May 12 Countdown Thread 2020

[James Nystead]

2 minutes ago, TheWayIAre said:

imagine if they did the lottery on a live stream, one at a time. How many of y'alls hearts would give out

Like NBA style? That would be epic, the Webex would not have been able to handle that

[asxfx]

1 minute ago, imsotired said:

ok, i'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second.

While I can completely understand the frustration behind the partial lottery system that has been put into place, it can actually be considered fair in some sense. For example, if you were the 455th ranked applicant prior to interviews, the interview was your chance to really show yourself. You could be amazing at the interview and now be ranked at the 88th position and receive an offer admission, probably even getting your first campus choice. However, now that there is no interview, it would be extremely hard to jump from the 455th position to the 88th position. To account for this perceived unfairness, they implemented the partial lottery system? 

This is just my 2 cents and I can completely understand why people are frustrated. I'm just trying to see things from a different perspective! 

GPA and CARS were ranked 15 % each post-interview before. What could have been more fair is a ranked lottery system similar to how sports leagues do their draft picks. Those higher on the rank list pre-interview would get a higher lottery chance of getting in. Then move down so the lower ranked applicants can still get in but they have a lower percentage chance because of their GPA,CARS,CASPER. 

[James Nystead]

Would they waitlist more applicants this year to account for the random nature of it's selection for the bottom 452? 

Since the bottom 452 are not ranked and are instead randomized, how will they determine the order of the waitlist? Will the waitlist also be randomized? if the watilist is randomized, why have one at all?

Are the top 200+ initial offers ranks for the sake of campus selection or will that be random as well?

[TheWayIAre]

1 minute ago, William Osler said:

Like NBA style? That would be epic, the Webex would not have been able to handle that

I was thinking more hunger games style, but like the opposite of that

[James Nystead]

1 minute ago, asxfx said:

GPA and CARS were ranked 15 % each post-interview before. What could have been more fair is a ranked lottery system similar to how sports leagues do their draft picks. Those higher on the rank list pre-interview would get a higher lottery chance of getting in. Then move down so the lower ranked applicants can still get in but they have a lower percentage chance because of their GPA,CARS,CASPER. 

I like that, the 1st ranked has 550 votes in the "hat" and the 2nd ranked has 549 votes in the hat... the 550th ranked has 1 vote in the hat. Then they pick from this hat. I like this a lot.

[justamom]

1 hour ago, MedicineLCS said:

I think "The Roulette's" has a great ring to it for a class name and would be a hilarious reference. I won't look down on them for being selected in a lottery (and I hope no one else does, they were the top 500) and I think the name would be a great reference that doesn't do anyone any harm. 

Sing along ..there was a med school had a class and bingo was its nameo B I N G O    B I N GO .... 

[BernieMac]

-

[JigsawMD]

2 minutes ago, asxfx said:

GPA and CARS were ranked 15 % each post-interview before. What could have been more fair is a ranked lottery system similar to how sports leagues do their draft picks. Those higher on the rank list pre-interview would get a higher lottery chance of getting in. Then move down so the lower ranked applicants can still get in but they have a lower percentage chance because of their GPA,CARS,CASPER. 

I can't react to anymore posts for today but I just wanted to say that makes sense and I agree with you! 

[FriendlyApple]

5 minutes ago, imsotired said:

ok, i'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second.

While I can completely understand the frustration behind the partial lottery system that has been put into place, it can actually be considered fair in some sense. For example, if you were the 455th ranked applicant prior to interviews, the interview was your chance to really show yourself. You could be amazing at the interview and now be ranked at the 88th position and receive an offer, probably even getting your first campus choice. However, now that there is no interview, it would be extremely hard to jump from the 455th position to the 88th position. To account for this perceived unfairness, they implemented the partial lottery system? 

This is just my 2 cents and I can completely understand why people are frustrated. I'm just trying to see things from a different perspective! 

I agree with this. I would just like to say that every person that was "invited" for an interview has potential to be a great doctor and I wish everyone the best of luck. However, It seems like most people are solely viewing this lottery as something that would disadvantage them. Im guessing that many individuals that are trashing Mac for doing this will actually be admitted. It is possible that some would have bombed the interview (in a bad way) had the MMIs took place, but will now be offered a spot at Mac due to the lottery. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how we get in. If you receive an offer at Mac, please view this as a great opportunity to pursue a career in medicine.

[Phil Jackson]

4 minutes ago, William Osler said:

Like NBA style? That would be epic, the Webex would not have been able to handle that

The Knicks will still end up losing out

[RawRxD]

I get where they’re coming from but I don’t get how a weighted lottery (like nba lottery or smthn) wasn’t the best way to go. Oh well. Good luck everyone :/ 

[medicallyricalmiracle]

2 minutes ago, William Osler said:

I like that, the 1st ranked has 550 votes in the "hat" and the 2nd ranked has 549 votes in the hat... the 550th ranked has 1 vote in the hat. Then they pick from this hat. I like this a lot.

Well, this would assume there’s a linear correlation between pre-interview ranking and post-interview acceptance odds. But there really isn’t. Odds range from 76-55% for ALL applicants post-interview. So this would be highly unfair to those at the bottom of the list. What are the odds that those at the top would have been the best in the MMI? Not that strong obviously 

[strawburry]

so the button is only showing for people with mcmaster interview invites but not from other omsas schools?

[James Nystead]

1 minute ago, TheWayIAre said:

I was thinking more hunger games style, but like the opposite of that

Everyone volunteers for tribute

[James Nystead]

2 minutes ago, strawburry said:

so the button is only showing for people with mcmaster interview invites but not from other omsas schools?

All those with buttons have Mac interviews. Nobody without mac interviews has the button. Take from that what you want

[MDLD]

6 minutes ago, William Osler said:

I like that, the 1st ranked has 550 votes in the "hat" and the 2nd ranked has 549 votes in the hat... the 550th ranked has 1 vote in the hat. Then they pick from this hat. I like this a lot.

going to need a big hat... 

i think the article someone posted about schools that normally do a type of lottery was along these lines. 

[DrOtter]

Wow what are the odds that the OMSAS buttongate coincides with McMaster completely upending their entire admission system? And it's not even halfway through the year yet. 2020 is one for pre-med history book ugh

[James Nystead]

1 minute ago, DrOtter said:

2020 is one for pre-med history book ugh

This thread (#buttongate #lotterygate) is one for pre-med history book

[hehe123]

9 minutes ago, William Osler said:

I like that, the 1st ranked has 550 votes in the "hat" and the 2nd ranked has 549 votes in the hat... the 550th ranked has 1 vote in the hat. Then they pick from this hat. I like this a lot.

This sorta but instead, using the bins grouping method they had examined in their paper (1-50, 51-100), etc... with slightly more weight to the higher-ranked bins. Since 1 vote for 550 vs 550 votes for #1 rank seems kinda extreme

[James Nystead]

Just now, hehe123 said:

This sorta but instead, using the bins grouping method they had examined in their paper (1-50, 51-100), etc... with slightly more weight to the higher-ranked bins. Since 1 vote for 550 vs 550 votes for #1 rank seems kinda extreme

Yea that seems good too, SOME weighting in the lottery wouldve been nice - Although if you're already stratifying them, why not just admit based off that right?

[MDLD]

I kind of feel like I rather it just be based off our pre interview score. 

Also just thought... imagine if you don't get in this year and don't get in next year with guaranteed interview... that would suck 

[hehe123]

10 minutes ago, William Osler said:

Yea that seems good too, SOME weighting in the lottery wouldve been nice - Although if you're already stratifying them, why not just admit based off that right?

I guess their rationale is that admission purely on rank order would essentially give anyone at the bottom no chance even though in an actual MMI they found that 50% of them were admitted... whereas the lottery allows for more "fairness" since someone at the bottom of pre-interview score would be given that chance here.

However... this lottery arguably it isn't fair in that someone who is #101 has the same chance as someone who was #550...

So I'm just curious as to why they didn't consider giving higher ranking applicants more weight in the lottery. I feel like even a slight advantage (10%? 20%? throwing arbitrary numbers here.) would make people more at ease.

[BernieMac]

-

[ontariopremed]

4 minutes ago, hehe123 said:

I guess their rationale is that admission purely on rank order would essentially give anyone at the bottom no chance even though in an actual MMI they found that 50% of them were admitted... whereas the lottery allows for more "fairness" since someone at the bottom of pre-interview score would be given that chance here.

However... this lottery arguably it isn't fair in that someone who is #101 has the same chance as someone who was #550...

So I'm just curious as to why they didn't consider giving higher ranking applicants more weight in the lottery. I feel like even a slight advantage (10%? 20%? throwing arbitrary numbers here.) would make people more at ease.

it seems like there isn't a perfect way to do this given they only look at 3 things pre-interview (CASPER, CARS, GPA)

it would be a lot easily if mac had essays or used LOR/ABS to rank candidates accordingly - giving people with lower stats equal opportunity to secure admission 

i guess there is no point in further discussing their approach bc they ain't gonna change it now/offers already have been made.

good luck to everyone - hope you can get some rest during this anxious time.  

[hijkl]

1 hour ago, SoftTings said:

I just don't understand the benefit of the lottery? Like even if the order isn't perfectly indicative of how someone will be as a physician, what is the downside to sending offers to the top 206 ranked? It may be slightly better at selecting candidates, and even if it isn't it will result in fewer people being pissed off, and probably fewer people declining offers to not be associated with the "lottery year"

EXACTLY my thoughts