Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Interview Invite Stats (4Yr Ip)


Recommended Posts

However, I only hope that there is sufficient recognition that GPA+MCAT is more than just a number or measure of academic ability. It really is an indicator of hard work, dedication, and perseverance...and yes, some programs are different than others, but the non-academic attributes derived from academic measures, in my opinion, were just as important for me in growing through university and learning to push through hard times despite external circumstances.

 

I agree. Academic grades are more than just academic ability, but it, like you said, also implies the sheer amount of work and persistence it takes to pull off good marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Did the rejection letter tell you that you have a 7 on ECs?

 

Cause I'm in 2nd year and I also had a 4.0 GPA and 128.25(513) MCAT when I applied, but I got an interview. I guess my EC's were good enough to get me in.

 

I wonder what they consider to be "average" ECs.

 

Yes, it says Average: 7 , Your Score: 7.  My guess is that 2nd and 3rd year has a lower EC average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did the math based on your formula, and my total score was 48.09, Im 4th year IP....how close was I to get an invite? 

according to your calculation, the average interviewee in 4th year IP was ~50...which means there had to have been people in the 4th year IP pool with high 40's (49, 48??) I have a feeling I was literally one of the last people to NOT get an invite if your calculation is what they used ): ): 

 

 

Dreamchaser08- had a score of 51.97, yet they were rejected? It seems that the number is higher than 50. It does not seem that you were one of the last ones to get an invite.  There are probably hundreds of applicants with a score from 48 to 51.97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the presentation of an applicant's information is important as well. There are people with obscene stats who don't get offered interviews at either Calgary or Edmonton. Not that this is your case here, but there are many people who:

1) don't necessarily put in a lot of effort in the application. It may look sloppy or haphazard.

2) input wrong information without checking sources and contacts. If you said you did x hours of work, and your referees across the board say you did x/3, I'd be pretty suspicious of your entire application.

3) do not have many activities to report, or do not write anyone as their referees. The UofA is very clear about how detrimental this is to one's application. They will see it negatively.

4) over-inflate their applications to the point of tragicomedy. You want to recite what you did and what it meant to you without making it too grandiose (i.e. don't show a messiah complex).

 

Again, this is not to claim that anyone who did not get interviews with good stats is culprit to any of these. There may be other concerns that admissions has that we will never be privy to. Maybe they even look you up on facebook. Maybe they even pay one of your facebook friends to do a report on you. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2017 at 6:49 PM, gradschooldream said:

Dreamchaser08- had a score of 51.97, yet they were rejected? It seems that the number is higher than 50. It does not seem that you were one of the last ones to get an invite.  There are probably hundreds of applicants with a score from 48 to 51.97.

 

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that makes no sense, Dreamchase08 had a higher overall score than the average interviewee in his pool....only thing that comes to my mind is he may have been flagged for something so even though their score is actually higher than needed to interview something (?) was a barrier to interview

 

If they got flagged then they would probably not score a 7 in their EC score.  They probably stratify applicants in a different way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they got flagged then they would probably not score a 7 in their EC score. 

I don't think that follows. They could have still gone through his/her application and evaluated it as such and such. But something in there was worthy of scrutiny. Something perhaps unrelated to the objective evaluation of his ECs. 

EDIT: To make a stronger point. Take an applicant whose entire application is reviewed and he gets 52/70, for example. Then one of the references gets back to admissions and says "you know what, I'd like to add that he's often late for things." This is just one example, but I can think of a thousand ways in which an applicant can get graded on all his criteria but still fail to interview. It does not seem like he/she was flagged, at least from the little information we have here. If he/she was, admissions contacts them to inform them of that, as far as I am aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that follows. They could have still gone through his/her application and evaluated it as such and such. But something in there was worthy of scrutiny. Something perhaps unrelated to the objective evaluation of his ECs. 

 

 

I think we are assuming that they use the above mentioned formula -- when they may not be using this formula at all..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is completely possible, you can even search the U of A forum of a person who had above average MCAT/EC/GPA and not get an interview, they went and discussed it with U of A back when you still can and they told him even though he should have gotten an interview he was red flagged for something 

 

 

So they tell you if you were red flagged!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea this person had to ask them in person, the only reason he did was because he knew he should have got in due to his EC, MCAT, GPA, and MMI (this was post interview) as he did the math, and they told him he was red flagged....tbh if I was dream chaser I know they don't give feedback anymore but I would try and reach out to see if they were flagged for something as the numbers don't add up in any way

 

Thanks.  It is odd that dream chaser did not get an interview

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YesIcan55, What I meant was that you can theoretically get 17/17 in ECs but still not make it, as you were saying. The red flag don't necessarily give you a 0/x in any criterion. So technically he/she could have gotten 7/7 but still be flagged for something. As I was also saying before, they don't even need to be flagged for anything. Maybe, even though they had good ECs, the presentation was lackluster enough to grant some sort of besides-the-grade rejection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YesIcan55, What I meant was that you can theoretically get 17/17 in ECs but still not make it, as you were saying. The red flag don't necessarily give you a 0/x in any criterion. So technically he/she could have gotten 7/7 but still be flagged for something. As I was also saying before, they don't even need to be flagged for anything. Maybe, even though they had good ECs, the presentation was lackluster enough to grant some sort of besides-the-grade rejection.

Other than red-flags (which are automatic rejections) I doubt they have a bunch of subjective measures added into the mix. This would make their ranking system incredibly complicated (i.e. how do you differentiate between someone who scored 50 vs. 51 when the 51 had some negative subjective comment. How much are those comments worth? 

 

In your example, I think that presentation factors into the actual numerical score of the ECs (which are likely scored with verifier feedback handy). References are pass/fail, so that also seems fairly black and white in terms of what your referees say about you. 

 

If all of your scores were average or above average and you didn't get an  interview- I would be phoning to see if you got flagged because you probably did or perhaps one of your reference letters did not pass. 

 

If one of your scores was below average, whatever way they calculate their weighted values may mean that it put your cumulative score below the threshold for interview. That is the most likely scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. If references are, in fact, pass/fail AND they don't actually evaluate you on your content presentation, all that is left is EC/MCAT/GPA without as much subjectivity as I was reading into their grading system. I think that this comes from being much more familiar with the whole top-10 system (UofC), in which your content and presentation are clearly similarly important.  As mentioned, I would try to meet with someone from admissions to go over why their score was not deserving of an interview. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than red-flags (which are automatic rejections) I doubt they have a bunch of subjective measures added into the mix. This would make their ranking system incredibly complicated (i.e. how do you differentiate between someone who scored 50 vs. 51 when the 51 had some negative subjective comment. How much are those comments worth? 

 

In your example, I think that presentation factors into the actual numerical score of the ECs (which are likely scored with verifier feedback handy). References are pass/fail, so that also seems fairly black and white in terms of what your referees say about you. 

 

If all of your scores were average or above average and you didn't get an  interview- I would be phoning to see if you got flagged because you probably did or perhaps one of your reference letters did not pass. 

 

If one of your scores was below average, whatever way they calculate their weighted values may mean that it put your cumulative score below the threshold for interview. That is the most likely scenario. 

 

 

Don't they read the reference letters post interview? or do they  now read the reference letters before the interview?

 

I feel that for applicants who are rejected pre-interview-- their ref letters don't get read by the reviewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good and realistic point. This probably would save a lot of (wo)man-hours. To be more specific, however, I think the references we were talking about were the ones you write down for every activity you perform, and not your main letters of reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good and realistic point. This probably would save a lot of (wo)man-hours. To be more specific, however, I think the references we were talking about were the ones you write down for every activity you perform, and not your main letters of reference.

Those are called verifiers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...