Rejection feedback sessions

[Guest lex]

Hey Tea- Don't worry about sounding like you're complaining. I know I'd definitely feel the same way.

 

I'm not sure if there would be any specific indication of a re-evaluation but I'm just basing my post on what Dr. Frinton said to me. She mentioned that they'd recalculate everything and then pick a number of different classes (one based more heavily on interview, on more on academics, etc), then go from there. It really is a mystery to me because it seems that everyone comes away with a different perception of how the process is carried out.

 

Did you check to see if there were any red flags generated by your letters of reference?

 

I can only think of one possible explanation. Maybe the interview scores were much higher than admissions anticipated?? This might explain why you could get a scaled score of 91% and still not get in. Theoretically, it might explain a scaled score of 100% that wasn’t “enough”. If the overall average of the interviews was lower, then maybe your interview would have put you over the top. Don’t know – I’m just trying to rationalize it but that method’s proved less than ideal in the past. Wish I could offer more insight into your situation. Again, with your stats so far, I can’t imagine you not finding yourself in the admitted pile next year.

 

By the way, I had to go back to fulfill the English prereq with people considerably younger than me. I do have a tip though – if you can, elect for a later classtime. Older students tend to take classes later in the day. I had to switch out of my morning class into a later afternoon class because of a scheduling conflict. The average age (for the same class) increased by about 10 years. I mentioned it to the prof who responded that it was a pretty common phenomenon in her experience.

[Guest red]

Another thought to add about the agonizing mystery of admissions...

 

Last year it was my interview that kept me out and the MCATS were not a problem at all. I had asked Dr. Frinton if I should rewrite them all the same and she said "it wouldn't hurt, but they weren't the issue- you have what you need there. Its only the interview that kept you out"

 

This year my interview was apparently "great" they said, but the MCAT kept me out. Hmmm...you just can't win.

 

Dunes- I had the same scaling thing with the interview- not too sure if I like that but I guess what else can they really do...

 

Red

[Guest Dunes]

Physio,

 

Yeah, they scale to overcome the discrepancies in the "Marking" of the different panels, or "Markers".

 

And about the score of the interview, in the letter they gave me the % score (the scaled one), but in the feedback meeting they had the original score (out of 25), and the scaled score (in percentage).

 

I asked in the session about the cutoff to get an acceptance, and she said that there was no cutoff. I told her about the (above 85% total file review + interview), and she said that nothing like that exists! She said that there no one answer to say why or why not did people get accepted. Just that my GPA and MCATs were not good enough compared to the people who got in.

 

Red,

 

I do agree that it is a bit annoying to think that the score went down by 10%! How do they know that all of us who were interviewed by the so called 'generous panel' were not all really great and deserve the marks we got? :b

 

I guess all in all, it all depends on the applicant pool. That's what I got from the session. Let's say that next year not a lot of people who applied have stellar MCATs, then they wouldn't be much of a factor into the final decision. And it is a game of luck!!!

 

Dunes

[Guest sparkle]

So the truth is that, like it or not, admission is weighted more heavily on academics than what UBC has expressed. For example, if two applicants with an overall file review of 40; one with 22/25 EC and 18/25 Academics, and one with 22/25 academics and 18/25 EC, then UBC adcom will pick the latter.

 

It's puzzling but some people have indicated that they get in with a strong academic score while others say they got in with a strong EC score. What it comes down to, I think, is that they put them both in a hat and draw...that's the only way to explain why absolutely nothing makes sense in the admission process!!!!

 

I'm totally frustrated for you, probably even more so then you are!!!! I'm beginning to think the scores don't mean much in terms of getting accepted...my guess, perhaps they take all the applications they think are the ones they want, then ignore scores and made a decision base on extinct??

 

But the good thing is that with you're qualification, you WILL get in...for sure!!! It's just sad that they're stretching it out for no reason at all!

[Guest kanayo101]

I was told that your /25 scores in academics and EC's determine your interview. At final review, however, they ignore the /25 scores and look directly at everything individually. For example, instead of looking at my 23.4/25 academic score, they looked at my cumulative GPA and my last 60 GPA independantly.

[Guest McCarey007]

I heard from someone that the academic, nonacademic, and interview marks are used to rank all the interviewees. The ad comm then scans through the list and votes in the strongest applicants. Those at the top of the list would have a higher chance of getting in, but it does not necessarily get you in. After the first round, the ad comm will then go through the list again to pick out the rest to fill the class.

 

The whole admission process IS a mystery, but I'm glad it is. Of all the schools, I think UBC is one of the most, if not THE most, transparent in terms of its admissions process. Most of the other med schools simply tell you, "Sorry we are unable to offer you a position. Good luck next year." No marks or feedback sessions are offered. If UBC gets any more transparent about its process, then I fear we will get too many tailored applicants.

 

Also, Dr. Frinton is only one person from the ad comm. I don't know how many there are on the ad comm but it's only logical to reason that Dr. Frinton will not be able to provide all the considerations and discussions that were made about you during their meeting. Thus, I would take what she says with a grain of salt. For example, if she may say "You don't need to improve on your MCAT. It's your interview that kept you out. " But next year, there will be different/new members on the ad comm. Maybe more of them will find your MCAT scores to be low. So despite doing fantastic on your interview, your MCAT scores will hold you back next year. :\

 

It's frustrating, but like many of you have said already, getting accepted is a lot of luck. :rolleyes

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

Of all the schools, I think UBC is one of the most, if not THE most, transparent in terms of its admissions process.

Hear hear. It's been a refreshing approach to deal with over four years of admissions processes--I've greatly appreciated the tack that UBC have chosen to take in regards to their admissions philosophy and unsuccessful applicants.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest Tousie]

HI there,

 

A friend of mine's mom (too many degrees of separation?) was at a meeting recently, with BC doctors and UBC was going through their selection process. Apparently, they said at the meeting that interview and reference letters were the most highly weighted components of the application... I found this really interesting cause it was the first time I'd heard about the reference letters carrying a lot of importance. Any thoughts?

 

Tousie

[Guest Dunes]

That's interesting Tousie, since in my feedback meeting there was hardly any mention of ref. letters. I actually did ask about how the refernces were, and was told that they were ok and as long as they have no red flags then that's fine. That was all that's mentioned about them.

 

Dunes

[Guest physiology]

At this point, I think it can be safely said that non-academic factors play a HUGE role in determining admission.

 

From the stats I've seen posted on the website, it seems as if once you reach the interview stage, most things are treated equal. From the interview itself, interviewer comments, reference letters, and perhaps the autobiographical essay they try to glean all those qualities that a physician should possess.

 

Now, just because someone wasn't offered admission does NOT mean they do not have those qualities. Perhaps the interviewers were too tired to write down that you were "exceptionally mature" or have "outstanding motivation for medicine." I mean, it's subjectivity combined with luck, and in the end, someone will get screwed. And in a sense, it is like "throwing darts on a wall." I've heard that analogy more than once when it comes to admissions at UBC.

 

McCarey, I agree. Last year, individuals who went to feedback sessions were told that if they donated blood they would get a point on for their ECs and if they were president of a club then they would get 5/5 for leadership. Again, this type of tailoring is done for the specific intent of gaining admission and not because of one's own convictions and beliefs.

 

Tousie, that is an interesting post. Perhaps the reference letters do carry huge weight. However, the fact that they are written by people whom you know contravenes that principle of objectivity and unbiased assessment. All in all, I have no idea what to make of them but do I agree with you that they carry significant weight.

 

But I think the interview itself, because it is the best form of unbiased "subjective" assessment, and the fact that 3 people on are the panel would probably make the interview the most important component.

 

As per the scaling in Dunes case, I have NO idea WTF s going on. I mean why would they scale down your extracurricular score? That's downright unfair.

[Guest KatieKat]

Ok, last year applicants were NOT automatically given a leadership score of 5/5 for being president of a club. I wish! It gave me 1/5.

[Guest Dunes]

I agree physio re: scaling. I just calculated the percentage, I used to have 21/25 (84%) in EC, and they scaled it down to 17.4/25 (69.6%)!!! Almost 15% lower than it used to be! My interview was scaled down by 10%!!:rolleyes

 

For those of you who had their marks scaled, did you have similar results? Is that really how scaling works???

 

It makes me real disappointed! But well, I guess I can't do anything about it now except to make it better next year,...:\

 

Dunes

[Guest sparkle]

I'm not too sure if ref letters are weighed that heavily. I asked them if I should change my reference letters and like Dune, I was told that there were no red flags so that it was good enough...I was also told that they kind of expect good ref letters anyways so that it didn't really seem to matter (which makes sense)

 

I was wondering if everyone actually gets to speak with Dr. Frinton for their feedback session?...I didn't and it seems like it would have been quite helpful since she's on the ad comm and knows where your applic really stands.

[Guest Dunes]

Sparkle,

 

I didn't get to speak to Dr. Frinton this year. I actually did e-mail her after I got my rejection letter and she e-mailed me back saying that this year they hired a full time staff person to deal with the Feedsback sessions and her name is Angela. That was the person I got to meet and she was pretty nice.

 

Last year I did get to see Dr. Frinton, but I guess due to the number of people this year, they hired a new staff memebr especially to deal with this.

 

Dunes

[Guest Quinn604]

Hi Dunes,

 

I'd like to add to the mystery of the normalizing process. When I went back to the feedback session, my raw interview score was actually 23.5/25=93% but post normalization, was pulled down to a 75%.

 

What boggles me further is that you got a raw interview score of 23/25 but was only scaled down to a 82%? I thought that this may provide some insight into the normalization process. Anyone have any ideas to explain this?

 

(My EC score was also pulled down post normalization.)

 

Thanks,

Quinn

[Guest sparkle]

Quinn604,

 

Your interview score may have gotten pulled down so low because that particular panel gave out many high scores relative to other panels. This would really suck because, like someone mentioned before (I think tea), its means your fate is sealed by the panel you were assigned for the interview (i.e. even if you have gotten 25/25, your post normalization score may perhaps be 80% whereas someone with 20/25 could have gotten 90%).

 

I think its really hard to get around situations like these...because then again, it wouldn't have been fair if the pre-normalization score was kept and people who had a panel giving out low scores were stuck with those even though they performed just as well.

 

It kind of works the same with marks. From what I hear, because UVic and SFU work on a diff grading system, when gpa is converted, they can never get anything higher than a 90% (even if they had a PERFECT gpa!!). So if you're a UBC student, perhaps you got an advantage this way

[Guest physiology]

Hello Sparkle,

 

From what I know, it seems if you have an average of 85% plus, you get 25/25 for the academic score. I'm not sure whether it's the last 60 credits, pre-req, or overall average.

 

So, in a sense, it is like a GPA in that an A+ score of 90% has the same weight as an A+ score of 100% (4.0).

[Guest bonjourtoujour]

I've been reading the posts so far, and I have to say I disagree with sparkle- normalizing the interview marks is not any fairer than leaving them unnormalized. If (in theory) the 'best' two candidates happen to be interviewed by the same panel, they are penalized for the fact, even if its not their fault. Imagine if you had two panels interviewing profs for a faculty position in English literature. Panel A interviews Shakespeare, Dickins and Tolstoy, and Panel B interviews three less qualified candidates (I know there are issues with a statement like this, but please play along). If the interviewees of Panel A score higher than those interviewed by Panel B, is it because Panel A is 'easier' or is it because the candidates they interviewed are better qualified? A far better solution would be to 'mix up' the interview panels after every interview, so instead of the same three people interviewing a number of applicants, you would have something like the following:

 

9 am: Panel 1- composed of A, B, C interviewers

Panel 2- composed of D, E, F interviewers

 

10 am: Panel 1- composed of A, B, D interviewers

Panel 2- composed of C, E, F interviewers

 

11 am: Panel 1- composed of A, C, E interviewers

Panel 2- composed of B, D, F interviewers

 

etc.

 

This way, by mixing it up you should in theory avoid some of the problems associated with 'easiness' of panels, without having to resort to 'normalization' of scores.

[Guest Jazz]

I guess the assumption is that the overall quality of each applicant pool interviewed by each panel is fairly constant. The avg applicant in pool A is roughly the same as the average applicant in pool B. A 90% to one panel doesn't necessarliy mean the same thing to another. 90% may look good on paper, but if everyone else had 90%..well, you get the idea.

[Guest Dunes]

Wow Quinn604, they scaled you down so much! That really sucks! I'm sorry :\

 

I agree with Bonjourtoujour. I guess with the current system there is the possibilty of being unfair and no one can ever assume that the avg. quality of applicants in pool A is same as that in pool B. Even if they tried to make the people similar in each pool in terms of marks and EC's, I think it is impossible to know for sure how well they perform in an interview.

 

I think it's a very good idea to mix and match the panels, but I guess that needs more work on part of the admissions people

 

Dunes

[Guest Makunouchi]

probably many people who didn't make it... i'm sure they would let in everyone if they had that many seats.

 

anyhow, sounds as though UBC is still working on their process... doesn't sound like they know what they want themselves yet... e.g. next year the scoring may change, and the panel interviews may/may not have standardized questions... still a learning process for them as well.

[Guest 4EverRose]

I think the normalization process of the interview would certainly be considered unfair for some interviewees like what the previous posters said. However, this is probabaly the way to go about doing this considered the limitation of resources that UBC has to face, given that they are interviewing 544 applicants and at the same time trying to be fair by ensuring you get a balance in background (i.e. 1 academic, 1 clinician, 1 community), geographical location (i.e. 1 Vancouver, 1 Victoria, 1 PG) and gender.

 

The ideal scenario will be to have the same panel of 3 interviewers to interview all applicants, but of course this is impractical. What bonjourtoujour suggested is indeed an interesting idea, but I guess the problem is it could be difficult for an interviewer having to do interviews with so many other interviewers. I presume the panel will have a practice session with each other prior to the interview to know and get used to the style of the other interviewers of the panel.

 

In fact, I believe MCAT uses a normalization process similar to this. I know that within a particular MCAT administration there are many versions of MCAT available. When the scaled scores are computed, the score that you get will be scaled against the other exam writers who are writing the same version as yours. So if the group that you are in is the brightest group than you are screwed. However, the difference here is there will be thousands of people writing any particular version of the exam and from the statistical point of view one can assume the distribution is random. Unfortunately in the case of UBC interviews, the sample size is a lot smaller and the distribution is prone to be a lot less random.

 

All in all, I too have to agree that with the stats of some of the posters of this thread it is hard to believe they didn't make it this year - it looks like luck is what they are lacking, not their credentials.

 

Just one final thought - what do you guys think of the possibility that during their final review process UBC is trying to pick applicants from a diversity of academic and cultural backgrounds? It seems like these considerations are difficult to be factored into academic and EC scores alone, but instead you really have to look at the pool of applicants together and from there you assemble the class that you want to see as the upcoming first year students.

[Guest R2detoo]

Well, I think to sum up what everyone has been feeling or should at least remember is that the admissions process does become a @#%$ SHOOT!! Yes, we are talking about getting lucky, getting the panel that you jive with, being the best (or one of) interview that your particular panel gets to see...once we get to the interview stage, most of us DO deserve to get in, and the fact of the matter is: qualified, and exceptional candidates don't get in... unfortunately, there is not enough room for everyone |I

 

As for normalization, I wonder how exactly they do it? Like, these scores should go up by this % and these down by that?

 

Overall, I do agree that this process is frustrating, but I guess you just gotta keep on truckin' and believe in yourself and hope for the best.

 

Cheers to that!:smokin

[Guest lex]

I guess the assumption is that there is a greater probability of equality among applicant groups than among interviewer groups. Each interview group interviewed approximately 15 applicants. So, it makes more sense to normalize than to not as equality among interview panels, with only 3 members, is highly unlikely. Also, one interviewer could be just incredibly difficult and never give a score of greater than say 15/25. Even if panels were mixed, unless they normalized scores the results would be unfair. I guess it's not unlikely that there existed interviewers like this.

 

As mentioned above, it would be an operational nightmare to mix up interview groups. Additionally, consistency would suffer if interview panels were not able to develop their own benchmarks, familiarity, and flow.

 

Re. method of normalization: I believe they look at the distribution of scores and develop standard deviations. I imagine it's not a perfect system with only 15 scores. Obviously not statistically ideal.

[Guest McCarey007]

Having different interview panels is really similar to competing in sports. (btw, can't wait for the Olympics!) Let's take track for example. Usually, the top two from each heat make it to the next round. If the top three athletes happen to be in the same heat , the third ranked athlete is going to get screwed over. But if that player ran in another heat, he or she could have won 1st. The same could be said about tennis. Depending on a player's draw, two seeds could meet up in the 2nd round, while another seed won't have to player another seeded player until the quarters. What I'm trying to get at is the huge element of luck.

 

The admissions process is a competition and like all competitions, it's nice to have lady luck on your side. :rolleyes