Does anyone ever get an interview/acceptance with a wGPA in the low 3.8s?

[seewhathappens]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:31 PM, Computer said:

I'm also curious to know what people think of this. To me it seems likely.

With regards to grad applicants, their website says "a minimum GPA of 3.7 is considered competitive for graduate applicants" as opposed to 3.8 which is listed for undergraduate applicants. Given that most people seem to agree (and confirmed by the stats posted by UofT) that 3.9+ is actually what might be considered competitive for undergraduates, I would suspect that 3.8 would be closer to what is actually competitive.

Source: https://applymd.utoronto.ca/academic-requirements

In the past I recall that the number listed for grad applicants used to be 3.5. The fact that it's 3.7 now I suspect is due to them dropping the requirement for grad applicants to demonstrate significant research output which they said could typically be shown by producing a first author publication.

I checked the website quite frequently last year and that number fluctuated from time to time. Maybe somebody has a way to check this but I recall it being listed later as 3.7, 3.6, and even reverting back to 3.5 at one point. Now its stayed at 3.7 for a while.

Do you think its 3.7 wGPA, or 3.7 cGPA?

[TheFlyGuy]

So long as you qualify for wGPA it’s the only metric Toronto uses. So if you qualify, the 3.7 benchmark is for your wGPA, if you don’t, it’s cGPA

[ACHQ]

I went to UofT medicine (accepted in 2012, graduated in 2016), and I had a wGPA of 3.82 when I got accepted,  that year I believe the avg GPA of the class was like 3.9 or 3.92 (something in that range, I know it was definitely about or equal to 3.9, but below 3.92).

That being said I entered medical school 8 years ago, graduated 4 years ago (and I'm about to be a staff in July). Things  have gotten way more competitive for sure. I don't know/think I would have gotten in with my stats now... (even though I would like to think I would have ahaha)

[greysweater]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:31 PM, Computer said:

I'm also curious to know what people think of this. To me it seems likely.

With regards to grad applicants, their website says "a minimum GPA of 3.7 is considered competitive for graduate applicants" as opposed to 3.8 which is listed for undergraduate applicants. Given that most people seem to agree (and confirmed by the stats posted by UofT) that 3.9+ is actually what might be considered competitive for undergraduates, I would suspect that 3.8 would be closer to what is actually competitive.

Source: https://applymd.utoronto.ca/academic-requirements

In the past I recall that the number listed for grad applicants used to be 3.5. The fact that it's 3.7 now I suspect is due to them dropping the requirement for grad applicants to demonstrate significant research output which they said could typically be shown by producing a first author publication.

I checked the website quite frequently last year and that number fluctuated from time to time. Maybe somebody has a way to check this but I recall it being listed later as 3.7, 3.6, and even reverting back to 3.5 at one point. Now its stayed at 3.7 for a while.

From their website, the 3.8 as a competitive benchmark is cited as being based on what they have seen from recent admissions cycles (which had the 4 FCE wGPAs)

Because they are trying to deflate grades, the new competitive benchmark they publish will probably be less than 3.8 next year is my guess 

[itski]

On 6/10/2020 at 8:49 PM, bbtlove said:

hi, just to clarify, and somebody may have already replied to this comment (I’m making my way through this thread), but it is simply untrue that Black Canadians do not face systemic racism. I’d recommend you read “the skin we’re in” by Desmond Cole to learn more as a starting point.  It seems there’s a very present sense of complacency that follows many Canadians who like to point the finger at America but never take a sec to look at their own implicit biases and contributions to upholding the systems that hold back and judge marginalized groups daily (this forum is a prime example of that) 

 

[yesandno]

"Black applicants (even those who are privileged in other ways, e.g. by way of gender or socioeconomic status) face systemic barriers to academic success such that actually, a lower GPA does not represent less intelligence or less suitability for a career in medicine but rather the impact of systemic marginalization and racism.  Therefore from an equity versus equality standpoint, accepting a lower GPA makes sense and is not actually indicative of accepting someone less qualified"

This is not about accepting less or more qualified, the GPA above 3.7 means the person is pretty smart, so the problem is not about qualification. How can't you see that this is about fairness in the admission? A group of people are given an advantage because of a phenotypic trait only. We are not in the 50s or 60s where being black resulted in discrimination. It's 21st century, Canada, you are not systemically discriminated against because of your skin colour. It's worse being poor now than being black. Rich black people are more privileged than poor white people. So, blindly lowering acceptable GPA for black students is unfair to people of other races.

[rmorelan]

I will again ask people to keep the debate respectful - heated topic of course.

I believe these are important issues to explore, and further excellent for examining interview style questions to boot (there are a ton of ethics that resolve around these topics) 

[rmorelan]

On 7/26/2020 at 3:40 PM, yesandno said:

"Black applicants (even those who are privileged in other ways, e.g. by way of gender or socioeconomic status) face systemic barriers to academic success such that actually, a lower GPA does not represent less intelligence or less suitability for a career in medicine but rather the impact of systemic marginalization and racism.  Therefore from an equity versus equality standpoint, accepting a lower GPA makes sense and is not actually indicative of accepting someone less qualified"

This is not about accepting less or more qualified, the GPA above 3.7 means the person is pretty smart, so the problem is not about qualification. How can't you see that this is about fairness in the admission? A group of people are given an advantage because of a phenotypic trait only. We are not in the 50s or 60s where being black resulted in discrimination. It's 21st century, Canada, you are not systemically discriminated against because of your skin colour. It's worse being poor now than being black. Rich black people are more privileged than poor white people. So, blindly lowering acceptable GPA for black students is unfair to people of other races.

Canadian Human Rights Commission disagrees with you (I mean you can argue against their conclusions of course - but I point out the the primary Canadian institution to for analyzing such things has drawn a conclusion based on the evidence it believes it has. "It is time for all Canadians to acknowledge that anti-Black racism is pervasive in Canada" would be their opening quote on the matter). 

This loops back to the thought processes we discussed before - everyone can see in isolation having a race based admission rule is unfair (so is Western's geography for SWOMEN, or Ottawa's language rules about english vs french). I would say it being unfair again in isolation should be treated as a fact - the question is whether in either the move corrects for another form of unfairness in a collective assessment to be globally fair  (you believe there is no competing unfairness, i.e. no systemic racism however - that is a point to debate), or as another possibility whether even if it is unfair in the broader sense there is another consideration that still takes precedence - as we often have unfair rules for the individual to the benefit of society (some would argue in this case even if it is unfair to a degree it still should be done because having a demographically balanced population of doctors is valuable and serves the public interest in an important way - just like again the intentions of Ottawa and Western's rules to name just two examples are to serve public interests).  

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by rmorelan

[dooogs]

On 7/26/2020 at 3:40 PM, yesandno said:

We are not in the 50s or 60s where being black resulted in discrimination. It's 21st century, Canada, you are not systemically discriminated against because of your skin colour. It's worse being poor now than being black. Rich black people are more privileged than poor white 

I am genuinely surprised that you have never seen/heard of people being discriminated based on their skin. I'm not a visible minority but I have seen it happen countless times. I can only imagine how dehumanizing it feels. Of course being poor sucks - it's another layer of difficulty. Now add being discriminated because you aren't white and you are also poor. These people are living much more difficult lives than I can ever imagine (even though I am not rich). We need doctors that can serve underrepresented populations 

[youbesee]

I often find that these arguments claiming that systemic racism/discrimination don't exist are usually rooted in semantics. They are thinking that compared to decades ago when segregation and discrimination were essentially written into law, society nowadays has moved past those times. Thus, there is no "systemic" issue. Instead, they see it as the issue of individuals in our society. It's a similar thing for gun control - there are no bad guns, only bad people.

In my opinion, it is just an excuse to take the onus off themselves to address these issues. The system extends far beyond the surface level of laws or government and includes each and every one of us.

[PequalsMD]

UofT: attempts to address issues within a historically disenfranchised community by adding healthcare professionals that those members are more likely to trust/listen to, and/or are culturally competent to do so bc healthcare is recognized as a universal right

yesandno: makes it about himself

 

*Sorry for run on lol, but more seriously I recommend we all keep thinking holistically. Perhaps if we’re not knowledgeable about the plights these groups face today, stay on the sidelines and let others that are better versed/experienced direct these types of discussions. Word of advice - you claim elsewhere you are interested in this topic and that’s why you’re discussing it, that’s great but reserve your initial conclusions or judgements until you understand the issues more. Also I assume you like science, and esp with a complex issue like racism, there has to be the possibility you don’t know everything and that you could be wrong. Ofc don’t view everything through a scientific lens but maybe it could change the way you think about societal issues to a degree? What you’re doing now is a little untenable. Or if you’re just trying to vent, we’re not your diary.