UBC selection process is so screwed up!

[Guest BC guy]

Just wondering why there is not the vast amount of controversial/criticism of the other med school admissions in comparison to UBC. And when did this all started? How many years ago? Perplexing.

[Guest Thewonderer]

To YongQ and others,

I repeat again. I did not get rejected from UBC med. But after reading everyone's posts, I am now seriously regretting that I did not apply to UBC med since such back-breaking stressful interview techniques they use will surely bring out the best characters in all men and women, including me. A chance missed forever to prove my worthiness as a future physician in front of the whole UBC med committee... sigh.

 

As for people dropping out of class, that happens to every med school. Three leaving is not bad for UBC med's size (plus, some of them will be back). People don't usually drop out for academic reason though. Med schools will keep you there until you pass the correct # of classes (albeit a year or two late). People usually drop out for health or family reason.

 

To BC guy,

You want info on US med school. Yeah, studentdoctor.net is definitely good. Medical School Admissions REquirements (a book) published by AAMC is a must (it contains the official info handed in by both US and CANADIAN med schools). But my first advice is always on the finance aspect. How willing are you to take out big time loans? Right now, you might have the urge because UBC rejection is difficult to accept. But you gotta realize that, unfortunately, $$$ is very important for US med schools because it does not want INTERNATIONAL students to default their payments and their education.

[Guest Ian Wong]

You know, this discussion would be so much easier if you wouldn't deliberately misquote everything I say.

 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> because they want to "appear" to be open about it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->1) Newsflash: They don't HAVE to be open about anything. If UBC really wanted to discriminate against Asians who don't speak French, or people with really high grades, they don't have to give them interviews at all. They could reject them immediately once the application arrives. Is it not understandable to you that UBC clearly doesn't put a premium on your marks once you've achieved the GPA threshold? It's such a simple philosophy that explains absolutely everything in your "conspiracy theory."<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> "If I had gotten into ALL the schools in NORTH AMERICA, I still would have chosen UBC (i.e. over U of T, UWO, McGill, HARVARD, YALE, UCSF, etc."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> 3) I would have. UBC is close to my family and friends, the tuition during my time has been one of the lowest in the country, my classmates are a very supportive bunch, I've had lots of learning opportunities in clerkships, etc. One thing which you don't seem to understand, and I've stated this before, is that just because I think UBC is good, DOESN'T MEAN that other med schools are bad.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> EVERY SINGLE one of my 119 classmates has decided to go to med school because of his or her own unique and personal reason (like none of them cares about making big $$$ as doctors and jump to the US bandwagon when they sap the cheap tuition of BC education)"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->I do think that people have different reasons for attending med school, and certainly money comes into the equation. However, traditionally only about 5 or so of the 120 UBC grads goes down to the US for residency, and in this graduating class, only *1* is going to the States. So no, there doesn't appear to be a huge US-bound bandwagon. I guess you really must have a great sense of the classes at UBC to be making these statements huh?<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> "I have gotten the MOST excellent education at the MOST reasonable price (when compared to other med schools)"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->I do think the education here is excellent. I never said it was the best though, and I have criticized the PBL process numerous times. I guess you enjoy making up statements, or misreading my words, or something. Again, just because I think the UBC does something well doesn't mean that other schools don't do it well also. And yes, the tuition here during my time has been extremely low. At $4200 Cdn per year, it has consistently been one of the lowest in Canada. <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> "UBC med admissions does the MOST impressive job in assembling a class full of diversity in age, race, academic background, life experiences, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->I never said they did the most impressive job. In my conversations with med students from other schools, I've never run into the complaint that their class WASN'T diverse. But I know for a FACT, that our classes ARE. If you don't believe me, you should contact one of your many friends here at UBC med and get a copy of the class list with each student's autobiography. We do have people from all cultures, of all ages, from all sorts of academic backgrounds, and with a wide variety of outside interests. This tells me that UBC admissions IS doing a good job, but again, just because our classes are diverse doesn't negate any other schools in this regard.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> "UBC med has done nothing WRONG to do admissions differently from other schools."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->Okay, why don't you pick any two Canadian med schools, and see if they run admissions in the exact same manner. Guess what, you can't! So your entire line of reasoning is wrong. Each school varies in its academic GPA and MCAT cut-offs, each school interviews in its own fashion, from 4 on 1 interviews at U of Saskatchewan, to group interviews at McMaster, to 2 on 1 interviews at Calgary, down to individual 1 on 1 interviews at many schools. Each school weights the academic stuff differently, from Mac and Ottawa which don't even USE the MCAT, all the way to Manitoba where the MCAT counts for *40%* of your acceptance chances. Many schools treat out-of-province applicants in a different manner, with a higher level of expectation for their achievements. Saskatchewan doesn't even ask for an autobiography or reference letters until after you've completed their interview screening. UBC simply doesn't weight academics as highly as other schools. Once you realise and ACKNOWLEDGE this, everything makes sense.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Isn't that a put down of other med schools?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->4) You are totally and blatantly mis-reading this one. Just because I believe that UBC does many things well doesn't mean that I'm putting down other schools. Get a grip.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> UBC uses it to reject applicants they don't like and just say they wrote poor essays (so as to cancel their 99% on academic score).<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->5) Which is why each and every one of your friends who was rejected got an interview right? The fact that they each received interviews means that academically, UBC was confident in their ability to manage the medical school workload. In order for your friends to have received interviews, UBC had to send out pre-interview rejections to other applicants instead. Why would they have given interviews to your friends if UBC knew all along that they were going to be rejected anyway? Your theories just don't make sense. The fact that your friends were then rejected means that there were other applicants who were equally competitive who ultimately won out. Don't forget that when 700 people apply for 128 spots, that the vast majority of people will get rejected. It doesn't make them bad people, or that they would make crummy doctors, it just means that UBC found other strong applicants that they accepted instead. Period.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> But I am talking about merely giving the person with higher MCAT or GPA a better chance...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->6) We don't see it that way to a great extent. We believe that once you get above that threshold, that you can handle the academic load, so there aren't more huge increased gains to be realised in the academic department. However, there ARE lots of qualities that we can realise by now weighting the non-academic aspects higher, and that's what we do. No conspiracy. Just a simple philosophy that future doctors need both academic and non-academic skills in their practice of medicine. Makes sense to me.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> painting an Utopian pictures of UBC med's education and admissions<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->7) I was under the impression that I WASN'T being all-inclusive. I don't think you'll find many "all" and "every one" descriptors in my posts. Again, I think you're misreading things, because that's not my intention at all. In fact, I'd go one step further and state that YOU are the one that is trying to be all inclusive, what with your stubborn belief that UBC is out there to reject all Asians without French skills and the applicants with extremely high GPA and MCAT scores. All I'm saying is that UBC values both academic and non-academic parts of the application, and you need both in order to be accepted in an admission process where 82% of applicants are rejected.

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest Useful info]

There seems to be much confusion regarding the admissions process. And no Ian, it is not as black and white as you may think.

 

First of all, each applicant submits a total of 6 copies (...submit the original plus five copies.--remember this). Who do you think these copies go to? Obviously, two go to each interviewer and one stays in your file at the school. What about the other 3? Well, they make the rounds with the other members of the selection committee well before the committee meets. If some members of the committee were to see this information for the first time at the final selection meeting---it would just take too long to go through the information (extra-curricular, autobiog., etc.).

 

When the committee does meet, you only get in if every member agrees (your interview percentile doesnt matter). Where interview percentile does matter is for those applicants for whom there are no 'reservations' brought up by the committee members.

 

And yes, I do know of a person who got rejected this year and had a high interview score in addition to high academics.

 

So, when they tell you not to apply after several attempts....it is because some one on the admission committee has 'reservations' about your application. Re-submitting your application the following year only puts it in that members hand again.

 

Although the admissions process is not subjective (well...maybe the interview is to some degree), there is a hidden component.

[Guest Ian Wong]

Hi Useful info,

 

I'm not seeing why your information and mine don't fit together. UBC considers both academics and non-academics in determining your ultimate selection. You'll need both to be accepted, and the admissions committee as a whole is responsible for making the eventual decision to accept or reject an applicant. If someone has "reservations" regarding an applicant, they would need to make it known to the rest of the committee why. Bogus reasons such as "his marks are too high", as other people here would suggest, wouldn't fly.

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest Jimbo]

I was rejected post interview. The problem I have with the process is that I scored over the 85th percentile in the interview, but still didn't even get on the waitlist. (my grades are very bad in comparison). So I'm thinking even with 100th percentile interview I wouldn't have been accepted.

So why interview me? I bought a suit, accomadation, and put myself through that when it was impossible to begin with? Seems like a fault in the system. Seems as though they should make pre-interview selections such that those interviewing have a reasonable chance of being admitted.

[Guest BC Guy]

So it seems that if the academics are high and the interviews are high, one can still be rejected if one person in the admissions commitee have reservations about you after reading your essay?!!! There is some kind of check and balance in place then, isn't there?

[Guest Beaver]

Hi Kirsteen

 

I'm really sorry to hear about the rejection. I would really follow up on it because the situation seems bizarre as I have known several MD/Phd applicants who are automatically considered for the MD only program if rejected from the Doctoral studies stream. Since you have acceptance in hand for the MD program (with seat being held !) I dont see what the problem is. Hang in there, I just got note of being waitlisted for MD only program so I kinda feel your pain

 

Be really persistent Kirsteen and pitch yourself really hard!!!!

 

Good Luck

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hey all,

 

Thanks for the posts of encouragement.

 

Notrexmorgan: actually, regarding OOP status, I was told something to the contrary specifically by both Dr. Chow as well as an admissions officer in the MD office. The person in the MD admissions office told me that, in the event that I was not accepted to the MD/PhD program, then I would be on a "level playing field" with the other candidates and that my OOP status would not be a factor in consideration at this point; Dr. Chow mentioned during my interview that, if I was not accepted to the MD/PhD program this year, then if I gained acceptance to the MD program, I could re-apply to the MD/PhD program the year following, and again, the OOP status did not seem a factor.

 

All I can do is pursue it and see what happens. A fitting quote that I heard this morn (in light of the Leafs' win): "You'll miss 100% of the shots that you don't make". Cheers Wayne Gretzky!

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest Sad guy]

Jimbo: How badly did you score on academics? I also scored high on my interview (82nd) and my grades were ~51st percentile but also got rejected?

[Guest not rex morgan]

Hey Kirsteen. You'll have to let me know what the explanation is for not letting you into md if you don't get into phd. My friend got into md, but not phd, and her md admissions status was not contingent on her getting into the phd program. I really thought I understood the oop status rules, from other md/phders, but I never applied to the program. If they said it shouldn't matter, you would know more than me. Keep us updated about what they have to say about this.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hey there not rex morgan,

 

Yep, I'll let you know. May I ask, was your pal in-province or OOP? Great for her, by the way!

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest not rex morgan]

She has in-province status.

[Guest MS1]

Hi,

 

Speaking of misinterpretations....

 

Regarding the "crimes" of telling someone they aren't fit to be a doctor and insisting applicants join the Olympic team:

 

From what I've heard, the post-rejection interviewer simply stated that the applicant doesn't have the qualities to be a doctor. This was NOT said in relative terms, but in the absolute. As for urging applicants to join the Olympic team, whether the applicant believes it or not, this insistence is still inappropriate. Don't tell me you don't agree with this!

 

Regarding my "UBC does it's own housecleaning every year" comment:

 

It was a compliment to UBC. This comment was purely in response to your comment that UBC does not need to do housecleaning AT ALL. I found that surprising, as YOU don't think UBC needs to do housecleaning, but, obviously, UBC thinks UBC needs to do some housecleaning on the admissions process. Seems like you have more confidence in the current admissions process than even UBC does.

 

Regarding my comment that "MCAT and GPA seem more objective":

 

I have not said that UBC does not use MCAT/GPA (in fact, I stated in my previous message that they do!). I merely think they should put more weight on MCAT and GPA.

 

Regarding the study:

 

If you would like to know more about the methodology, you would have to read it yourself. I find it surprising that someone who is interested in admissions processes wouldn't do some reading up on the current findings regarding this subject. I read the article in its entirety and found it valid...it is a very recent article, and one of the few regarding Canadian medical schools. Prior to this, no one has found an objective measure of clinical skills...yet the authors of this paper seem to think that they have found an objective measure. Any profound findings will have to be confirmed with multiple studies, but it is good to know what the current stand on the issue is.

 

It is truely sad that there are so few spots open for so many applicants. However, although "life is unfair", I live by the principle of trying to make it as fair as possible for me and others. The issue is not who will make GOOD future doctors, but, in the end, may the BEST future doctors win!

 

By the way, how do you quote messages in that format?

[Guest new info]

The latest news about this year's interview scores is that they were screwed up and the percentile quoted in a rejection letter may be totally wrong. The details of this is still unkown but this info comes from applicants who have already appealed within the last week.

 

This is latest news in the medschool gossip and many people in my class have rejected friends with interview scores in the high 80's and one with a 99%tile score.

 

UBCISSOSCREWEDUP

[Guest question for you]

Does this mean that accepted applicants were also not supposed to be accepted? Haha

[Guest Ian Wong]

MS1, <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> From what I've heard, the post-rejection interviewer simply stated that the applicant doesn't have the qualities to be a doctor. This was NOT said in relative terms, but in the absolute.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> I find it tough to believe that an admissions officer would state something in such a black and white manner however. However, if this is true, I agree it would be inappropriate in the case of most applicants.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> As for urging applicants to join the Olympic team, whether the applicant believes it or not, this insistence is still inappropriate. Don't tell me you don't agree with this!<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->I do agree with you, and noted it earlier already. I also don't believe that anyone has ever in the history of med school admissions been rejected because they weren't on an Olympic team; the admissions person was just using an exaggerated example of what an outstanding non-academic achievement could be. I said: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> I agree that this is not the best example of an activity that most med students share, but come on. If you actually believe that you need to become an Olympic athlete to get into med school, I've got some really cool dot-com stocks to sell you.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->Then you said:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> This comment was purely in response to your comment that UBC does not need to do housecleaning AT ALL. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->When I first stated that, I was understanding the word housecleaning in the context of Thewonderer's supposed "conspiracy." I don't believe that there is any conspiracy that needs "housecleaning." I do however think that the admissions process is a dynamic and evolving process, and that updating this process is a good thing, which I stated here:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Which is good. Because the alternative is to stay static every year, and not adjust and adapt... Evolution is not a bad thing.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->You said:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Prior to this, no one has found an objective measure of clinical skills...yet the authors of this paper seem to think that they have found an objective measure. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->You know, considering that the focus of the paper seems to be evaluating admissions criteria, and not looking at the measurement of clinical skills, I highly doubt that these authors have indeed found a profound new objective measure of clinical competance, since they weren't even looking for one. In any event, as I mentioned before, the section of article that you quoted seemed to say that both academic and non-academic parts of the application process can potentially be predictive of future success, so it neither invalidates my position nor yours.

 

By the way, if you want to quote something put a (quote) and (/quote) between the text you want to quote and use [ ] instead of ( ).

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest BCgirl]

Hey Sad Guy,

 

Sorry I didn't tell you my percentile before, but I was sort of embarrassed because my first letter said I had a 6.

 

But, I just got a new one, that says my interview percentile was 62. Just so you can put it all in perspective my academic scores were overall: 96, last 60 credits: 92, and prereq: 98.

 

I wonder how high my interview percentile score would have had to be for an acceptance.

 

Let us know how your appeal goes. Are you waiting on any other schools? Best of luck

[Guest Jim2375]

Hi BCGirl,

These academic scores are based on your real averages right ? Do you mind if I ask you your actual averages to put things into prospective. What major are you ?

Thanks.

Jim

[Guest BCgirl]

Hi Jim,

 

The academic scores are percentile rankings that compare you to the rest of the applicant pool.

 

I'm a chemistry major (just finished third year). I switched to a chem degree from bio after 2nd year, so I still have some core chem credits to take next year (including phys chem! ). My school just uses a letter grading system (no percentages are reported on our transcripts).

 

My prereq's were all A+'s (but I just finished biochem this year so it wasn't included in my prereq percentile calculation).

 

The rest of my marks are pretty similar to those (I think my gpa is around 3.98 on a 4.0 scale - my school uses 4.3 scale).

 

 

What are you majoring in? What year are you in?

 

Best of luck! Have a great summer.

[Guest Sad guy]

I went to talk to the Manager of Medical Admissions at UBC. Your rejection letter is actually really unusual. She told me that someone with high academic ranking does not need that great of a score on the interview to be accepted. If the new letter says that you got a 62nd percentile on your interview, you should have had a very strong application. I am starting to believe that the selection committee picks who gets accepted not according to the strength of their application but instead on whether they like the person or not! The person I talked to at UBC said the Adcom meets and looks at the entire file of each applicant to create a "full" picture of the individual. Based on this created picture, they decide who gets in and who doesn't. However, this picture is very subjective and can depend on factors such as how they feel that day, etc. I now believe that to get into UBC med, one needs a fair amount of luck and hope that the adcom reviews your file when the sun is shining and the adcom members all feel good that day. At least this is the impression I get from reading this forum AND talking to UBC med admissions.

[Guest Ian Wong]

I hear ya. I think one important factor here is that third year applicants face an uphill battle when applying. There's only 8-9 of them in my class of 120 students, and I believe this ratio has been fairly constant in the other years. I would expect some serious application successes next year when you apply after your degree, particularly as this opens up the possibilities of applying to many other med schools. Getting a rejection letter sucks, no question about it. Chin up, both of you.

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest Jimbo]

This is only adding fuel to the fire... but how do we really know that the error in the interview percentile statistic did not influence admissions selections? If the erronous percentiles were used by the admissions committee, this would explain BCgirls rejection. They could not possibly undo the admissions letters either, how can you tell someone who has been accepted that they really aren't 2 weeks later?

I have lost all confidence in the admissions staff because of this stats error.

[Guest BCgirl]

Thanks Ian. Even though they say they don't discrimiate against age, do you think UBC has an unspoken quota for third year applicants? One of my interviewers seemed a bit negative about getting in after 3 years (but I tried to change his mind... guess it didn't work ). Afterall,it is only one year... I don't know how much difference that will really make.... how much can I "grow" in a year (actually less than that since applications will be due on October).

 

 

Jimbo,

 

I totally know what you're saying... this doesn't exactly instill me with confidence in the admissions office and the med school...

 

The letter says that, "due to an error in the transference of data from our database into the document sent to you, some of these figures were incorrect". They can say that all they want, but of course people will wonder if bigger mistakes could have been made... and we will never know for sure.

 

I guess I'll call them tomorrow.

 

Enjoy the summer everyone! The east coast is finally getting some nice weather 8)

[Guest helmet33]

Jimbo and BC girl I think you bring up a very good point. I know for a FACT that the faculty is very worried about appeals not to mention the L word over the letters.