tomorrow's session for the interviewees

[Guest ssup]

Hey guys...

 

Just wondering if anyone attended Thursday's session for the interviewees on curriculum orientation. I'm wondering if you guys found this session useful and what sort of topics they covered...Trying to decide whether I should take time out of studying for midterms to attend the session...

 

Ssup

[Guest Pucca81]

Hi, ssup. I was there on Thursday. There were three speakers and each touched on a different aspects of medical school. The first speaker talked about the curriculum (education), courses offered, plans for the expansion, etc. The second speaker focused on "life as a medical student" (showed some clips from the spring gala where the med students show their talents, lots of slide shows of different locations for learning, etc.). The third speaker talked about the selection process and lots of people, of course, asked questions during that time! Basically, if you have already talked to medical students and checked the UBC med school website, I don't think you will find the session "that" useful. I think it's just fun to attend if you have time and also, to meet some people who have applied with you.

[Guest canstowski]

Yea, i also wnet and i didn't find it "THAT" useful either cos i already knew what the med curriculum is like and as well, the second speaker largely shown us pictures of hosptials in the lower mainland. The only piece of new info i got from the 3rd speaker is the fact that a 75% in favor vote is needed in order for an applicant to be offer addmission. >:

[Guest mitchie41]

Hi!

 

How exactly does the admissions process for UBC work?

 

I thought that you would recieve a score out of 50, 25 for academics, and 25 for Extra-curric. Then, your score out of 50 would determine whether or not you get accepted.

 

But, canstowski's last post suggests that you need a 75% in favour vote to be accepted. So does that mean that the admissions comittee gets together and acctually decides one-by-one which students will ultimately gain admission? So does the score you get out of 50 have little bearing on whether or not you do indeed get accepted?

[Guest Pucca81]

My interviewer told me that they have a "three-day retreat", sit around a table for 12-14 hours per day discussing "each" of the 350 applicants. And from my understanding, the majority of the 20 admission committee members (75%) must find you as a favorable applicant. So, the interview scores count a lot, obviously, but in the end (according to my interviewer), it all comes down to whether most of them like you or not based on all the criteria (grades, extra-curricular, diversity of experience). :eek

[Guest soapyslicer]

In my discussion with Dr Frinton she said something very interesting. Basically she said you want your score out of 50 to be high otherwise all the seats may be full by the time they got to you in the meeting. I took from that comment that you keep your ranking out of 50 and the discussion on applicants is done from 50/50 on down. This may explain why last year I never got in despite scoring in the 80%ile in my interview. It was the first time I had ever heard of it being done that way. Until that point I had assumed that the interview marks would be the primary scale and the score out of 50 secondary.

 

As I have said elsewhere she also discussed the problem with the non-academics being too subjective. It is hard to say why they put so much emphasis on it then. In my meeting last week I found out I score only 19.5 this year while I scored 24 last year. Too bad my academics were on the low side!

 

I have had many ex-committee members tell me that you really need your interviewer to become an advocate for you during the meeting. Apparently the comment "is there anyone who has not been discussed who someone feels strongly about" goes out near the end of the meeting. It is at this point that members can bring up those who were interviewed but might otherwise not be discussed.

 

soapy

[Guest ssup]

Thanks for the explanation of the admissions process...I'm just wondering how it is you were able to learn your non-academic mark for this year already? Did you contact the Faculty of Med? OR was this info relayed to you by your interviewers? Please clarify...

[Guest soapyslicer]

Hi ,

 

When I found out I never received an interview via rejection of my application as "special consideration status"(I know my academics are too low to make my total score over 33/50), I made an appointment with Dr. Frinton. I had that meeting last week and it was then she let me see my non-academic mark. It became the focus of discussion because I was given an interview based on it being the highest in the history of the school last year(or so I was told) at 24/25. I am somewhat skeptical of it all though as last year during my "post-rejection interview" I was told they could see no reason I would not get an interview next year as my non-academic mark could only go up. Of course I also asked the question "what happens if you run out of people on the waitlist?" and was told "that would never happen".

 

I have come to believe that all you can do is brush it off and re-apply next year. As I have said in other posts, I really believe that Dr. Frinton is making the attempt to make the process much more transparent. For example she explained the scale for my academic marks. For your overall GPA you are given a certain number of marks for your percentage ie. 70.00to74.99 =4/12.5 75.00 to 79.99 =6. They take your overall and last 60cr each out of 12.5 and thus you get a score out of 25. I can't remember what the exact numbers where that correspond to each grouping of percentages.

 

What I do know is that she is very honest on exactly what you have to do to make yourself competitive or at least she was with me. I think anyone who can get an interview with her I would highly recommend it!

 

Hope that explains it a bit more,

 

soapy

[Guest exhumedcorpse33]

soapyslicer,

 

So essentially you're saying that some people are in better stead going into the interview as they have high pre-interview marks out of 50? I was always under the impression that the interview was THE most important factor in the final decision at UBC. It seems strange that they would consider applicants in the order of their pre-interview ranking from 50 on down.