Med admission for next year

[Guest Anatude]

This will be my first time applying, and based on last years stats, my chances for getting in this year is very small. (19 interview, 86.5 average)

 

So I'm inquiring about the changes imposed in the near future.

I've heard many rumors......true or not, here they are.

 

1)degree requirement. (I hope so, because too many students are taking mark boosting classes; grade inflation is a huge concern)

2)increasing number of seats.

3)changing the interview format to a "multi-interview style"

4)changing the interview to a computarized style???

 

Can someone confirm these rumours?

 

I really hope they change the interview, because I believe the current system is seriously flawed.

I realize that the college has good intentions, however, my impression of the system is that it is not standardized what's so ever.

 

There is too much variablity from year to year, and between the panels. I believe when entrance depends so heavily on a 45 minute interview, that more effort should be made in standardization. To prove my point of why this system is flawed: I am aware of people who recieved stellar scores last year and failed this year or did very poorly. (how can a person dramatically change in a year?) I also know of people, who had panels that asked purley scenario like questions, and also of panels who purley asked questions regarding the candidate. (Shouldn't the questions asked be at least somewhat similar in order to assess the various criteria they are looking for?)

 

Anyways, I'll stop the ranting now........just frustrated >:

[Guest popcorn girl]

it is seriously flawed indeed. marks inflation via stupid classes is very real, i have slogged through a difficult science degree. havent heard of more seats at all.

i believe they are changing the interview format. The marks to get in are ridiculous and some people who have no social skills seem to get in, so i am not sure how, they must have 99%. have you applied elsewhere?

[Guest kosmo14]

Common, people with no social skills get in????? I would find it very hard to find a single individual that does not have the social skills to make it in medicine in my class or the other classes in the college. Despite its flaws it still gives the college the only opportunity to assess the "social skills" of each applicant.

 

I think rather than blaming the system one must look at what it is about themselves that need to improve to become more competitive. Do you think complaining about and blaming the system it is going to help you get in? Not likely.

 

Sure there may be some grade inflation, but truth is all of us have taken 1rst and 2nd year classes in university (deemed by most as the so called easy courses), and since the UofS only takes the best two years they give you the best opportunity to get rid of those so called hard years. I too took a fairly hard science degree but my best marks came from my 3rd and 4th years due to enjoying the most.

 

I am sorry to be so terse, but I really believe that despite the flaws the system does work. I saw the various applicants, and I can tell you that the interview does weed out some of those that really don't belong.

 

Good luck with your application. Don't consider yourself out especially when you don't know what the standard will be this year.

[Guest dips123456]

Hi, Many people have been asking about the increasing of spots for next year, but I don't think anyone has been given an answer yet. I was hoping that someone who knows about the system, or perhaps one of the moderators could tell us if there is even talk of putting in new spots. I heard 20 were being added, but again that's just a rumor.

[Guest Kenola]

I think the other thing that people need to realize about first year "mark boosting" classes is that some people are taking these so called "easy" classes because they realize its their last chance to diversify a bit before they get into a professional college, after which their class choices become much more limited while they're in that college.

 

I know I ended up taking classes like archeology, native studies, drama, psychology, philosophy, and french...not because I wanted to boost my marks, but because I just wanted to. Some of my worst marks were in these classes, and not for lack of trying! But they were some of the most interesting classes, and I'm glad I took them.

 

Kenola

[Guest bm99]

Spaces will be added next year, it was in the provincial budget. As for how many, I'm not too sure.

[Guest hatewaiting]

How about the rumours on changing the interview format? Any word?

Thanks,

HW

[Guest Smithie]

"I think rather than blaming the system one must look at what it is about themselves that need to improve to become more competitive. Do you think complaining about and blaming the system it is going to help you get in? Not likely."

 

It is not that I don't agree with your statement, but that is pretty easy for someone who is already in to say. As someone who has now interviewed three times and has done everything he could think of to improve from year to year, I think your statement is a little arrogant. I have contacted members of my interview panel after I got my rejection letter to see where I could improve. I tried to improve in those places. Most told me there were no glaring deficiencies. Each year my interview has seemed to go exponentially better, but my score has only improved marginally. You can right me off as someone who is just bitter that I haven't got in, but I honestly believe I have been the victim of a harsher than most panel the last two years.

 

And as for taking easy classes to diversify, you are either alone in that or lying. I applaud you for taking those classes to better yourself, but the fact of the matter is most people, if not all but you, take those classes to better their average rather than their person.

 

But again, there is no point in blaming the system. It is what it is and we all have to deal with it. Unfortunately some of us were not able to exploit its flaws as well as others. Good luck to all applicants. I really hope I don't have to go for round 4.

[Guest hatewaiting]

I totally agree with Smithie on this one. You can also write me off as a bitter applicant who has not gotten in last year and now faces the prospect of not getting in this year. I strongly believe that the interview process is flawed, and I was unlucky enough to get a harsh panel this year (btw Smithie I had the same panel as you). I scored a 21 last year, with little healthcare experience and an iffy interview. This year I got only a 19, after a year and a half of working in healthcare, in a hospital, with patients. Also, I took up many different sports and activities, volunteered like a crazy person while working full time and going to school part time, and feel like I understand the Canadian healthcare system very well. My interview went fantasticly well this year, it felt like a conversation and I feel like I portrayed myself as accurately as you can in 45 minutes, mentioning alot of the above. I felt genuinely good about my interview right afterwards. I don't know how I was worse this year than last :rolleyes

Furthermore, in regards to the taking easier classes to boost their average, I applaude those who take these classes to "diversify". But, so many people are doing this and skyrocketing their two-year average, which I don't think is okay. Even the College states that taking several 100-level courses in upper years is frowned upon. It doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

Simply put, I can't help but believe that the admissions process here needs some serious reassessment. The interview is so variable and the academics (for some) often reflect first-year courses taken to boost averages.

I truly hope that there is at least a switch to the MMI format for next year, in case I need to apply again.

It is not just me, as an applicant, who feels this way about the admissions process. I have several friends that are in second and first year here, and even though they are in, they agree that admissions, especially the interview, is a gong show.

HW

...long time until May 15th...

[Guest Kenola]

Yeah, I think there will always be "flaws" inherant to any subjective interview. Its very difficult to get everybody on the same equal playing field, no matter what steps are done to balance everything out. I'm sure there are a multitude of different methods for trying to quantify everyone equally on a medschool interview, and I'm sure each has their own pros and cons....I can't really comment on that as I really don't know of the various methodologies. Fortunately, my interview @ the U of S went reasonably well, and I felt my interview score was reflective of how I did. But I've also heard from others that interviewed, even outside this particular forum, who have also said that their interview score did not accurately reflect how they felt they did. And that sucks...

 

As far as booster classes...I have to admit...I think you're probably right in that most people don't take them just for the sake of diversifying. I think one of the reasons why I did was because I'm a little bit older of a student...spent 15 years as a "working stiff" before I even thought about coming to University. I don't think I really felt the pressure that some others may feel to get into med school. Also, this would probably be my only kick at the can, and I gotta take and explore what I can!!

But, I still feel my underlying point to be valid(at least in my case): "booster classes" don't neccesarily give you a higher mark than any other class, unless you put a lot of work into it. True, you may be able to do minimal work in some classes and still get a mark in the mid-70's. However, even for the "booster classes", to get a mark in the 90's you gotta work HARD at it. Case in point: I took an intro archaeology class last year, and I know a lot of people that also took it simply to get it as an easy credit....they didn't do a great deal of work in it, but they still passed, maybe with a mark in the low 70's or so. I put as much work into that class as I would a physics or organic chem class, and I think my mark in that class reflected that emphasis.

 

I guess I can only speak from my own experience, and my results may not reflect the general consensus. Maybe there are certain classes and certain profs where someone can put in minimal work and effort and still score a 90...but I have yet to take a class and score a 90+ in it without working my butt off, regardless of whether that class was an organic chem class or a drama class.

 

Just my $0.02

 

Kenola

[Guest bm99]

"but I have yet to take a class and score a 90+ in it without working my butt off, regardless of whether that class was an organic chem class or a drama class."

 

Take Medical Terminology....it's the new trend among people who want an easy 95+ :lol :lol :lol

[Guest hatewaiting]

Kenola, that was a very diplomatic and articulate reply.. I was expecting you to rip Smithie's and my heads off. I respect your opinion and do believe that you took other classes to diversify. I do hope to see you in med school next fall.

HW

[Guest Kenola]

Thanks, hatewaiting. Hope to see you too in med 1. Actually, its too bad that everyone that meets the qualifications couldn't get a spot....there's a lot of potentially awesome docs that get turned away because their numbers are a fraction of a percent lower than someone else, but they have 10 times the heart! Oh well...limited resources to go around and all that.

 

You know what...a little embarassed to say this as I've heard other people talk about medical terminology as being an easy 95 too...I've taken it, I did get a 95, BUT I DID work my butt off too!! Maybe not quite as much as physics, but I definatly wouldn't call it an easy credit. However the cool thing about the class is that Lewis really knows his stuff, and you can learn an amazing amount from that man. To this day, in any biological science or physiology class, I find I can appreciate and understand the vocabulary that much more.

 

But again, that's just me. Maybe others can go into these classes and really do little and get a 95...I can't do that, unfortunately :-(

 

I'm sure we could go back and forth discussing the fairness of "booster" classes, etc... But lets talk about the important stuff: ONLY ONE MORE MONTH BEFORE NOTIFICATIONS ARE MAILED!

 

Kenola

[Guest ComplacentTragedy]

Med terms brought my average DOWN. Why? Cause I believed the speculation that it was an 'easy' class.

 

While this may not be entirely relevant to the thread, do classes that you honestly enjoy - Chem 250 was one of my higher marks, so was Math 110, when odly enough, they are the 'hard' classes.

 

In short, I have listened to the same mp3 for at least four hours and I am going to snap. Less than four weeks. Oh man... It's three AM.... I no longer need sleep... ha... ahhaahhahahahahahahaah

[Guest popcorn girl]

dearest complacent, time to go for a run!!! with the anticipated shortage of physicians and so many of us willing and able to do this, it is so unfortunate that we are in this horrid limbo...and yes from an earlier email, i work in the hosptial, there are those who somehow have passed this interview process and appear to have no social skills or deoderant:< indeed they must have % over the moon!

[Guest ComplacentTragedy]

While I was out for a run, my GPA fell. Unfortunately, my weight didn't. Self-esteem did though!

[Guest sab10]

:rollin

I can probably say the same thing:lol

[Guest antisera]

I have an 86.8% average for my best two years as an OOP student...should I bother applying?

[Guest Who MD]

For the above poster, I found this.

 

I have a 3.6 best two years from a school with a 4.0 system. What does this translate into on the USask scale?

[Guest jgray2]

antisera

for an oop, you need at least 90%. for the last two years, the minimum mark you needed to get an interview was at least 90%. i don't see why it would go down this year.

 

Who MD -- from thinking about applying last year, i contacted the office for their grading scale. it depends on your current institution and how hard or easy it is to get an A from usask's point of view. they will reward accordingly.

[Guest UofS2010]

Hi there, next year the interview format will be changed to MMI (similar to mcmaster and calgary) and the weighting will be changed from 24% to 40%. Therefore, in my opinion, it is very likely that they may lower the GPA requirements for both IP and OOP applicants because someone with a lower GPA can still compete if they do well on the interview portion.

 

UofS2010