Changes to Admission Requirements 2020-2021

[Failure 4]

22 minutes ago, medicineballislife said:

But has anyone actually emailed UofT Med Admissions to figure out additional details? medicine.admiss@utoronto.ca

honestly we could ALL be wrong depending on how you interpret the grammar lol..stop for a moment, what if they are allowing 2.0 FCE removed PER year? And we're all just hysterical? Re-read the sentences a few times.... They really should've been more clear especially during this pandemic.

Weighted GPA Calculation (for applicants enrolled in fourth year of undergraduate studies or higher):

• EXISTING: Eligible to drop 3.0 or more FCEs of lowest grades if they have taken a full course load during the regular academic year (September to April for most programs) in each year of their undergraduate studies. The number of dropped FCEs is equivalent to the number of undergraduate years completed.
• NEW: Eligible to drop 2.0 FCEs of lowest grades if they have taken a full course load during the regular academic year (September to April of most programs) in each year of their undergraduate studies.

I read on r/premedcanada that someone emailed and said it was a firm 2.0 FCE max given that you have a full course load...I'm praying that they lowered their weighting on GPA for application evaluation then...

[medicineballislife 0]

44 minutes ago, Failure said:

I read on r/premedcanada that someone emailed and said it was a firm 2.0 FCE max given that you have a full course load...I'm praying that they lowered their weighting on GPA for application evaluation then...

They better!!! we all need to give feedback during their 2020 Admissions Cycle Recap. Admissions Cycle Recap Session on June 23, 2020, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. EDT (webinar details TBA) - likely on Facebook or Zoom

[scoobydoo1623 61]

attaching this for you all 

 

https://applymd.utoronto.ca/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wgpa

[Failure 4]

Wait I'm confused now.

"The wGPA is applied to your application if you complete all years of undergraduate study at a full course load. It is important to note in this case that full course load status is different than full-time status. Full course load is considered to be 5 full course equivalents (FCEs) in the September - April academic period of every year of your undergraduate studies. This could look like 5 semester-length courses in the fall and winter semester, or 4 one semester and 6 the next. Summer courses are not considered towards full course load unless you are a co-op student. Co-op students are assessed as being in a full course load if they have completed 5 FCEs in September - August period of every year of undergraduate study. "

So does that mean summer courses won't count even if you have 1.5FCEs now for non-coop students?? Do we not include them in our wGPA calculations ?

EDIT: Nevermind found it:

I will take some extra courses over the summer to meet prerequisite and/ or degree requirements; does that affect my eligibility for the wGPA?

No, as long as you have completed each year of your undergraduate degree on a full-time basis with a full-course load i.e. five FCEs, in the regular academic session (September-April).  Courses taken part-time will not be included in the GPA calculation or affect your eligibility for wGPA. Summer courses taken fulltime will count towards your GPA but not your wGPA eligibility. 

[projectomaha 12]

5 minutes ago, Failure said:

Wait I'm confused now.

"The wGPA is applied to your application if you complete all years of undergraduate study at a full course load. It is important to note in this case that full course load status is different than full-time status. Full course load is considered to be 5 full course equivalents (FCEs) in the September - April academic period of every year of your undergraduate studies. This could look like 5 semester-length courses in the fall and winter semester, or 4 one semester and 6 the next. Summer courses are not considered towards full course load unless you are a co-op student. Co-op students are assessed as being in a full course load if they have completed 5 FCEs in September - August period of every year of undergraduate study. "

So does that mean summer courses won't count even if you have 1.5FCEs now for non-coop students?? Do we not include them in our wGPA calculations ?

Admissions GPA Calculation:

• Existing: All undergraduate course grades obtained during the regular academic year on a full-time basis (3.0 or more full-course equivalents (FCE)) will count toward the admissions GPA calculation. Summer courses will be excluded from the admissions GPA calculation.
• New: With the exception of the Winter 2020 term, all undergraduate course grades obtained during the fall, winter, and summer terms on a full-time basis (3.0 or more FCEs during the fall/winter and 1.5 or more FCEs during the summer terms) will count toward the admissions GPA calculation.

 

Based on what you posted and the above, it seems like summer terms that were completed on a full-time basis (3 courses or more) will count towards your GPA calculation regardless of whether you are a Co-op student or not. But to qualify for the weighted GPA,  you must have taken a full course load during the regular academic year (September to April of most programs) if you are not a Co-op student. If you are a Co-op student, you need to have a full course load between September to August, simply because you might be in Co-op in the Fall or Winter term.

[James Nystead 252]

3 hours ago, medicineballislife said:

• EXISTING: Eligible to drop 3.0 or more FCEs of lowest grades if they have taken a full course load during the regular academic year (September to April for most programs) in each year of their undergraduate studies. The number of dropped FCEs is equivalent to the number of undergraduate years completed.

You couldnt drop 3 FCE every school year, so this interpretation is wrong

Theres no harm in emailing to check but no way they let you drop 2 FCEs per school year, that way everyones wGPA will be a 4.0 and indiscernable 

[itski 33]

10 minutes ago, William Osler said:

You couldnt drop 3 FCE every school year, so this interpretation is wrong

Theres no harm in emailing to check but no way they let you drop 2 FCEs per school year, that way everyones wGPA will be a 4.0 and indiscernable 

It's confirmed from their website (see @scoobydoo1623's link): "If you have completed 3 years of undergraduate study at a full course load, we will remove 2 FCEs (4 semester-length courses, or 2 full year courses) across your degree".

[medicineballislife 0]

13 hours ago, scoobydoo1623 said:

attaching this for you all 

 

https://applymd.utoronto.ca/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wgpa

thanks!

 

 

[bruh 502]

On 6/8/2020 at 8:43 PM, AB27 said:

I guess its a question of whether or not we value consistent academic performance, the second group is really pushed closer to their actual ranking. I don't love seeing ppl trying to act like those w good GPAs got it cushy. I worked for my GPA and every two seconds I see posts like "a 4.0/ 520 wont get you in! " "Stats aren't everything!" like why you gotta rub it in my face that above a certain point my hard work is useless lol. If we are going to use GPA to separate people we have to let it do that at some point, to some degree. I am glad there are weighting formulas in Canada because a lot of factors can lead to a bad semester or bad year. There has to be some point where we actually use GPA though. I think the academic explanations essay is a good idea here and more schools should try something like this for people who've gone through tough times that may not make them competitive at first glance.

 

Also that last bit made me chuckle :p

Consistent stellar academic performance is already valued At UofT. If you have a 3.95+ GPA you are going to be near the top anyways. I don’t think that should be taken away from you either. You worked very hard to earn a high GPA and MCAT, and that deserves praise and value. 

The question is whether we also value those who triumphed in the face of struggles that put a seemingly small but hugely detrimental impact in their academics. It was only in my first year, and in fact mostly in my very first semester that a tragedy in my life impacted my academic performance. Even though it was only a few D+s, it destroyed my cGPA. It didn’t matter that I worked my butt off in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year and got A+ in every single course. While everyone told me there is no point to pursue med with my terrible first semester GPA, I stayed resilient and got the highest 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year GPA in my program at my university. I would argue that, too, is valuable. 
 

The wGPA system with the 4 FCE drop allowed both type of applicants to be valued. Without it, only consistent academic performance is valued. It’s also important to note that the 4 FCE drop doesn’t value wholly inconsistent academic performance. If you had Bs and Cs throughout your academic performance, the weighing system won’t help you at all. It helps those with unique cases where they only underperformed in a few courses in their entire undergraduate career. 

[guacamole17 2]

do they round up the third decimal for your GPA? ex: would 3.967 be 3.96 or 3.97

[scoobydoo1623 61]

1 minute ago, guacamole17 said:

if my wGpa is 3.967 will they round up? 

No, I think they might round down 

[struggles12345 18]

3 hours ago, bruh said:

Consistent stellar academic performance is already valued At UofT. If you have a 3.95+ GPA you are going to be near the top anyways. I don’t think that should be taken away from you either. You worked very hard to earn a high GPA and MCAT, and that deserves praise and value. 

The question is whether we also value those who triumphed in the face of struggles that put a seemingly small but hugely detrimental impact in their academics. It was only in my first year, and in fact mostly in my very first semester that a tragedy in my life impacted my academic performance. Even though it was only a few D+s, it destroyed my cGPA. It didn’t matter that I worked my butt off in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year and got A+ in every single course. While everyone told me there is no point to pursue med with my terrible first semester GPA, I stayed resilient and got the highest 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year GPA in my program at my university. I would argue that, too, is valuable. 
 

The wGPA system with the 4 FCE drop allowed both type of applicants to be valued. Without it, only consistent academic performance is valued. It’s also important to note that the 4 FCE drop doesn’t value wholly inconsistent academic performance. If you had Bs and Cs throughout your academic performance, the weighing system won’t help you at all. It helps those with unique cases where they only underperformed in a few courses in their entire undergraduate career. 

Wow, this was so well said! Thank you! This was also exactly my point ... UofT assesses GPA competitively, but just removing 2.0 FCE gives limited flexibility and only values people who already have a VERY HIGH gpa and a few poor grades. What if you had a bad year because of extenuating circumstances but recovered after the following years? Isn't this type of consistency and resilience valued despite the fact that they went through a few setbacks in life but then had the energy to recover? 

"June 23, 2020, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. EDT (webinar details TBA) to learn more about this current and future admissions cycles and share your feedback"

Yes, I will be attending the above webinar to share how I feel and tell UofT how these changes are not very equitable or fair ... You aren't adding "diversity" to your program but rather making it difficult for students who have had setbacks to have a chance. You clearly aren't valuing one important quality that every physician should have ... this ability to bounce back from difficulties or setbacks. 

The feedback from applicants is the most important. We are the most important stakeholder in determining how these changes should be made and I really hope to see all of you there who are not happy with these changes. I hope our voices can be heard. 

[JigsawMD 21]

I can understand how people feel frustrated with this new change and I can completely understand where you're coming from! I really, truly feel for you, as this change was very unexpected and came about during a stressful time. But please try looking at it this way.

If someone consistently maintained an A to A+ average with a couple of A-s and B+s, their wGPA might be similar to another student who also has an A to A+ average but with more Cs and Bs, which would get removed as per UofT's wGPA policy. Person A and Person B would both have very similar wGPA's but with greater grade variation that wasn't accounted for. I know some of you may say that Person B could have had something exceptionally difficult happen in their lives. While that is true, there are people who also face adversity but still maintain a good average. I personally went through a very difficult situation pertaining to my health (which wasn't acute, more of a chronic issue) that made it extremely difficult to focus in classes, study, and even sleep at night for at least a semester. I still managed to pull through and keep my average consistent to when I wasn't experiencing these difficulties. It took SOO much willpower, determination and perseverance to keep up, and to have UofT look at me the same way as someone else who has courses with less satisfactory grades is super unfair, in my honest opinion. With the increasing competition levels every year, there isn't much more room to make mistakes

Please understand that I really feel for you guys and I know how much this change can be impacting you right now. You have the right to feel upset and frustrated, but UofT seems to have a hit ceiling with GPA, such that the majority of applicants are achieving wGPAs of 3.95+. There won't be as many people with super high wGPA's applying this year, which means that more people with wGPA's or cGPA's in the 3.90-3.95 have a fighting chance. 

[James Nystead 252]

1 hour ago, struggles12345 said:

What if you had a bad year because of extenuating circumstances but recovered after the following years? Isn't this type of consistency and resilience valued despite the fact that they went through a few setbacks in life but then had the energy to recover? 

Academic explainations essay

[struggles12345 18]

5 hours ago, imsotired said:

I can understand how people feel frustrated with this new change and I can completely understand where you're coming from! I really, truly feel for you, as this change was very unexpected and came about during a stressful time. But please try looking at it this way.

If someone consistently maintained an A to A+ average with a couple of A-s and B+s, their wGPA might be similar to another student who also has an A to A+ average but with more Cs and Bs, which would get removed as per UofT's wGPA policy. Person A and Person B would both have very similar wGPA's but with greater grade variation that wasn't accounted for. I know some of you may say that Person B could have had something exceptionally difficult happen in their lives. While that is true, there are people who also face adversity but still maintain a good average. I personally went through a very difficult situation pertaining to my health (which wasn't acute, more of a chronic issue) that made it extremely difficult to focus in classes, study, and even sleep at night for at least a semester. I still managed to pull through and keep my average consistent to when I wasn't experiencing these difficulties. It took SOO much willpower, determination and perseverance to keep up, and to have UofT look at me the same way as someone else who has courses with less satisfactory grades is super unfair, in my honest opinion. With the increasing competition levels every year, there isn't much more room to make mistakes

Please understand that I really feel for you guys and I know how much this change can be impacting you right now. You have the right to feel upset and frustrated, but UofT seems to have a hit ceiling with GPA, such that the majority of applicants are achieving wGPAs of 3.95+. There won't be as many people with super high wGPA's applying this year, which means that more people with wGPA's or cGPA's in the 3.90-3.95 have a fighting chance. 

Yeah but the previous wGPA policy also benefited mature applicants. If you already completed the undergraduate degree or were a 4th year student, you were allowed to remove an additional 1.0 FCE, which in my eyes is fair because more schooling means more chances to make mistakes. 

If someone with "less satisfactory grades" was able to remove just a few extra courses, doesn't mean they are less deserving of medical school or any less competitive. The only aspect gpa reflects is your ability to work hard, have good studying habits and capability to handle medical school which a person who if after the previous weighing policy was capable to show, is also deserving of a chance and a spot  
 

[James Nystead 252]

5 minutes ago, struggles12345 said:

If someone with "less satisfactory grades" was able to remove just a few extra courses, doesn't mean they are less deserving of medical school or any less competitive. Being a good physician does not mean you must have a cumulative of 4.0. The only aspect gpa reflects is your ability to work hard, have good studying habits and capability to handle medical school which a person who if after the previous weighing policy was capable to show, is also deserving of a chance and a spot  

No medical school should competitively access any metric, especially something as non-standardized like GPA. The GPA should be assessed in batches of 0.5 or have a cutoff like 3.7 at Western. You could train someone with a 3.7 to be a physician just as well as you could train someone with a 4.0

[JigsawMD 21]

17 minutes ago, struggles12345 said:

If someone with "less satisfactory grades" was able to remove just a few extra courses, doesn't mean they are less deserving of medical school or any less competitive. Being a good physician does not mean you must have a cumulative of 4.0. The only aspect gpa reflects is your ability to work hard, have good studying habits and capability to handle medical school which a person who if after the previous weighing policy was capable to show, is also deserving of a chance and a spot  

I'm not necessarily arguing for whether a student is less deserving of medical school because of a few extra courses with less satisfactory grades. But how else are they supposed to differentiate applicants?? If everyone has a 3.95+ GPA, GPA becomes obsolete and now they only evaluate you based on your essays and extra-curricular activities, which are much more subjective and prone to luck. If you really feel that this new change is unfair to your particular situation, you can always write an academic explanations essay, as William Osler stated above. 

The unfortunate truth about applying to medical schools in Ontario is that there are many deserving applicants, but not enough seats. 

[struggles12345 18]

4 hours ago, William Osler said:

No medical school should competitively access any metric, especially something as non-standardized like GPA. The GPA should be assessed in batches of 0.5 or have a cutoff like 3.7 at Western. You could train someone with a 3.7 to be a physician just as well as you could train someone with a 4.0

And I agree with this completely! And this is why the previous policy was lenient for those people with different undergraduate programs! I know a friend who is in a very difficult undergrad program. The previous policy allowed him to have a better gpa. He works hard, has good studying habits and can definitely handle medical school if he can handle his difficult program now. This is what I meant with what I said above! These people are also capable to learn medicine ... maybe I wasn't clear enough with my choice of wording. 

4 hours ago, imsotired said:

I'm not necessarily arguing for whether a student is less deserving of medical school because of a few extra courses with less satisfactory grades. But how else are they supposed to differentiate applicants?? If everyone has a 3.95+ GPA, GPA becomes obsolete and now they only evaluate you based on your essays and extra-curricular activities, which are much more subjective and prone to luck. If you really feel that this new change is unfair to your particular situation, you can always write an academic explanations essay, as William Osler stated above. 

The unfortunate truth about applying to medical schools in Ontario is that there are many deserving applicants, but not enough seats. 

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you said above with the "less satisfactory grades" portion. And you're absolutely right imsotired  Perhaps this is their new way of differentiating applicants! 

 

 

[indefatigable 848]

UBC does it right with percentage grades.  Instead of having really small grades differences (like 84 vs 85) make a major difference on GPA calculation (say A- vs A), reporting the grades as they're calculated preserves the most accurate results obtained from the classes which is surely the purpose.  Variances can be calculated directly instead of indirectly.  There's too much of an error margin within and between courses to believe in the precision of standard GPA where small, perhaps random, differences can be accentuated too strongly.  Premeds are then encouraged to spend time find the "good section" etc..  

[zxcccxz 125]

1 hour ago, indefatigable said:

UBC does it right with percentage grades.  Instead of having really small grades differences (like 85 vs 87) make a major difference on GPA calculation (say A vs A+), reporting the grades as they're calculated preserves the most accurate results obtained from the classes which is surely the purpose.  Variances can be calculated directly instead of indirectly.  There's too much of an error margin within and between courses to believe in the precision of standard GPA where small, perhaps random, differences can be accentuated too strongly.  Premeds are then encouraged to spend time find the "good section" etc..  

I would disagree. Although it does provide a more accurate distribution to compare applicants within universities/programs, it creates a bigger issue in comparing individuals from different programs. For example, at UofT, every course is standardized at 85% for an A and 90% for an A+. So if you achieve a 90 you're already in the highest eschelon of your class (Life Science classes routinely have C+ averages on top of being a rough program to being with). So if you score an OMSAS 4.0 in all of your courses, you can reasonably expect a low 90s average. At some other universities like UofC, grading is not standardized by faculty, and individual professors are able to set a certain percentage as a letter grade. So there are courses where a 90 is an A- or an A is a 94. Because the class averages are the same overall, we can assume an A at UofC = A at UofT (although once again this doesn't account for differences in program difficulty and study body). However, a 90 at UofC may put you at an A- and perhaps at the 85th percentile within your class. Meanwhile, a 90 at UofT would put you at an A+ and at the 99th percentile within your class. Despite this, both applicants would be seen as equal when applying to UBC because their raw percentage grades would be the same, despite one applicant being a much stronger applicant within their cohort. 

This may be a biased viewpoint, but as a UofT life science grad, this was the reason I ended up not applying to UBC, because despite having an ~89% average (corresponding to a 3.9X OMSAS GPA), I wouldn't really have been a competitive applicant at UBC due to how the grading system works at UofT. Furthermore, because I performed relatively equal across my four years of undergrad (except a slightly poorer second year), the one dropped year at UBC would've made a marginal difference to my overall percentage. 

Thank god for most schools using GPAs over percentage grades, because I am now in medical school, and I don't know if I would've made it here if they only looked at percentages. I do agree that there are certainly problems with the GPA scale as well, namely as you mentioned, the issue of a single percentage dropped you from 3.7 to 3.3 or 4.0 to 3.7, but I don't think percentage grades are automatically better. There's a reason that the vast majority of med schools in North America use GPA over % grades during admissions.

[indefatigable 848]

6 minutes ago, zxcccxz said:

I would disagree. Although it does provide a more accurate distribution to compare applicants within universities/programs, it creates a bigger issue in comparing individuals from different programs. For example, at UofT, every course is standardized at 85% for an A and 90% for an A+. So if you achieve a 90 you're already in the highest eschelon of your class (Life Science classes routinely have C+ averages on top of being a rough program to being with). So if you score an OMSAS 4.0 in all of your courses, you can reasonably expect a low 90s average. At some other universities like UofC, grading is not standardized by faculty, and individual professors are able to set a certain percentage as a letter grade. So there are courses where a 90 is an A- or an A is a 94. Because the class averages are the same overall, we can assume an A at UofC = A at UofT (although once again this doesn't account for differences in program difficulty and study body). However, a 90 at UofC may put you at an A- and perhaps at the 85th percentile within your class. Meanwhile, a 90 at UofT would put you at an A+ and at the 99th percentile within your class. Despite this, both applicants would be seen as equal when applying to UBC because their raw percentage grades would be the same, despite one applicant being a much stronger applicant within their cohort. 

This may be a biased viewpoint, but as a UofT life science grad, this was the reason I ended up not applying to UBC, because despite having an ~89% average (corresponding to a 3.9X OMSAS GPA), I wouldn't really have been a competitive applicant at UBC due to how the grading system works at UofT. Furthermore, because I performed relatively equal across my four years of undergrad (except a slightly poorer second year), the one dropped year at UBC would've made a marginal difference to my overall percentage. 

Thank god for most schools using GPAs over percentage grades, because I am now in medical school, and I don't know if I would've made it here if they only looked at percentages. I do agree that there are certainly problems with the GPA scale as well, namely as you mentioned, the issue of a single percentage dropped you from 3.7 to 3.3 or 4.0 to 3.7, but I don't think percentage grades are automatically better. There's a reason that the vast majority of med schools in North America use GPA over % grades during admissions.

You're right that non-standard scales do create an issue.  This isn't usually a problem, because as you mention, the grades get reported as letter grades (e.g. A-/A/A+) so these differences in scales aren't propagated.  In these cases, UBC also does do grade conversion back to a numerical scale which is a good work-around.

 I'm surprised that this didn't work in your favour - as A+s would convert to a higher number.  I'd still argue that this a small technical issue that could be worked out and would result in better system than the current 4.0 scale, which is being used more out of tradition than for its accuracy.  It's incredibly unstable to small perturbations in at grade boundaries, which can result in very small differences having disproportionate effects. 

[zxcccxz 125]

25 minutes ago, indefatigable said:

You're right that non-standard scales do create an issue.  This isn't usually a problem, because as you mention, the grades get reported as letter grades (e.g. A-/A/A+) so these differences in scales aren't propagated.  In these cases, UBC also does do grade conversion back to a numerical scale which is a good work-around.

 I'm surprised that this didn't work in your favour - as A+s would convert to a higher number.  I'd still argue that this a small technical issue that could be worked out and would result in better system than the current 4.0 scale, which is being used more out of tradition than for its accuracy.  It's incredibly unstable to small perturbations in at grade boundaries, which can result in very small differences having disproportionate effects. 

So the way UBCs calculation works is, they only use their own percentage scale (A = 87, A+ = 95) IF you went to a school that ONLY reports letter grades without a percentage. For schools that report a percentage of any kind (whether with or without a corresponding GPA value/letter grade), they will use the percentage that is on your transcript. So for me, an A+/90% would be calculated as a 90%, not 95%. Obviously, a good workaround would be to convert everyone's letter grades to percentages using the UBC scale, regardless of whether there is an actual % on their transcript. Unfortunately, UBC doesn't do that for some reason (maybe because it would disadvantage UBC's own students, since only % grades are reported on transcripts, I believe). But I agree, if we were able to standardize percentages across schools, I think % scales would be a better metric. 

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of grade inflation that exists in some programs (I'm looking at you Mac healthsci), but I suppose that is already an issue with the GPA system. UofT does report course-averages beside grades on transcripts which could be somewhat useful for this (and I know UofC's med admissions have said they look at these averages for students when scoring the "global assessment of academic merit").

[коронавирус 85]

All of your points make total sense. This change does not make the admissions process more equitable, and it certainly punishes more people than it benefits. The reality of the situation is that there are no truly standardized metrics to measure applicants. Thus, medical schools must make do with the imperfect tools that they have. I think this change is indicative of that reality. 

Keep in mind, while we Canadians are cursed with low medical school acceptance rates, we are blessed that our medical schools do not use the same methods to assess applicants. This is true even if we focus on Ontario schools only. Lower GPA? Queen's and Western use forgiving cutoffs. MCAT not your thing? Look at uOttawa and NOSM. Can't access ECs? Aim at McMaster. Can't type for CASPer? UofT, Queen's, and Western gotchu. Even in Ontario alone, there is a niche for any type of applicant. I sincerely hope you all find one that works for you moving forward. Keep sweatin'!

[greysweater 93]

I think some really important points have been brought up here especially that this new change does not seem to align with their mission statement to "increase diversity".

The only thing I can think of to justify this is that maybe they know that this will lower their GPA cutoff and as such they are lowering their emphasis on GPA percentage to obtain an interview and/or acceptance.

For example, I believe before this, GPA was 50% of the pre-interview formula and 50% of the post-interview formula

NOW Maybe it is something like 30% of the pre- and post- interview score and they are not publishing this on the website and will somehow be revealed in their upcoming webinar (the 50% thing was also not on the website and was just brought about in some word-of-mouth way in a webinar)

Regardless, I think it's our responsibility to put pressure on them. The 4 FCE weighting gave people without a fighting chance (cGPA in the 3.7s etc) a spot at the table. And I don't think kicking those people away to invite more cGPA 3.95ers is in line with all their past work to make UofT more "equitable". When you look at diverse groups of people or people with extremely diverse situations (i.e.. has a kid- not able to study full time, took time off undergrad to work full time in industry), my argument is that they will likely have lower cGPAs not higher because they did not follow a traditional trajectory or have access to benefits some other more privileged groups have (studying feels like shit but sometimes it's a privilege to just be able to study and have no other responsibilities!). 

If you believe in this, email them, attend the webinar, and be an advocate (advocacy is an essential CANmeds role btw  ) for yourself and for people that may be more affected by this than you! 

[sb88 10]

I agree with many of the sentiments shared thus far; I think the FCE drop from 4 to 2 will decrease the average wGPA and help differentiate between different applicants. Although, it will also hurt many other applicants who relied on the FCE drops. However, what's more concerning to me is the fact that Winter 2020 courses aren't being accepted. I have 21 units of courses in this semester alone (thesis included) which don't get counted as a mark and that tanks my GPA heavily. I'm going to email admissions about my concerns and also attend the webinar like @greysweater mentioned. If we really want them to make changes, we need to work collectively and voice our concerns. It's more unfair to me that hundreds of applicants are affected by not having their recent grades included. Over 1/2 the semester was complete by the time courses switched to online due to the pandemic. It's highly irrational for UoT to just exclude all these courses. Is it not possible to give students an option to include their Winter 2020 grades or treat them as P/F and have them not affect their gpa (if they did poorly)?. I feel like this disproportionately affects those who actually did well in the term, especially those who completed their undergrad recently. Overall, none of the changes made by UoT are "equitable" in the slightest.