Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Recommended Posts

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...