Guest Dan Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Are we given a numerical score on it, or is simply a subjective measure used by the admissions committee when choosing people to interview? Thanks, Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy2bme Posted October 14, 2005 Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 I received a file review after being waitlisted and what happens is 6 people review it and give it a score from 1-5. 1 being @#%$, three being average, 5 being excellent. Actually all 6 criteria are ranked this way. But this wasn't done until after the interview(it was dated).... so how they decided who got interviews for inprovince I have no idea!!! However there is no indication on what each criteria is "worth". For example a 5 on academics may be "worth" more than a 5 on references. The scoring is all over the place by the reviewers....even for things like MCAT, it all depends on what the reviewer feels is important. For an example a MCAT of v13 bs9 ps 10 may be rated as a 4-5 by someone who values a good verbal score or a 2-3 by a reviewer who feels that biological sciences is a more important part of the MCAT. Judging by my scores...... absolutly nothing will make up for a poor score by even one of your interviewers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marbledust Posted October 15, 2005 Report Share Posted October 15, 2005 Judging by my scores...... absolutly nothing will make up for a poor score by even one of your interviewers.... I think this is an overly pessimistic view of the evaluation process at Calgary. Understandable--disappointment is a given once you've been rejected. However, I don't personally believe that the evaluation and review process at Calgary is as random as happy2beme suggests in this thread, and has suggested in past threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xealotx Posted October 16, 2005 Report Share Posted October 16, 2005 Pre-interview, in province applicants get marked by 2 reviewers. The whole file plus interview gets given to 6 new reviewers post-interview. None of the ratings on the criteria actually mean anything (except as a guide). Apparently, the reviewer uses it as a guide to give that overall mark out of 5, which gets averaged with the other reviewers to determine the ranking. So the weight of each category is just based on what each reviewer thinks it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jgray2 Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 They also have a little box at the bottom of the form for whether the reviewer thinks that you should get an interview. S/he can shade in "yes" or "no". It's the most exciting thing when you see that someone shaded in a "yes", then took out their eraser, and then shaded "no" ... -j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lots of thinking Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 I also heard that this year UofC is going use a weighting system for the application process, although I'm not sure if this is going to happen pre or post interview (and as there is already an algorithm for OPP applicants, maybe this will just be for in province applicatants). does anyone have more info about this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy2bme Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 I think this is an overly pessimistic view of the evaluation process at Calgary Sorry didn't mean to sound overly pessimistic. And I never meant to imply that it was "random" as obviously we are all ranked in some type of numerical system. But all of my "other" criteria were mostly 4's and 5's peppered with 3's but my interviewer's gave me a 2 and a 4. My "overall" ranking by the six reviewers ended up being mostly 2's. To me, this indicates that even one bad interview marks are very difficult to offset. However I am the first to admit that I have never seen a file review of a first round acceptance or rejected individuals, only fellow waitlisters. So maybe all the outright acceptances got all 5's and the rejected all 1's... But I am estatic that UofC is changing to MMI. If I understand the way a MMI is conducted, an interviewer may not get an indepth picture of you from one station but it also helps prevent a bias towards the candidate if one of the interviewers doesn't happen to like your answer to a particular question. You would be marked low on that station but it gives you the chance to offset that by high marks at other stations. Lets face it, in a traditional format, if an interviewer is put off by one of the first answers in the interview it does "set the tone" for the rest of the hour. Even when individuals try very hard to objectively assess a candidate, that particular answer is always lurking in the back of the interviewers mind and MAY influence their decision making. Before anyone jumps on me who has been an interviewer, saying that they are always 100% objective, remember I am not implying that this is a conscious process but rather something that is unconscious that as a member of the human race you have no control of. I am not an expert in medical school admissions, nor am I a Nobel prize winning 4.0 GPA Rhodes Scholar. Anything I post is my opinion or just plain good old fashioned ramblings. I feel great that I was granted an interview last year, and hope that I will recieve another one this year to participate in the new MMI style. But this year is another year and until Feb. interview notices are out i'm keeping my fingers crossed!! Good luck everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jgray2 Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 lots of thinking, You've probably already seen this, but they've now posted the new weightings: Post-secondary academic record*.......................50% MCAT scores ..............................................15% Reference letters...........................................5% Essays........................................................5% Extracurricular activities and employment history....25% *the entire record (undergraduate marks and, where applicable, graduate marks) It's actually very similar to U of A's weighting, which is unfortunate. It's less diversity in terms of med school requirements. I find it amusing to see that I spent hours crafting essays that would, in the end, be worth only 5% pre-interview. I could have written "I'm a monkey, I like chicken" and still not be terribly affected ... (joking, of course. i'm sure they have a different way of evaluating post-interview IF i get one). -j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happy2bme Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Is that the weighting to get an interview? I assume it is becaused it doesn't give a percentage for an interview mark. I haven't checked the website in a while. I'll check it this pm to see if any post interview scoring is available. Ciao!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jgray2 Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 It's pre-interview ... I'm sure that post-interview, things will be different ... that way, they'll find some way of screening out all those people who write "i'm a chicken, i'm a monkey" for their essay after all -j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hesam7 Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 I always thought that UofC takes the average of the best two years. I'm very dissapointed to learn that this is not the case. Does anyone know if they actually take the overall GPA by stating that the "entire record" will be considered? Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jgray2 Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 "Best two years" is just to make you eligible to apply, I think. I think there are many different interpretations to the "entire academic record" statement. In the past, for in-prov students (and probably for oop students after they've made the cutoff), they always looked at the entire academic record. In the past, when the reviewers looked at the file, they gave you a score out of 5 for your gpa. When giving you that score, some may have been more influenced by the entire record, or by the best two years, or by your last two years, or by your "suggested" pre-req marks etc. Other posters have suggested that this is where the inconsistencies between reviewers come from (ie, one reviewer gives them a score of 4/5, another gives a score of 2/5). This year, it may be different. They may take a simple average and make that worth 50% of your score. Or they may use the same scoring sheet, and multiply each category score by the posted weighting to give you an overall mark of 5. Nobody knows until the first round of rejection letters come out in February. -j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.