Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Recommended Posts

There can be students in any medical school that's involved (albeit unfortunately) in misconduct though? I don't see people worrying about UofT because a student was convicted of rape. It's a matter of who you are as a person, not about the system. There will be bad apples wherever you go. You could make the argument for any case--anecdotally, I have heard that some of the smartest people come from Mac. Does that mean Mac is the best school? No. Every Ontario school will make you a competent doctor, and you can't completely disregard individual characteristics that will steer people in different directions.

Edited due to misleading wording

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HeyMrSnowman said:

There can be students in any medical school that's involved (albeit unfortunately) in misconduct though? I don't see people worrying about UofT because a student was convicted of rape. It's a matter of who you are as a person, not about the system. There will be bad apples wherever you go. You could make the argument for the opposite case--anecdotally, I have heard that some of the smartest people come from Mac. Does that mean Mac is the best school? No. Every Ontario school will make you a competent doctor. 

I understand that there are bad apples in every school and community. However, if bad apples show up in systems where people are screened in person for this sort of thing, then how bad would it get for a system where there is no screening beyond an initial numbers check? It's not necessarily about being smart or not, the merit argument is another one that's already been stated, I'm bringing up a separate issue that McMaster will not have met any of the students they're accepting face-to-face at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, this post seems a little dramatic to me. if this person passed the MMI at mac, i'm sure they also could have just as easily passed the MMI at queen's or the panel at western/ottawa/toronto. 

if anything (and i don't think it does mean anything), this shows that the lottery system is a perfectly fine alternative since the MMI isn't able to screen for people like this dude anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, FinallyAccepted23 said:

I've had people question me on here about my decision to decline McMaster and my reasoning for it. First off, I'm not the only one, there are many disgruntled students such as myself and one of them has brought this article to my attention: https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2019/07/11/toronto-police-release-photo-of-man-arrested-in-eaton-centre-voyeurism-investigation.html

Basically McMaster accepted a student who was convicted of voyeurism, he placed cameras and recorded women in a change room of a Forever 21 in Eaton Center. If students such as this can pass by even with an in-person MMI interview, then what kind of students can pass by with a lottery?

I don't mean to suggest that the incoming class will have poor quality students, I mean to suggest that the interview stage is important for screening these sorts of things. It helps to ascertain people's personalities and maturity to excel as a medical professional. It's thoughts like this which made me shy away from the McMaster offer and frustrated with McMaster as a premed.

This is getting a little out of hand. Interviews are to assess communication skills, not weed out criminals. That's what the criminal record check is for. You could make an argument that the class may have a larger number of people who are somewhat awkward or have poorer communication skills. However, it's totally unreasonable to argue that a 1-hour interview at ANY school can determine who will end up with future CPSO complaints and who won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally came onto premed101 because of the helpful information from the many intelligent and experienced users that post here. But honestly, I don't think I'll be frequenting this site as much anymore, in large part because of the austere and baseless neuroticism that's seemed so common here as of late, as evidenced by the button fiasco (which was completely incorrect), and now this.

Honestly, think about what you're saying for a second. You're expecting qualities that may be associated with voyeurism to be picked up at an MMI?.  Each interviewer gets 8 minutes to evaluate the candidate, right? All situations are either incredibly general or focus on a specific situation, but nevertheless all scenarios are designed to provide an opportunity for the candidate to selectively highlight the best of themselves, i.e. selectively present the CanMED traits. Imagine what kinds of questions would need to be asked to detect psychopathy or criminal tendencies in an individual. Imagine what kinds of traits the would have to be quantifiably measured for candidates to be redflagged on the basis of 'psychological unwellness'.

The MMI isn't a Rorschach, and the interviewers are not behavioral psychologists. The kinds of personality devices that lead to behavior like Voyeruism have massively intricate psychosexual roots, which psychologists dedicate their careers to quantifying and identifying. The MMI is an interview, not an interrogation or a psychological examination.

This, along with what everyone else has said. Honestly it's amazing the kinds of mental gymnastics people do to validate their own beliefs. The button thing and now this.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, inkbat said:

okay, this post seems a little dramatic to me. if this person passed the MMI at mac, i'm sure they also could have just as easily passed the MMI at queen's or the panel at western/ottawa/toronto. 

if anything (and i don't think it does mean anything), this shows that the lottery system is a perfectly fine alternative since the MMI isn't able to screen for people like this dude anyway.

My concern isn't with the MMI process at Mac, it's the lack of an in-person interview process at all this year. I agree this shows that the MMI is imperfect, but I disagree that it shows that the MMI can't screen for people like this. I would think that at least meeting the person and having them go through some challenging ethical scenarios is at least a better filter/check than not looking at all. For all we know, maybe the MMI filtered out a bunch of bad apples and only let a few through every year. Now any bad apples could get in.

1 minute ago, Galaxsci said:

This is getting a little out of hand. Interviews are to assess communication skills, not weed out criminals. That's what the criminal record check is for. You could make an argument that the class may have a larger number of people who are somewhat awkward or have poorer communication skills. However, it's totally unreasonable to argue that a 1-hour interview at ANY school can determine who will end up with future CPSO complaints and who won't.

This is a fair argument. There is the criminal check, I'm just personally uncomfortable with the fact that there is no in-person screening. 

 

4 minutes ago, MedWonderer said:

^^Agree, you rejected the offer at Mac just move on man and stop bashing the school. 

My intent isn't to rail on the school, it's just to illustrate why people such as myself are hesitant and doubting of the lottery process despite some people waving it off as being fine. I've seen many comments on here echo my concerns and they're usually followed up by people making fun of our concerns such as this:

8 minutes ago, ultimatelyexcepted32 said:

Bro. Bro plz. Bro plz what is this inferiority complex. Move on with your life, plz bro. 

...which does get a little frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are getting a little too obsessed with hating on Mac. 

Interviews are not perfect. A lot of bad people can still fake their way through interviews. And a lot of good people can perform not so great on their interview.

Btw, I believe a Dalhousie med student murdered someone. It doesn't make me think any less of the school or of their students. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheWayIAre said:

I originally came onto premed101 because of the helpful information from the many intelligent and experienced users that post here. But honestly, I don't think I'll be frequenting this site as much anymore, in large part because of the austere and baseless neuroticism that's seemed so common here as of late, as evidenced by the button fiasco (which was completely incorrect), and now this.

Honestly, think about what you're saying for a second. You're expecting qualities that may be associated with voyeurism to be picked up at an MMI?.  Each interviewer gets 8 minutes to evaluate the candidate, right? All situations are either incredibly general or focus on a specific situation, but nevertheless all scenarios are designed to provide an opportunity for the candidate to selectively highlight the best of themselves, i.e. selectively present the CanMED traits. Imagine what kinds of questions would need to be asked to detect psychopathy or criminal tendencies in an individual. Imagine what kinds of traits the would have to be quantifiably measured for candidates to be redflagged on the basis of 'psychological unwellness'.

The MMI isn't a Rorschach, and the interviewers are not behavioral psychologists. The kinds of personality devices that lead to behavior like Voyeruism have massively intricate psychosexual roots, which psychologists dedicate their careers to quantifying and identifying. The MMI is an interview, not an interrogation or a psychological examination.

This, along with what everyone else has said. Honestly it's amazing the kinds of mental gymnastics people do to validate their own beliefs. The button thing and now this.

 

 

 

I don't want to lead you astray from the forums and I apologize if it came off that way. There are still plenty of intelligent and experienced users here, it's just an especially stressful time for a lot of us.

I also agree that the MMI isn't a psychological test designed to screen for these sorts of things. I would just rather have candidates who were at least met in person and gone through that process than random people who were never seen. These concerns do deserve to be voiced freely, in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FinallyAccepted23 said:

 

I also agree that the MMI isn't a psychological test designed to screen for these sorts of things. I would just rather have candidates who were at least met in person and gone through that process than random people who were never seen. These concerns do deserve to be voiced freely, in my view.

500 candidates selected from 5000 applications is no random group of people. They are a highly qualified, hard-working group of individuals who all deserve to be a MD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or people who likely would have got in to Mac anyways, and did get in this year, but are perceived as "one of those lottery picks" by others. Even though they are pretty sure they would have got in anyways. Kinda fair criticism IMO. I don't think a lot of people will take Mac this year if they have offers in other schools, understandably so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...