May 12 Countdown Thread 2020

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

24 minutes ago, SoftTings said:

Someone will receive the short end of the stick, in my mind it makes more sense for it to be somewhat merit-based than a complete lottery. Of course it won't be perfect in selecting the best candidates, but I think it makes more sense to split hairs and take the person with the slightly higher GPA, CARS. and CASPer than make it 100% luck

An interview is absolutely ideal. But if I was hiring and the two candidates in front of me both had great GPAs and performed well on an ethics exam, and that was all I had in front of me, I wouldn't throw my hands in the air and flip a coin. I would choose the one who performed slightly better in these two areas because that's all I have to go on. Of course maybe the other candidate is in fact better, but I find it impossible to believe that anyone in that hiring position would do a coin flip

In many real world hiring situations, there wouldn't even be a comparable semblence of fairness in the process that the often criticized medical school process provides.  

I.e. hiring your friend for a junior position, or the fact that in many industries its not even about necessary merit, but about "networking" and being referred to the company for consideration.

You can't make the comparison but then ignore certain parts to be convenient to your specific viewpoint/case.  

[premed1995 9]

That Facebook forum is becoming very annoying now lol. 

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

43 minutes ago, MDLD said:

thats what I don't get they had casper and no one knows what their casper score was. They could have weighted Casper whatever they needed to get the class they needed in terms of diversity. 

Yes people might be mad that casper was chosen but I think most would understand and at least there is no lottery system making everyone feel like shit and other thinking we got in just becuase of luck. 

Again, in this scenario..no one is getting in "just because of luck".

Even in the old scenario,  there is already a large amount of luck once you get to top 600.    Luck of having a slightly higher GPA, because you had a slightly easier courseload, better courses that term, didn't have to work because you were lucky to be born into a well off family, etc etc etc. Luck of having an MCAT exam that hit your strengths and not all your weaknesses, luck of being in a good headspace and clicking with interviewers on the interview day. Luck, luck, luck.

 

[MDLD 154]

5 minutes ago, JohnGrisham said:

Again, in this scenario..no one is getting in "just because of luck".

Even in the old scenario,  there is already a large amount of luck once you get to top 600.    Luck of having a slightly higher GPA, because you had a slightly easier course load, better courses that term, didn't have to work because you were lucky to be born into a well off family, etc etc etc. Luck of having an MCAT exam that hit your strengths and not all your weaknesses, luck of being in a good headspace and clicking with interviewers on the interview day. Luck, luck, luck.

 

no i understand in the old scenario there is going to be luck, but I feel like the school can't control those variable. 

However, what they could control is whether or not basing it 100% on luck for 450 applicants or not. And they chose to make it 100% luck, so how is that better?

[SoftTings 79]

5 minutes ago, JohnGrisham said:

In many real world hiring situations, there wouldn't even be a comparable semblence of fairness in the process that the often criticized medical school process provides.  

I.e. hiring your friend for a junior position, or the fact that in many industries its not even about necessary merit, but about "networking" and being referred to the company for consideration.

You can't make the comparison but then ignore certain parts to be convenient to your specific viewpoint/case.  

So your response is that other hiring processes are more unfair? That's true, but absolutely irrelevant. I'm not ignoring anything, I was positing a hypothetical scenario that would mirror this one as a closed-file review. I am intentionally cutting out other aspects of the hiring process (networking, connections, interviews) to put you in a similar scenario to the one Mac was in, I never said I was creating a scenario completely representative of the real world.

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

Just now, SoftTings said:

So your response is that other hiring processes are more unfair? That's true, but absolutely irrelevant. I'm not ignoring anything, I was positing a hypothetical scenario that would mirror this one as a closed-file review. I am intentionally cutting out other aspects of the hiring process (networking, connections, interviews) to put you in a similar scenario to the one Mac was in, I never said I was creating a scenario completely representative of the real world.

Exactly my point, its irrelevant what other process do - so pointing out the hypothetical scenario...in your own words, what another process would do, is just as irrelevant?

The point is Mac decided what they thought would be the best, and you can try to understand why they did it, and do what is in your own control.  All process have parts that will seem unfair to one applicant or the other, it just happens that when you *think* it is going to affect you more, then they get up in arms. Otherwise when its going in your own way, you continue complacency and accept it for being "just".

In the end, most people are reading way too much into the "merit" of the process, and ignore the overwhelming more weighted factor of the process being a pure supply/demand issue, and not "Finding the best applicant". 

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

10 minutes ago, MDLD said:

no i understand in the old scenario there is going to be luck, but I feel like the school can't control those variable. 

However, what they could control is whether or not basing it 100% on luck for 450 applicants or not. And they chose to make it 100% luck, so how is that better?

Lets not forget that schools already DO attempt to try and "control those variables"  - the fact that every school in Canada uses a different formula. Some schools don't factor MCAT at all pre-interview, or use it at all. Some don't consider non-academics at all. Some only look at GPA as a cut-off.   In McMasters process the person who has a 4.0 and 130 CARS is automatically hugely advantaged, whereas that exact person would be no different than a 3.7 and 130 at a different school like SK. 

Sure, and you* may think that, but im sure many of the bottom 200 applicants of the top 500 (of thousands!) would feel VERY differently.  As Mac's data(who knows level of quality) shows, its a coin toss if you will get in from 100-500ish, so they just mimicked that and made it a lotto.     Giving an automatic pass to the 100-250 people as well as top 100, would be far more unfair than lottery - because then the bottom 200 would have a worse chance than the old scenario.

I still personally think they should have done a weight to the top 100 as well (their own data shows something like 70% chance?), and that would have been even more fair, but i guess messy mathematics?   

In the end, before and after covid, there are winners and those who were unlucky.  Looking for "fairness" in the process is a fallacy. Sooner you accept that, the more you will feel prepared for the Residency process - where there is no "formula", no "gpa" , no "mcat'.   

[SoftTings 79]

1 minute ago, JohnGrisham said:

Exactly my point, its irrelevant what other process do - so pointing out the hypothetical scenario...in your own words, what another process would do, is just as irrelevant?

The point is Mac decided what they thought would be the best, and you can try to understand why they did it, and do what is in your own control.  All process have parts that will seem unfair to one applicant or the other, it just happens that when you *think* it is going to affect you more, then they get up in arms. Otherwise when its going in your own way, you continue complacency and accept it for being "just".

In the end, most people are reading way too much into the "merit" of the process, and ignore the overwhelming more weighted factor of the process being a pure supply/demand issue, and not "Finding the best applicant". 

My point was that any of us, I would assume, would use the contents of a closed file rather than throw it out entirely and flip a coin. Even if it is splitting hairs. I was not commenting on the real-world merits of the average business's hiring processes, and I think that distinction is pretty clear. 

I can say that I would absolutely be more upset to get rejected via lottery than via a ranking system, and I would absolutely be happier to get in via a ranking system than a lottery. It's not specifically because I think the lottery will affect my chances of getting in, but rather that it is now a matter of complete luck. If I am selected, I will continue to say that the lottery was a poor decision. There is a poll in the McMaster forum, and a vast majority of candidates are unhappy with the lottery - I think that matters a lot more than people who aren't directly affected by the lottery saying it's a fine decision.

[PequalsMD 121]

27 minutes ago, SoftTings said:

So your response is that other hiring processes are more unfair? That's true, but absolutely irrelevant. I'm not ignoring anything, I was positing a hypothetical scenario that would mirror this one as a closed-file review. I am intentionally cutting out other aspects of the hiring process (networking, connections, interviews) to put you in a similar scenario to the one Mac was in, I never said I was creating a scenario completely representative of the real world.

Not that I agree with what Mac did, I can think of some reasons why just using gpa/mcat/casper is limiting. It definitely feels like Mac dropped the ball by not finding a way to interview but just using academic metrics is only correlated for the top 100 ranked, after that the correlation disappears. They also don't have applicants in front of them. In your analogy the two candidates are in front of the interviewer so then... why wouldnt they just interview them lol. When you're just looking at applications and don't have interview data, admissions should (and did) use historical evidence to try to offset the issues that using just academic metrics creates. Since I did not get interviewed at Mac here's my somewhat 3rd party perspective. Using just GPA/CARS is not enough and disadvantages those with lower scores that could have provided the class with unique perspectives during PBL. The class ultimately has to work together, learn from one another and I don't know about you but I know people with high marks that just... don't have a realistic understanding of the world because if they spend most of their time studying and haven't experienced enough so how can they? I know there's diversity among the top 100 ranked and the entire interview cohort but grades aren't everything and thinking this way is one dimensional. So ultimately I can see what the lottery is poorly trying to accomplish.

[takasugi 99]

33 minutes ago, William Osler said:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1948/06/26/the-lottery

My favourite short story - the Lottery by Shirley Jackson

I read this in high school for class. Creeped me out lol.

[SnowmanTheSWOMEN 156]

Just now, takasugi said:

I read this in high school for class. Creeped me out lol.

Same lmao, well written though. 

[short_stack 175]

@JohnGrisham I would really like to hear what you think of Mac potentially adding on people from this year to next year's interviewee pool (i.e. >552 interviews), instead of having a total of 552 interviewees next cycle too.

[pretomd 41]

2 minutes ago, SoftTings said:

My point was that any of us, I would assume, would use the contents of a closed file rather than throw it out entirely and flip a coin. Even if it is splitting hairs. I was not commenting on the real-world merits of the average business's hiring processes, and I think that distinction is pretty clear. 

I can say that I would absolutely be more upset to get rejected via lottery than via a ranking system, and I would absolutely be happier to get in via a ranking system than a lottery. It's not specifically because I think the lottery will affect my chances of getting in, but rather that it is now a matter of complete luck. If I am selected, I will continue to say that the lottery was a poor decision. There is a poll in the McMaster forum, and a vast majority of candidates are unhappy with the lottery - I think that matters a lot more than people who aren't directly affected by the lottery saying it's a fine decision.

I understand you're upset. If I were in your shoes, I would be upset too. And this might be really hard to hear - but an interview was always just a dressed up lottery. I've read a lot of outrage about the absence of "merit" in this thread, but the reality is, there's little merit to an interview. An interview does not select for success in medicine (whether MMI or otherwise). An interview selects for the ability to interview well. That's it. 

The process was extremely luck-based before. That hasn't changed. What's changed is that you (and many of your colleagues) believe your agency has been taken away from you. And that's fair. Whether it's true or not is another question. 

Final thing to consider (and this is another hard pill to swallow) - these are extenuating circumstances and this is bigger than you. A bit of perspective will take you a long way, especially as an aspiring physician. I implore you, as difficult as it is, to understand that everyone in the entire world is affected by this. Nothing about this situation is fair. Accept it for what it is and at least wait until Tuesday before lamenting your own hardship. 

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

1 minute ago, SoftTings said:

My point was that any of us, I would assume, would use the contents of a closed file rather than throw it out entirely and flip a coin. Even if it is splitting hairs. I was not commenting on the real-world merits of the average business's hiring processes, and I think that distinction is pretty clear. 

I can say that I would absolutely be more upset to get rejected via lottery than via a ranking system, and I would absolutely be happier to get in via a ranking system than a lottery. It's not specifically because I think the lottery will affect my chances of getting in, but rather that it is now a matter of complete luck. If I am selected, I will continue to say that the lottery was a poor decision. There is a poll in the McMaster forum, and a vast majority of candidates are unhappy with the lottery - I think that matters a lot more than people who aren't directly affected by the lottery saying it's a fine decision.

Right, by my true point is, why base your happiness of getting into medical school based on  this?

If you are in the top 500, you are already a great applicant and if you got in the old process or the new process, you were MORE than worthy of the medical school spot, more than your preceptors who got in with half the stats you had when competition was far less.

If you got in with the old ranking process, why is that any better? Does your worth being tied to an arbitrary formula actually make you feel happier you got in, and more deserving than person #450? If it does, that is something you should reflect upon.   In reality #250 and #550 is no different. #550 and #551 is no different. Anyone in the top 700 would be an EXCELLENT candidate for medical school.  Maybe even top 1000? Top 1500? Who knows where that number stops.  Certainly someone with a 3.6+ and 505 + (made up floor), can do just fine in medical school and be successful - maybe even lower at 3.3+? What about my colleague who had a 2.8 in his first engineering degree, but then had a 4.0 in his second degree and a 523 MCAT.

In my medical school class, the top performers within medical school and matched to very competitive programs (if any of this is even important, but it seems people like to use certain metrics to define success and happiness), were definitely not all just the people who came in with 4.0s and 45 MCATs.   The 5 lowest average applicants that entered were all non-trads, and all ended up being top 5% of the class, and matched strong.  It all is so variable is the point. You can be top 10% admitted into medical school, but then go unmatched to a mid-range competitive specialty, does that make that person somehow "less"? Not at all! They just had bad luck, but that is whole other topic of discussion. 

 

[lizaloo223 36]

4 minutes ago, premed647 said:

I understand you're upset. If I were in your shoes, I would be upset too. And this might be really hard to hear - but an interview was always just a dressed up lottery. I've read a lot of outrage about the absence of "merit" in this thread, but the reality is, there's little merit to an interview. An interview does not select for success in medicine (whether MMI or otherwise). An interview selects for the ability to interview well. That's it. 

The process was extremely luck-based before. That hasn't changed. What's changed is that you (and many of your colleagues) believe your agency has been taken away from you. And that's fair. Whether it's true or not is another question. 

Final thing to consider (and this is another hard pill to swallow) - these are extenuating circumstances and this is bigger than you. A bit of perspective will take you a long way, especially as an aspiring physician. I implore you, as difficult as it is, to understand that everyone in the entire world is affected by this. Nothing about this situation is fair. Accept it for what it is and at least wait until Tuesday before lamenting your own hardship. 

The truth is, as McMaster said, the chances are still the same (other than the top 100). Statistically speaking there is no difference whether you interviewed or not. 

I feel like people just like the sense of control that comes with an interview ironically. While there's a lot of factors involved, some definitely luck based, the idea that you can work at interview skills and you have given it your best shot comforts people. Losing that ability to prove oneself in person is unsettling 

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

4 minutes ago, short_stack said:

@JohnGrisham I would really like to hear what you think of Mac potentially adding on people from this year to next year's interviewee pool (i.e. >552 interviews), instead of having a total of 552 interviewees next cycle too.

I don't think anything of it, because i'm not the Mac adcom.  Them adding more people, wouldn't really change your own individual chances, because you wouldn't know if you would have benefited or worsened from the choice until in retrospect. 

I think numbers are one thing, and interview is another. I think if i was #650, I would welcome more interviews if they can afford to run them - because it would give me a chance to show i'm more than just the slightly lower numbers on paper.

That said, while interviews help balance out purely metric based admissions processss.. they do NOT fully remove the "luck" and "unfairness" of the process as people will refer to. None of the processes are more fair then the other, no matter how much you dice it. It's all relative and depends on what you compare it to. 

There are far more qualified applicants than seats. Supply. Demand.  People conflate "competitiveness" and "NEEDING" a 4.0 to be a doctor/dentist/lawyer/OT/PT.  You don't, and you don't get any better professionals just by virtue of having a 4.0 vs a 3.6.  Sure, once you start getting below 3.0, then maybe you need to question an individual persons work ethic and ability to handle rigour, but even then there are plenty of scenarios that could explain even that away.

[JohnGrisham 1,756]

If a school has 200 seats, interviews 500 and theres 2000+ applicants, I can almost gaurantee you could take a random sampling of 200 people from the top 600(maybe even top 1000?!) people and you couldn't tell a difference as a whole (how you would prove that, beats me).  You would still have people who  succesfuly endure and complete medical school and go onto become great clinicians, patient advocates, researchers etc.   

[AgainOmsasSmh 33]

The most creepy thing in this thread -in my humble opinion- is how Mac students and graduates are trying to justify this weird flawed lottery decision that no other school in Canada even came close to, and trying to convince applicants to “just swallow it, because well life is unfair so what you gonna do about it?”. 

This goes to show you that people are willing to defend their social group’s acts no matter how bizarre and illogical they deem. No wonder nationalism, which is a more public example of the same attitude, is the biggest problem of today’s world.

[hehe123 5]

19 minutes ago, AgainOmsasSmh said:

The most creepy thing in this thread -in my humble opinion- is how Mac students and graduates are trying to justify this weird flawed lottery decision that no other school in Canada even came close to, and trying to convince applicants to “just swallow it, because well life is unfair so what you gonna do about it?”. 

This goes to show you that people are willing to defend their social group’s acts no matter how bizarre and illogical they deem. No wonder nationalism, which is a more public example of the same attitude, is the biggest problem of today’s world.

I think with any subset of a population (in this case, mac students/grads), there will definitely be supporters, but also opponents. I've talked to current upper year Mac students, and many think isn't the ideal solution given the circumstances. So I think it goes both ways.

[pretomd 41]

2 minutes ago, hehe123 said:

I think with any subset of a population (in this case, mac students/grads), there will definitely be supporters, but also opponents. I've talked to current upper year Mac students, and many think isn't the ideal solution given the circumstances. So I think it goes both ways.

As a current mac student, I also don't think this is ideal. But this is also anything but an ideal situation. If anything, I believe Mac may have excluded virtual interviews too quickly. But the decision has been made, and we can hardly change it at this point.

I was more addressing the arguments and complaints of merit, not defending McMaster's decision. 

[wowfactor 4]

* UPDATED *

I divided you guys into 3 groups. 

1. People with Button

GPA 3.58 / 131 - BUTTON 

GPA 3.83 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.92 / 127 - BUTTON

GPA 3.93 /129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.6 / 130 - BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 125 - BUTTON

GPA 3.79 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.75 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.85 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.91 / 127 - BUTTON

GPA 3.92 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.90 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.91 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.95 / 130 (did not apply to Casper-heavy school) - BUTTON

GPA 3.99 / 129 (did not apply to Casper-heavy school) - BUTTON

GPA 3.85 / 131 - BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 130 (Rejection from UOttawa) - BUTTON

GPA 3.98 / 130 (Rejection from UOttawa) - BUTTON

 

2. People without Button with higher stats (GPA 3.95+ AND/OR CARS 129+)

GPA 3.98 / 132 (Invitation from UOttawa)- NO BUTTON

GPA 3.97 / 130 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 4.0 / 131 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

Another GPA 4.0 / 131(Casper ?) - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.95+(?) / 131 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 4.0 / 129 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

Another GPA 4.0 / 129 (Casper?)- NO BUTTON

GPA 3.98 / 130 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

Another GPA 3.98 / 130 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.98 / 129 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.97 / 129 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 4.0 / 130 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 130 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.97 / 132 (Casper?) - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.95  / 130 (Invitation from UOttawa) - NO BUTTON

 

3. People without Button with similar stats with people with Button

GPA 3.87 / 125 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 128 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.84 / 132 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.89 / 129 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.90 / 129 - NO BUTTON

The button should mean something, and I am really excited to see which one (group 1 or 3 ) will be accepted at Mac with group 2. Every one of us must be curious about it, so let's add button/no button on the acceptance/ rejection thread. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by wowfactor
update

[James Nystead 252]

3 minutes ago, wowfactor said:

The button should mean something, and I am really excited to see which one (group 1 or 3 ) will be accepted at Mac with group 2. Every one of us must be curious about it, so let's add button/no button on the acceptance/ rejection thread. 

Button or No button is already added to the thread

[Anon_9 38]

4 minutes ago, wowfactor said:

I divided you guys into 3 groups. 

1. People with Button

GPA 3.6 / 130 - BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 125 - BUTTON

GPA 3.79 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.75 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.85 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.91 / 127 - BUTTON

GPA 3.92 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.90 / 128 - BUTTON

GPA 3.91 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 129 - BUTTON

GPA 3.95 / 130 (did not apply to Casper-heavy school) - BUTTON

GPA 3.85 / 131 - BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 130 (R from UOttawa) - BUTTON

GPA 3.98 / 130 (R from UOttawa) - BUTTON

 

2. People without Button with higher stats (GPA 3.95 + OR /AND CARS 129+)

GPA 3.98 / 132 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.97 / 130 - NO BUTTON

GPA 4.0 / 131 - NO BUTTON

Another GPA 4.0 / 131 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.95 / 131 - NO BUTTON

GPA 4.0 / 129 - NO BUTTON

Another GPA 4.0 / 129 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.98 / 130 - NO BUTTON

Another GPA 3.98 / 130 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.98 / 129 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.97 / 129 - NO BUTTON

GPA 4.0 / 130 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 130 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.97 / 132 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.95  / 130 - NO BUTTON

 

3. People without Button with similar stats with people with Button

GPA 3.87 / 125 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.96 / 128 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.84 / 132 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.89 / 129 - NO BUTTON

GPA 3.90 / 129 - NO BUTTON

The button should mean something, and I am really excited to see which one (group 1 or 3 ) will be accepted at Mac with group 2. Every one of us must be curious about it, so let's add button/no button on the acceptance/ rejection thread. 

Haha oh my if we are going to go this deep, add my stats too:

I got the button glitch, GPA: 3.92, CARS: 127- didn't apply for other schools that require CASPer so not sure how well I did on it but I felt pretty okay.

[SoftTings 79]

With all this info compiled, what do people think the button means?

[Anon_9 38]

Has anyone tried analyzing the source code of the choices/offers page? I have a bit of computer science knowledge and it's definitely showing an error message, but I can't decipher what the error represents. And all my comp sci friends are giving me different answers...