaged in that respect (since CARS/VR score cut-off didn't apply to SWOMEN). Essentially the writing component may have served to "neutralize" their general advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdj78we9jtf2o3mgfvj298j Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Since Western instituted a writing summary component this year, it's possible that the SWOMEN interviewees were less advantaged in that respect (since CARS/VR score cut-off didn't apply to SWOMEN). Essentially the writing component may have served to "neutralize" their general advantage. Why would they want to neutralize an advantage that they themselves set? I suppose the school found that an unfortunate consequence of the lower MCAT cutoffs was having less-literate SWOMEN applicants, so the summary might be a way of fixing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indefatigable Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Why would they want to neutralize an advantage that they themselves set? I suppose the school found that an unfortunate consequence of the lower MCAT cutoffs was having less-literate SWOMEN applicants, so the summary might be a way of fixing that. If what you're saying is that the summary was a way of selecting the literally/verbally stronger SWOMEN candidates, then I agree with you. But, since those candidates were not as uniformly strong verbally, a smaller proportion may have done well on the writing component, and hence leading to smaller proportion being accepted. Just speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 hmm that's significantly lower than before though..Schulich still states on the website that special consideration is given to SWOMEN but from the reports, it's hard to tell if the boost is pre interview (lower mcat scores) or post. It's definitely a pre-interview boost, almost certainly a post-interview boost as well. I think there was confirmation of a post-interview boost years upon years ago, and the acceptance rates listed would be pretty hard to replicate so consistently if no boost existed. Another possibility may be that SWOMEN applicants opted to head for other medical schools this year. Since Western instituted a writing summary component this year, it's possible that the SWOMEN interviewees were less advantaged in that respect (since CARS/VR score cut-off didn't apply to SWOMEN). Essentially the writing component may have served to "neutralize" their general advantage. That "low" 58% acceptance rate is for last year's cycle, not this year's. The new writing component to the interview would have no bearing on it. In addition, the acceptance rate includes those who ultimately chose another school, so it is not a factor of SWOMEN students going elsewhere after interviewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t93 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 It's definitely a pre-interview boost, almost certainly a post-interview boost as well. I think there was confirmation of a post-interview boost years upon years ago, and the acceptance rates listed would be pretty hard to replicate so consistently if no boost existed. That "low" 58% acceptance rate is for last year's cycle, not this year's. The new writing component to the interview would have no bearing on it. In addition, the acceptance rate includes those who ultimately chose another school, so it is not a factor of SWOMEN students going elsewhere after interviewing. Yeah, but maybe as of last year, they removed the post interview boost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 Yeah, but maybe as of last year, they removed the post interview boost? Possible, but you do see a good degree of variation in the acceptance rate. I wouldn't make any conclusions about a change based on a single year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1D7 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 The 2015 class did not have to write the written component, so it's definitely not that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.