Rejection feedback sessions

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

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?

Although it's possible that academic background may be a factor in the final admissions decision, I wouldn't think that cultural background would be. For one, using a cultural or race factor would be contrary to the UBC medical school's anti-discrimination policy.

 

Academic background may be a factor though, if this year's selection process was anything like that of previous years. In the past, the summary sheet for each applicant contained the name of the degree(s) and major(s) completed by the applicant. Additionally, the school(s) at which the degrees were completed were noted. If the selection committee reads this information then it's quite possible that it will, at a minimum, bias their decisions, if its primary purpose was not to influence them.

 

(Incidentally, no information pertaining to race, religion, cultural background, age, etc., appeared on the summary sheet in the past.)

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest physiology]

The only way that UBC would pick on the basis of "cultural diversity" is if you are First Nations.

 

As far as I know, there are no "affirmative action" type policies in Canada and it is a strictly merit-based system of admission. That said, "merit-based" is completely subjective when it comes to non-academic factors and to a certain extent, academic factors as well (someone taking engineering as opposed to someone getting through their entire undergrad taking the easiest courses).

 

I think a "race-based" admissions policy, First Nations excluded, is unjust.

 

However, there are always stories. "My cousin's sisters boyfriend's friend was rejected because he's <pick an ethnicity>" or "I heard that one of the admissions people hates _________ and doesn't like it when ______ people get in."

 

There may be some truth to these statements when you consider the fact that Canadians who were born in Canada (regardless of race) TYPICALLY, ON AVERAGE, have a higher degree of eloquency/fluency in the English language than someone who recently immigrated from a country where English is not the mother tongue.

 

Add to this the paramount importance of effective communication skills, particularly when articulating something as traumatic as a diagnosis of a terminal disease or worse yet, death.

 

So in this case, communication skills, which are crucial to success in an interview setting, may be linked to ethnicity/race. Therefore, in a sense, perhaps UBC does discrminate INDIRECTLY against people on the basis of culture?

[Guest jamiel911]

Do the prerequisite scores count alot during the final admissions process? I figure if you are good enough to get an interview then you should be fine. My first year wasn't too hot and I am debating and really dreading the thought of going back and upgrading (chem labs). Also, being that old guy in the class doesn't make it easier. It's tough to go back wards when you want to go forward in life. I will find out more with my feed back session in late June.

[Guest Makunouchi]

Hey jamie,

 

Didn't we have the same panel? I'd be interested in knowing what they had to say about the interview, if you don't mind me msging you. (My session wasn't really helpful)

[Guest Laadi]

I just had a thought about the normalization of the interview scores. Maybe the score that the interviewees get with regard to others in their group also plays a role. Imagine that all the panels had the same average score, but in one of these panels the lowest mark was 22/25. Then percentage wise the person has 88%. Considering that the averages of other panels are the same and this person is ranked the lowest in its group, then he/she has to be scaled down some how to compensate for the latter. Note that the lowest mark in other panels does not have to be necessarily the same as this panel, but they still can have the same averages.

 

So basically what I am trying to say is that the interview score is not only compared to the average scores of other panels but also the scores of other people in the same panel.

 

I don't know if this makes sense to everyone, but I'm just trying to make sense of the scaling system. It seems that some people have been scaled down quite dramatically!

[Guest jamiel911]

Hey Makunouchi,

 

I finally had my feed back session June 23. I agree the session wasn't to great. There is not too much to say, but I got rejected and I have to improve on the areas I scored low.

 

Our panel had some good and bad points to say about me. They really liked my definition of integrity explanation of how explain a concept to someone. Also, I could put someone at ease well. Some knocks was that I seemed somewhat confident and the biggest knock was that I seemed rehearsed and when questions I had difficulty weren't to fluid. Kinda seems like a typical interview for everyone with question you know well with ones you don't. I really practiced quite a bit with at least 6 mock interviews. So I may seem a bit rehearsed, but I took this serious and want medicine as my career. If I get knocked for trying too hard its OK with me. I hope it goes better next year. If i get another shot at it.

 

Sorry for the late reply and feel free to ask me more if you like.

 

Jamie

[Guest Makunouchi]

hi Jamie,

 

Thanks for sharing your experience. Sounds like you had at least some idea on what they didn't like. I was just wondering, since none of the comments I recieved reflected any of the poor scores.

 

Appears as though they pointed out some great qualities that you have (re: explaining concept in simple terms, and putting people at ease). Sometimes I found it hard not to sound too rehearsed if you've already written so many essays, and gone through a few interviews with the same questions.

 

You will definitely get in next year... probably have a few choices as to which school to study at. Good luck with the rest of your journey!