McMaster Updated Selection Process Poll

[MedGoldfish]

Are you  or ? Answers are anonymous.

[takasugi]

I feel much better after sleeping on it. At first I thought it was extremely dumb to not utilize GPA, cars and capser to make their decision. However, I realize that this top 100 + lottery is a decent compromise on giving an advantage to people with high pre-interview scores but also not screwing over people that may have low scores but would have done really well on their interviews

 

As someone with high stats but bad interviewing skills, I feel like this selection process works in my favour 

[SoftTings]

1 hour ago, takasugi said:

I feel much better after sleeping on it. At first I thought it was extremely dumb to not utilize GPA, cars and capser to make their decision. However, I realize that this top 100 + lottery is a decent compromise on giving an advantage to people with high pre-interview scores but also not screwing over people that may have low scores but would have done really well on their interviews

 

As someone with high stats but bad interviewing skills, I feel like this selection process works in my favour 

With good stats it would be even better if they sent all acceptances out based on stats. Which is way more logical, in my opinion

[GLWL]

2 minutes ago, SoftTings said:

With good stats it would be even better if they sent all acceptances out based on stats. Which is way more logical, in my opinion

I can literally think of 10 ways they could’ve approached it that would’ve been more logical

[MedGoldfish]

1 hour ago, takasugi said:

I feel much better after sleeping on it. At first I thought it was extremely dumb to not utilize GPA, cars and capser to make their decision. However, I realize that this top 100 + lottery is a decent compromise on giving an advantage to people with high pre-interview scores but also not screwing over people that may have low scores but would have done really well on their interviews

 

As someone with high stats but bad interviewing skills, I feel like this selection process works in my favour 

I like how you justified your first point. In the end, we can't change anything, so what's done is done.

With regards to your second point, I feel like this might be the main issue with cancelling MMIs in the first place. McMaster weighs the MMI 70%, so clearly it is important to them. Without the MMI, they aren't able to assess an applicant's communication skills, which may be more important than a GPA or CARS score. Is it concerning if someone's best opportunity to gain an offer only occurs when the interviews are completely removed from the equation?

[James Nystead]

I feel like people's attitudes will change based on whether they got accepted or not and what their true position is on the pre-interview ranking (but nobody will ever know this). 

In comparing the current situation vs accept the top 330 approach (keep the pre-interview ranking): 

If am part of the top 100 and accepted, I won't care since either way you would've been accepted.

If I am part of the 100-330 and rejected, I would be livid since I would've been accepted if the pre-interview rankings were used but I was rejected because a computer said so.

If I am part of the 100-330 and accepted, I won't care since either way you would've been accepted.

If I am part of the 330-550 and accepted, I would be ecstatic since I would have been rejected if the pre-interview rankings were used (but with a healthy dose of imposter syndrome that will definitely weigh heavy no me throughout my career)

If I am part of the 330-550 and rejected, I would be slightly not as upset since at least my chances with a lottery were better than if the pre-interview rankings were used. 

[MDLD]

Keep think about this and another thing i don't like is that they are saying the top 100 would have had a 70% chance if the MMI would have happened but the new system gives them a 100% chance. 

For 101-550  they say they would have had a 50% chance if the MMI had happened but the new system now gives them a 23% chance to get accepted right away. 

Like 70% isn't a 100% guarantee but now the top 100 are being handed that while the bottom 101-550 just had their luck slashed from 50% to 23% 

I guess u could argue that with normal waitlist movement you would be handing out 330 offers. So 101-550 have a 50% chance. I keep trying to be okay with this lottery system but I really am not even if i get in I am going to be upset. Mac was my first choice and this is leaving me really lost. 

[lizaloo223]

11 minutes ago, MDLD said:

Keep think about this and another thing i don't like is that they are saying the top 100 would have had a 70% chance if the MMI would have happened but the new system gives them a 100% chance. 

For 101-550  they say they would have had a 50% chance if the MMI had happened but the new system now gives them a 23% chance to get accepted right away. 

Like 70% isn't a 100% guarantee but now the top 100 are being handed that while the bottom 101-550 just had their luck slashed from 50% to 23% 

I guess u could argue that with normal waitlist movement you would be handing out 330 offers. So 101-550 have a 50% chance. I keep trying to be okay with this lottery system but I really am not even if i get in I am going to be upset. Mac was my first choice and this is leaving me really lost. 

Yea that's my worry too :/ as someone that has good stats but probably outside of the top 100 I feel like I got the short end of the stick....but I guess there was no way to truly please everyone given the circumstance 

[James Nystead]

14 minutes ago, MDLD said:

Keep think about this and another thing i don't like is that they are saying the top 100 would have had a 70% chance if the MMI would have happened but the new system gives them a 100% chance. 

For 101-550  they say they would have had a 50% chance if the MMI had happened but the new system now gives them a 23% chance to get accepted right away. 

Like 70% isn't a 100% guarantee but now the top 100 are being handed that while the bottom 101-550 just had their luck slashed from 50% to 23% 

I guess u could argue that with normal waitlist movement you would be handing out 330 offers. So 101-550 have a 50% chance. I keep trying to be okay with this lottery system but I really am not even if i get in I am going to be upset. Mac was my first choice and this is leaving me really lost. 

The made the separation at 100 since they found 1-50 and 51-100 ranks had statistically significant differences in % offer from 2012-2017

[GLWL]

18 minutes ago, MDLD said:

Keep think about this and another thing i don't like is that they are saying the top 100 would have had a 70% chance if the MMI would have happened but the new system gives them a 100% chance. 

For 101-550  they say they would have had a 50% chance if the MMI had happened but the new system now gives them a 23% chance to get accepted right away. 

Like 70% isn't a 100% guarantee but now the top 100 are being handed that while the bottom 101-550 just had their luck slashed from 50% to 23% 

I guess u could argue that with normal waitlist movement you would be handing out 330 offers. So 101-550 have a 50% chance. I keep trying to be okay with this lottery system but I really am not even if i get in I am going to be upset. Mac was my first choice and this is leaving me really lost. 

I agree. Plus why the top 100? What about 101? What if 101 doesn’t get in and 552 does? Why the 70%? Why not the top 120 at lets say 65%? How did they decide where to put that cut off? Also what isn’t fair is to those who have applied 3,4,5,6 times. How is it fair if someone on their 4th application gets shafted by the lottery but someone applying for the first time gets in? If they insisted on doing a lottery the least they can do is consider some variables to add some weight to some candidates. Plus what’s the point of the article they published on casper and it’s validity if they aren’t going to use it with no MMI? I feel even if they chose a new formula using the measures they look at pre interview, yes some people wouldn’t be happy as well which is understandable, but atleast then we cannot really complain as they are the measures they normally use, not just plain luck.

[Overstressed]

Not sure what everyone else is thinking, and doesn’t directly affect me since I didn’t interview at Mac, but it doesn’t really sit right with me that 25-30 people in the top 100 are being accepted when they otherwise wouldn’t. Given how high their stats are you have to assume that people in the top 100 who don’t get in normally really underperformed on the MMI.

 

[BernieMac]

-

[SoftTings]

7 minutes ago, GLWL said:

I agree. Plus why the top 100? What about 101? What if 101 doesn’t get in and 552 does? Why the 70%? Why not the top 120 at lets say 65%? How did they decide where to put that cut off? Also what isn’t fair is to those who have applied 3,4,5,6 times. How is it fair if someone on their 4th application gets shafted by the lottery but someone applying for the first time gets in? If they insisted on doing a lottery the least they can do is consider some variables to add some weight to some candidates. Plus what’s the point of the article they published on casper and it’s validity if they aren’t going to use it with no MMI? I feel even if they chose a new formula using the measures they look at pre interview, yes some people wouldn’t be happy as well which is understandable, but atleast then we cannot really complain as they are the measures they normally use, not just plain luck.

Yup, I keep thinking this with respect to the CASPer. They are really undermining the tool that they created that is supposedly "evidence-based".

 

So let me get this straight Mac, from 101-552 ranked applicants your tool for evaluation is useless? But that's also the tool you used to reject 553-700? None of it makes the slightest bit of sense.

[MDLD]

1 minute ago, YesIcan55 said:

Also not a Mac interviewee, but all of this mess could have been avoided if they did an online interview like literally every other school in the country... 

yeah everyone is like this is the most fair thing but people are forgetting that they could have just done the work to get the online interviews (panel or MMI) done. 

ugh

[lizaloo223]

2 minutes ago, Overstressed said:

Not sure what everyone else is thinking, and doesn’t directly affect me since I didn’t interview at Mac, but it doesn’t really sit right with me that 25-30 people in the top 100 are being accepted when they otherwise wouldn’t. Given how high their stats are you have to assume that people in the top 100 who don’t get in normally really underperformed on the MMI.

 

Would it make sense to have a lottery using only the top 100 for 70 spots? And then if you weren't chosen you'd be put in the general lottery for the rest of the 135 spots? 
 

that way it's not an automatic acceptance but it still favours top scoring applicants. 

[James Nystead]

People really need to hold Mac accountable for not having alternative interview format like literally every other school in the country that adapted 

[BernieMac]

-

[lizaloo223]

Do you think there's a lot of variance between Casper scores?

i feel like Casper was scored something like "below average" "average" or "above average" so it was easy to weed out people with bad Casper scores but once everyone gets an interview their Casper score is more or less similar. 

[MDLD]

4 minutes ago, YesIcan55 said:

We found out our UofA interview was cancelled 2 days before our interview day (some people even arrived to their hotel rooms in Edmonton already lol), and they managed to still give us an online interview the same day as our interview would have been. They created a seamless interview process from scratch for 526 people in literally 48 hours. There was no excuse for Mac to do this. I feel for you all. 

Yeah so no excuse what so ever. If they wanted to try this system do it a year when there isn't a pandemic and people knew before they were apply what was happening. 

5 minutes ago, William Osler said:

People really need to hold Mac accountable for not having alternative interview format like literally every other school in the country that adapted 

Yeah but how... if someone get in they won't want to cause trouble. 

[BernieMac]

-

[SoftTings]

2 minutes ago, MDLD said:

Yeah so no excuse what so ever. If they wanted to try this system do it a year when there isn't a pandemic and people knew before they were apply what was happening. 

Yeah but how... if someone get in they won't want to cause trouble. 

I'm personally holding them accountable by accepting a different offer if I get it lol

[James Nystead]

2 minutes ago, SoftTings said:

I'm personally holding them accountable by accepting a different offer if I get it lol

Im guessing the top 100 are top applicants at other programs and most will have alternative offers, I hope they stick it to Mac and take those offers and Mac ends up with an almost exclusive lottery class lmao

[lizaloo223]

1 minute ago, YesIcan55 said:

Not at all. You get a percentile score for your Casper result. Someone with a 4.0/132 could have gotten an interview with probably 30th percentile Casper. All the way to the extreme case of someone with a 3.6/127 who would have needed something like 99th percentile to get an interview. So there is still A LOT of disparity in Casper scores for those that got an interview. 

So when it comes to calculating your overall pre-interview score they just look at z-scores right?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the weighting, like how much different is 130 Cars with 57th percentile Casper vs 129 with 60th percentile, assuming same GPA? 

[MedGoldfish]

11 minutes ago, Overstressed said:

Not sure what everyone else is thinking, and doesn’t directly affect me since I didn’t interview at Mac, but it doesn’t really sit right with me that 25-30 people in the top 100 are being accepted when they otherwise wouldn’t. Given how high their stats are you have to assume that people in the top 100 who don’t get in normally really underperformed on the MMI.

 

I agree with this fully.

McMaster overemphasized the need to recreate the % chances that an applicant has to obtain an offer post-interview when they should have emphasized the need to find characteristics that determine MMI performance. They treated it as if everything post-interview is simply chance-based, when in fact it is based on MMI performance.

[BernieMac]

-