OT/PT Accepted/Waitlisted/Rejected 2018

[churros31]

57 minutes ago, jna1929 said:

What stops people who have no real interest in OT/PT from accumulating volunteer hours for the purpose of admission? Much of the volunteering is not even directly related to OT/PT anyways. Let's be real here, volunteering in OT/PT settings a certain number of hours more than another candidate does not make you any more able to succeed in graduate schools: schools ONLY use this as a raw numbers game (x had more than y, therefore x is admitted), no different than GPA. I mean, the person I initially replied to, that person said that AFTER they graduated, they took a year just to do volunteer work to boost their application. How is this in any way indicative of success in graduate school? Anybody can take a year off and accumulate more hours: why on earth would the universities force students to do this (by over-focusing on the volunteering portion for admission purposes)? This has absolutely no correlation with success in the graduate program. So of the two, GPA is a much more likely and OBJECTIVE indicator of success in graduate school than accumulating a bunch of volunteer hours. Who am I to say it? A person. People have opinions. I am saying mine. I can also say "who are you to doubt what I am saying" lol. Let's not downgrade the discussion into petty insults please.

Clinical placements are there for a reason: to make you ready for the work force. The curriculum was designed with this in mind, and the clinical placements do more than enough to prepare students for the work place. That is why volunteering prior to even starting the program is, as I said above, strictly for x>y raw numbers admission competition purposes. In light of this, I think GPA is more of an accurate indicator of success in an academic, rigorous, master's program, and it is also much more difficult to get a high GPA (this also shows more ability) as opposed to spending a bunch of your free time volunteering which is not evaluated or graded or held to any standard, just to accumulate hours to make your application more competitive for admission purposes. 

Let us not kid ourselves: the ONLY reason schools are having more "holistic" admission standards is because they are riding the wave of "equality and inclusion and anti-discrimination and 'progressiveness'" which has been seen in our society since the 21st century and is increasing its momentum annually. It has nothing to do with admitting the more qualified/able candidates. Any organization, whether it be a university, corporation, or government entity, will face massive social backlash if they don't ride this wave. Unfortunately, universities are putting their own long-standing academic reputations at risk by riding this wave. Before, when you saw that someone got admitted to a certain competitive program, you would be assured of the university's admission standards and you would know that individual is intelligent and able, but now, an increasing portion of under-qualified candidates are being granted entry via "holistic" methods so when you hear someone has a certain degree, that is by no means any guarantee that they are as intelligent or able as their credentials suggest.

GPA is a much more objective and merit-based indicator of performance and ability compared to stuff like volunteering (in which there are no standards), impressive reference letters (professors are human and in most cases the best reference letters go out to students they like most or who spent the most time slaving away for them, not the most intelligent or able students), or work experience (getting jobs is largely based on fortunate and connections, not abilities or intelligence). I understand that making admissions somewhat holistic can give a better overall picture of a candidate, but it has simply gone too far. When a high GPA candidate gets rejected and someone with a much more easy to obtain GPA gets accepted because of volunteer/work/ref letters, then one can safely say that the university's reputation has been tarnished. It is ironic that universities, which are supposed to have the highest standards of science and scientific validity in society, have fallen prey to the unscientific, nominal social norms of society, by  choosing to have scientifically invalid admission standards. Validity= something that has high validity will measure what it is intended to measure. Apparently, taking a year off after graduating and doing a bunch of volunteer hours=higher chance success in a rigorous, academic program, more so than GPA. To me, that model has poor validity. But apparently nowadays universities are basing their admission model on this.

Lol thank you for taking the time to write out this very long, very detailed, very passionate, essay-like response to this topic. I stand by everything I said in my original post. Have a nice day 

[Candidatex]

4 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

GPA should only be used to get you in the door.  However OT and PT are not your average graduate programs.  In most graduate programs the emphasis is certainly on academics. The graduate PT/OT programs are as much about academics as they are about learning practical clinical skills sets. 

PT and OT as clinical professions require so much more than the ability to achieve at an academic level so GPA should not be the only deciding factor for entry.

As an Allied Medical Professional with many many years of clinical experience here and abroard, as well as university lecturing, clinical tutoring; examining for entry-to -practice exams and some admissions work, I can sincerely say that good marks are NOT always a good predictor of good clinical skills.  

Good clinical skills require many attributes:

-the ability to relate to people often in their most vulnerable state with empathy and caring

-the ability to think on ones feet and make critical decisions.

-the ability to relate to other members of the professional team and to work as a team.

(To name but a few skills....)

Sadly, I have, in my clinical practice and mentoring days, seen many students  who had been admitted to programs where academic performance was the sole determinant for admission to a program, who failed miserably to connect with their patients on any level often leading to a complete breakdown in patient-practitioner trust.  

In reality, you achieve a lot more in patient care with compliance which in so many ways, stems from trust.

Gotta look at the big picture.....

[Happyness]

2 minutes ago, Candidatex said:

GPA should only be used to get you in the door.  However OT and PT are not your average graduate programs.  In most graduate programs the emphasis is certainly on academics. The graduate PT/OT programs are as much about academics as they are about learning practical clinical skills sets. 

PT and OT as clinical professions require so much more than the ability to achieve at an academic level so GPA should not be the only deciding factor for entry.

As an Allied Medical Professional with many many years of clinical experience here and abroard, as well as university lecturing, clinical tutoring; examining for entry-to -practice exams and some admissions work, I can sincerely say that good marks are NOT always a good predictor of good clinical skills.  

Good clinical skills require many attributes:

-the ability to relate to people often in their most vulnerable state with empathy and caring

-the ability to think on ones feet and make critical decisions.

-the ability to relate to other members of the professional team and to work as a team.

(To name but a few skills....)

Sadly, I have, in my clinical practice and mentoring days, seen many students  who had been admitted to programs where academic performance was the sole determinant for admission to a program, who failed miserably to connect with their patients on any level often leading to a complete breakdown in patient-practitioner trust.  

In reality, you achieve a lot more in patient care with compliance which in so many ways, stems from trust.

Gotta look at the big picture.....

I was going to reply to this too but you guys hit the nail on the head. 

 

[OTOTOT13]

[peppermintglow]

2 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Let us not kid ourselves: the ONLY reason schools are having more "holistic" admission standards is because they are riding the wave of "equality and inclusion and anti-discrimination and 'progressiveness'" which has been seen in our society since the 21st century and is increasing its momentum annually. It has nothing to do with admitting the more qualified/able candidates. Any organization, whether it be a university, corporation, or government entity, will face massive social backlash if they don't ride this wave. Unfortunately, universities are putting their own long-standing academic reputations at risk by riding this wave. Before, when you saw that someone got admitted to a certain competitive program, you would be assured of the university's admission standards and you would know that individual is intelligent and able, but now, an increasing portion of under-qualified candidates are being granted entry via "holistic" methods so when you hear someone has a certain degree, that is by no means any guarantee that they are as intelligent or able as their credentials suggest.

GPA is a much more objective and merit-based indicator of performance and ability compared to stuff like volunteering (in which there are no standards), impressive reference letters (professors are human and in most cases the best reference letters go out to students they like most or who spent the most time slaving away for them, not the most intelligent or able students), or work experience (getting jobs is largely based on fortunate and connections, not abilities or intelligence). I understand that making admissions somewhat holistic can give a better overall picture of a candidate, but it has simply gone too far. When a high GPA candidate gets rejected and someone with a much more easy to obtain GPA gets accepted because of volunteer/work/ref letters, then one can safely say that the university's reputation has been tarnished. It is ironic that universities, which are supposed to have the highest standards of science and scientific validity in society, have fallen prey to the unscientific, nominal social norms of society, by  choosing to have scientifically invalid admission standards. Validity= something that has high validity will measure what it is intended to measure. Apparently, taking a year off after graduating and doing a bunch of volunteer hours=higher chance success in a rigorous, academic program, more so than GPA. To me, that model has poor validity. But apparently nowadays universities are basing their admission model on this.

You might struggle with the diversity and inclusion courses in OT/PT with an attitude like this. There are a ton of reasons people are not able to achieve good marks in classes that have to do with race, disabilities, gender, class etc. 

Additionally, this "equity" wave is helping support the diversity and inclusion that we as  OT/PTs are meant to be supporting. If you think that this is harming the profession, you might not be cut out for a program that instills and values equity and diversity itself. 

[excelspreadsheet]

5 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

Extremely difficult? I'm not that difference is as big as you think it is. and what about the people who have to work through school and can't spend as much time studying? There needs to be consideration for external factors. These professional programs are hard sure, but they're not so hard that we only consider GPA.

(this coming from a person who would have already been accepted to med school years ago if it was based solely on GPA)

riding the wave of "equality and inclusion and anti-discrimination and 'progressiveness'"

Not even gonna get into that...

 

[OT_2018]

Hey Guys,

I came on here to find a supportive environment during what is an exciting, yet stressful time for many of us.  For myself, I am still waiting on the McGill MMI results. 

To those of you who have received offers, CONGRATULATIONS! and I hope this experience does not prevent you from sharing your strategies for success. 

I really hope this thread can return to what its intended for.  

Good luck out there! 

[jna1929]

3 hours ago, Candidatex said:

GPA should only be used to get you in the door.  However OT and PT are not your average graduate programs.  In most graduate programs the emphasis is certainly on academics. The graduate PT/OT programs are as much about academics as they are about learning practical clinical skills sets. 

PT and OT as clinical professions require so much more than the ability to achieve at an academic level so GPA should not be the only deciding factor for entry.

As an Allied Medical Professional with many many years of clinical experience here and abroard, as well as university lecturing, clinical tutoring; examining for entry-to -practice exams and some admissions work, I can sincerely say that good marks are NOT always a good predictor of good clinical skills.  

Good clinical skills require many attributes:

-the ability to relate to people often in their most vulnerable state with empathy and caring

-the ability to think on ones feet and make critical decisions.

-the ability to relate to other members of the professional team and to work as a team.

(To name but a few skills....)

Sadly, I have, in my clinical practice and mentoring days, seen many students  who had been admitted to programs where academic performance was the sole determinant for admission to a program, who failed miserably to connect with their patients on any level often leading to a complete breakdown in patient-practitioner trust.  

In reality, you achieve a lot more in patient care with compliance which in so many ways, stems from trust.

Gotta look at the big picture.....

I don't disagree with what you say. However, what you are saying is irrelevant in terms of admission, as racking up volunteering hours or buttering up a prof and spending lots of hours for a good reference letter does not prove that the candidate has any of the aforementioned abilities pointed out by you. In light of this, the most objective methods must be used for admission purposes, and that translates into the GPA. Many of the people with loads of volunteer hours also fail to connect to people properly as a practitioner. I hope you understand the logic behind my argument here. I mean for medicine I understand that there are many candidates with identical GPAs and so they must use other criteria to separate, but for OT/PT programs to deny a student that has an astronomically higher GPA in favour of someone with a slightly above-average GPA and more volunteering hours is not right or reasonable in my opinion.

[jna1929]

2 hours ago, AlexFox said:

You might struggle with the diversity and inclusion courses in OT/PT with an attitude like this. There are a ton of reasons people are not able to achieve good marks in classes that have to do with race, disabilities, gender, class etc. 

Additionally, this "equity" wave is helping support the diversity and inclusion that we as  OT/PTs are meant to be supporting. If you think that this is harming the profession, you might not be cut out for a program that instills and values equity and diversity itself. 

 

Again, not relevant. I got close to the highest grade in my classes that dealt with those issues, and in real life I have demonstrated a strong ability to relate to all kinds of people even if I have nothing in common with them: I don't need to rack up 500 hours of repetitive volunteering hours to show this as it simply would not serve as any objective proof regardless. If you look at a piece of paper that says a candidate finished 500 hours of volunteering, it would simply mean that they are at the minimal level that they did not do something crazy like swear at clients and get kicked out of the volunteering. It would NOT prove that they have a better ability to connect with diverse clients any more than any other candidate. Furthermore, OT/PT is a physical field and if you read the stuff on the universities websites and the professional colleges, they reserve the right to pull you out of the program/profession if your physical or mental health can cause a problem to clients. So there doesn't need to be double standards in terms of admission. You too are mixing things up. I am strictly talking about admission purposes: this is not an either/or thing. You are using the incorrect assumption that high GPA students= high GPA but poor diversity knowledge/ability and that lower GPA students= lower GPA but higher diversity knowledge/ability. That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that volunteering experience does not serve as an OBJECTIVE admission criteria because it is not held to standard and anybody can do it: it is just a matter of putting in the hours. This does NOT automatically mean that a student with high GPA does not have knowledge about diversity or that he/she doesn't care about diversity. You are committing a logical fallacy here by implying that. Admission to graduate programs should be based on ability to succeed, and GPA is much more of an objective metric, and much more of an indicator of graduate success compared to racking up volunteer hours that can be done by anyone and are not held to standard beyond minimal levels. Also, if you want to talk about ability to succeed in the profession AFTER graduating, again, please refer to what I said before: racking up volunteering hours does NOT mean that you will be more competent than another candidate once you graduate. The curriculum requires a sufficient/heavy amount of fieldwork that will adequately prepare all graduates with being competent in the workforce. If volunteer experience was necessary, then it would be mandatory. The fact that it is optional means that it is strictly being used to give a "holistic" feel to the admission by giving more weight to volunteering compared to GPA to decide who wins the competition of admission. I have no problem with it being used as part of the admission process, but when I see that it is being used so disproportionately, to the extent that a student with a GPA in the top 2% is denied admission in favour of a student with a top 20% GPA with some more volunteering hours, then I just don't think that is right or reasonable. Also, ironically, emphasizing volunteering for admission purposes to such an extent is a kind of discrimination against students who had to work more and didn't have time to volunteer as much.

To sum up: when there is no objective and/or valid method to accurately and fairly assess the personality and professional aptitude of candidates, I think it is wrong to rely on subjective and invalid measures of these qualities (i.e. volunteering hours), over objective measures that measure other things that can be measured objectively.. such as GPA.

[Zurv]

9 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

lol okay so lets use basketball. Just because the player scored 30 points, does not mean that he had a better game than the player that scored 17 points. There are assists, defense, efficiency etc..

 

same thing with GPA. just because you have a higher GPA, does not make you the most qualified candidate

[newPT2020]

2 hours ago, jna1929 said:

 

Again, not relevant. I got close to the highest grade in my classes that dealt with those issues, and in real life I have demonstrated a strong ability to relate to all kinds of people even if I have nothing in common with them: I don't need to rack up 500 hours of repetitive volunteering hours to show this as it simply would not serve as any objective proof regardless. If you look at a piece of paper that says a candidate finished 500 hours of volunteering, it would simply mean that they are at the minimal level that they did not do something crazy like swear at clients and get kicked out of the volunteering. It would NOT prove that they have a better ability to connect with diverse clients any more than any other candidate. Furthermore, OT/PT is a physical field and if you read the stuff on the universities websites and the professional colleges, they reserve the right to pull you out of the program/profession if your physical or mental health can cause a problem to clients. So there doesn't need to be double standards in terms of admission. You too are mixing things up. I am strictly talking about admission purposes: this is not an either/or thing. You are using the incorrect assumption that high GPA students= high GPA but poor diversity knowledge/ability and that lower GPA students= lower GPA but higher diversity knowledge/ability. That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that volunteering experience does not serve as an OBJECTIVE admission criteria because it is not held to standard and anybody can do it: it is just a matter of putting in the hours. This does NOT automatically mean that a student with high GPA does not have knowledge about diversity or that he/she doesn't care about diversity. You are committing a logical fallacy here by implying that. Admission to graduate programs should be based on ability to succeed, and GPA is much more of an objective metric, and much more of an indicator of graduate success compared to racking up volunteer hours that can be done by anyone and are not held to standard beyond minimal levels. Also, if you want to talk about ability to succeed in the profession AFTER graduating, again, please refer to what I said before: racking up volunteering hours does NOT mean that you will be more competent than another candidate once you graduate. The curriculum requires a sufficient/heavy amount of fieldwork that will adequately prepare all graduates with being competent in the workforce. If volunteer experience was necessary, then it would be mandatory. The fact that it is optional means that it is strictly being used to give a "holistic" feel to the admission by giving more weight to volunteering compared to GPA to decide who wins the competition of admission. I have no problem with it being used as part of the admission process, but when I see that it is being used so disproportionately, to the extent that a student with a GPA in the top 2% is denied admission in favour of a student with a top 20% GPA with some more volunteering hours, then I just don't think that is right or reasonable. Also, ironically, emphasizing volunteering for admission purposes to such an extent is a kind of discrimination against students who had to work more and didn't have time to volunteer as much.

To sum up: when there is no objective and/or valid method to accurately and fairly assess the personality and professional aptitude of candidates, I think it is wrong to rely on subjective and invalid measures of these qualities (i.e. volunteering hours), over objective measures that measure other things that can be measured objectively.. such as GPA.

I am actually glad you are able to express your opinion so eloquently. You objectively show your intelligent through your writing skills.

I highlighted the only thing I thought I could agree on with this statement and the previous ones I read. Volunteering is not held to standard or is mandatory.

Dalhousie University is a school that has a 40 hour non-paid community volunteering requirement for their admission (PT). This volunteer experience does not necessarily have to be in the field of Physiotherapy. (This last part is up for debate.)

Volunteering does have its disadvantages: countless hours of unpaid work. This is something that can be argued as a requirement for this program. 

My two cents: Numbers are not the only indication of a successful candidate. Success in this professional graduate program relies on real world/life experience.

 

 

[Happyness]

2 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Well I hope that as a professional, you never have to deal with any type of problem-solving scenario that requires logical reasoning, because that would put your patient at risk. Good luck.

I read some of your other posts to gain a more “holistic” view and ........ I can sort of see where you’re coming from. 

Question? Would you feel the same way if you had a lower GPA but tons of experience?

[PTDani]

17 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

I just feel like I need to weigh in on this cause its important to remember that not everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to achieving high GPAs. For example, someone who is working their way through school vs. someone who has their parents paying their way through school are much more likely to encounter time stress when it comes to studying, meaning this could negatively affect their GPA. There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages that different students are dealing with so having admissions based solely on GPA doesn't make sense one bit. I agree that is it extremely difficult to achieve a 3.86 because I've done it. I also know I could have achieved higher like how my other classmates did who did not work and had their way paid through school. I think that is why they look at more than GPA because these programs understand that grades can be affected by peoples life outside of school as well. 

[Ptstudent2]

Just throwing my two cents in here... If I ever have to see an OT one day, or my children or family members do, I would rather the OT be someone that was dedicated to their job and helping others enough to have gone out of their way to do something like volunteering their time, instead of someone that got good marks in undergrad. Undergrad is a very different animal. Also, volunteering takes dedication and can help someone develop crucial soft skills to prepare them for the field. Remember, admissions departments are looking for people that will succeed in their programs, and that doesn't just mean academically. They want people that they know are dedicated and will be a good fit and actually finish the program because they already know that they love it. I have a very high GPA but the experience I have in the field is what is making me feel more prepared to start pt school in September. That being said, I do think GPA is important and should absolutely be strongly considered, but sometimes there are other things to consider as well, especially when we will be working closely with vulnerable populations. 

[Ptstudent2]

18 minutes ago, Josh420 said:

Just throwing my two cents in here... If I ever have to see an OT one day, or my children or family members do, I would rather the OT be someone that was dedicated to their job and helping others enough to have gone out of their way to do something like volunteering their time, instead of someone that got good marks in undergrad. Undergrad is a very different animal. Also, volunteering takes dedication and can help someone develop crucial soft skills to prepare them for the field. Remember, admissions departments are looking for people that will succeed in their programs, and that doesn't just mean academically. They want people that they know are dedicated and will be a good fit and actually finish the program because they already know that they love it. I have a very high GPA but the experience I have in the field is what is making me feel more prepared to start pt school in September. That being said, I do think GPA is important and should absolutely be strongly considered, but sometimes there are other things to consider as well, especially when we will be working closely with vulnerable populations. 

^ Funny enough this came up on my instagram right after reading this thread lol. 

[KROT]

On 5/26/2018 at 1:54 PM, OT_2018 said:

Hey! Went for the MMI and am waiting for the response as well. 

 

Best of luck to you and hope to see you in September! 

Hey! Glad to know I’m not alone waiting!

Best of luck to you as well! I met some incredible people at the interviews and I’m sure you’re likely one of the many. Perhaps we shall see each other one september, crossingfingers for us both!

(Also I sincerely hope they send out their offers before the ORPAS response (accept/reject) deadline passes.)

[11234567]

Just now, KROT said:

Hey! Glad to know I’m not alone waiting!

Best of luck to you as well! I met some incredible people at the interviews and I’m sure you’re likely one of the many. Perhaps we shall see each other one september, crossingfingers for us both!

(Also I sincerely hope they send out their offers before the ORPAS response (accept/reject) deadline passes.)

Orpas usually send out acceptances automatically the day of the deadline I know people who have stayed up till midnight to get their marks for SLP and audio on the deadline.

[KROT]

16 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Well I hope that as a professional, you never have to deal with any type of problem-solving scenario that requires logical reasoning, because that would put your patient at risk. Good luck.

 This forum is definitely not about undermining or disrespecting others. It’s supposed to be a place to share about the successes people have achieved and the individual experiences that have lead to that point, which might help other readers as they attempt to apply and get in to PT/OT as well. It’s also about supporting one another in this exciting and potentially stressful period of waiting for a response from the various universities. 

I feel that this comment was simply not nice, not supportive, and is meant to be destructive (and frankly just disrespectful). If you have a problem or concern about the admission process, why not just connect with someone who works in admissions at the various universities to which you have applied?

Everyone brings in unique experiences and skills into the program: GPA, volunteerism, work experience, and letters are all just together striving to paint a whole picture of what the individual brings to the table and what they might be able to achieve (or how they fit into the program and a ultimate goals). Admissions by no means are a perfect system. What is fortunate is that there a multiple schools and admission adjudicators that have varying criteria to get in, and different schools may weigh different aspects of an application. 

For example, it sounds like the best fit for you to attempt to apply would be McMaster, which heavily emphasizes GPA to get an interview; beyond that, the interview will attempt to assess any of the other skills that will really make someone a potentially successful OT and student in the program. 

[NorthernOntarioGal]

Guys this person is clearly a troll... 

 

Who knows whether they haven't been successful and are just bitter because of it, or just don't have a good understanding of health care professions... 

Let's bring our attention back to those that are on waitlists and are waiting to hear good news. My heart goes out to all of you that you still have to wait another week to hear anything. I'll be checking in here continuously to continue contributing to this (mostly) supportive forum.

[OTWannaBee]

On 5/27/2018 at 9:55 AM, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

I appreciate everyones input and opinions in response to this post and have felt supported and agree with many responses, I would like to point out that the OT is a professional based program as opposed to a research based program which of course would hold more focus on GPA, maybe more suited for those with such pride in a higher GPA. I would like to clarify that I worked throughout university in these fields in order to fund my education, all paid work, including this year off for the hope I would have enough to attend graduate studies. I worked two different jobs while completing my final year of university and I find it difficult not to feel bashed or discredited by this post.  I have always taken positions relevant to OT because I knew that is what I wanted to do not because I wanted to rack up volunteer hours. I found OT is a compassionate and empathetic field and these skills are not learned in the lecture halls of an educational institution. Thank you for your opinion and I hope this forum continues to remain positive for everyone else to enjoy. 

[sd93]

On May 27, 2018 at 9:55 AM, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

 

I'd just like to say that I've finished a graduate degree with a high GPA (probably around 3.9 or so) when I didn't have a high undergraduate GPA, so I can speak to what you're saying about a high undergraduate GPA being an indicator of future success at the graduate level.

During the fourth year of my undergrad, I had many personal issues that affected my mental health and consequently my academic performance. Thankfully the graduate admissions committee took a HOLISTIC approach and admitted me into this program. I had resolved the issues from my fourth year and my grades shot up. I didn't find the graduate level work too hard for me. I actually excelled and found my niche. If you were conducting a study and were looking at GPAs among students because GPAs are objective, you'd still need to control for variables (like SES, physical disability, mental health issues, etc.) when you were analyzing the data and drawing your conclusions. That's essentially what the admissions committees are doing when they are drawing conclusions about who deserves an acceptance. High GPAs aren't being "ignored" and they aren't "discriminating" against students with high GPAs. The admissions committees are just aware of the importance of equity.

You don't know this person's story. I've met people with an outstanding GPA but an emotional intelligence of zero. I also know a graduate of a PT program in Ontario who said there were many people in the program who shouldn't have been there, as they would gossip about the body types of their clients or fellow students. I feel like the fact that I've struggled and am not brilliant makes me more empathetic towards others who are going through tough times. 

IF YOU'RE READING THIS THREAD: Don't feel like you don't deserve to be a therapist because you don't have a really high GPA. I've had terrible experiences with healthcare professionals in the past so I'm happy to hear universities are beginning to look at the bigger picture in their admissions processes. Definitely apply!

[PTDani]

Huzzah! I’ve made it off the dreaded waitlist for UofA! 

[wannabePT]

17 minutes ago, PTDani said:

Huzzah! I’ve made it off the dreaded waitlist for UofA! 

Congrats!! Do you know where you were on the list?

[OTApplicantMcGill]

Hi!

I was just wondering if anyone who has done the McGill MMI has heard back? I have a feeling that the acceptances should have been submitted by now but just wanted to make sure.

Thanks!

[OT_2018]

5 minutes ago, OTApplicantMcGill said:

Hi!

I was just wondering if anyone who has done the McGill MMI has heard back? I have a feeling that the acceptances should have been submitted by now but just wanted to make sure.

Thanks!

Hey! 

Still waiting on the McGill MMI result as well. From what I remember they said anywhere between two and three weeks, so hopefully the responses will come out soon! 

Best of luck to you!