Vallinar Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 i'm not complaining b/c i got an invite.. but i find it really strange that they increase the cut of the most subjective (and arguably least important section) to the 87th percentile while dropping the others. I wonder what the rationale behind it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostintime Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Are they going to tell us officially? Because I don't go to Queens and don't have the opportunity to talk to Jennifer in person. Of course I could call her, but I think it's better if they settled on it, i.e. what the interviewers have of our materials and the weighing and tell us this officially. Who knows, it might be in our letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avenir001 Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 i'm not complaining b/c i got an invite.. but i find it really strange that they increase the cut of the most subjective (and arguably least important section) to the 87th percentile while dropping the others. I wonder what the rationale behind it was. law's uncle called in and made a bomb threat unless they gave his nephew an interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 by the way whats the packge about that we are supposed to get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madz25 Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 i'm not complaining b/c i got an invite.. but i find it really strange that they increase the cut of the most subjective (and arguably least important section) to the 87th percentile while dropping the others. I wonder what the rationale behind it was. im guessing no rationale. it was the easiest way to weed out applicants to end up with an interviewable sized group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest begaster Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 i'm not complaining b/c i got an invite.. but i find it really strange that they increase the cut of the most subjective (and arguably least important section) to the 87th percentile while dropping the others. I wonder what the rationale behind it was. I think it may very well be little more than a lottery system with a few mandatory cutoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vallinar Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 im guessing no rationale. it was the easiest way to weed out applicants to end up with an interviewable sized group. that doesn't make all that much sense b/c they lowered the overall cut to sub 30 and lowered the cuts for VR and PS (ie increased the app pool) but then increased the WS to really high. Kinda strange imo, Begaster could be on to something, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jixe Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 So I think the class for Queen's is around 100 people and around 200 offers are sent out. I think that the number of interviews given are ~500. So for a concept of a waitlist to even exist, then that means that more than 100 applicants have to reject the offer for them to send out more offers to fulfill the 100 positions? Wouldnt that mean that the chance of getting into queens after an interview (based on these numbers) are more than 40% (give that all other things are equal)?? 72 declined last year. Stats: http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/2008_admissions_book.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madz25 Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 that doesn't make all that much sense b/c they lowered the overall cut to sub 30 and lowered the cuts for VR and PS (ie increased the app pool) but then increased the WS to really high. Kinda strange imo, Begaster could be on to something, cuts are based on the applicant pool. why does it matter if they go up or down. lowering cuts doesnt mean that you're automatically going to have a bigger pool of applicants. maybe people that applied this year on average had lower stats than in previous years? who knows. they do whatever they need to do to get applicant # down to 450-500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutz Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 How many people are interviewing at Queens this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMG007 Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 My theory is they have all our info in a database. They play around with variable until they pick some line of variable that gets closest to their number of 500 interviews and go "HA HA, We found the cut offs" ... kinda like was said by that Dal student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 well i'm sure you can come up with more than one combination of gpa/mcat that will weed down the pool to 500 or so... i guess maybe they went with a different (unbalanced) score to differentiate their interviewees from those at western... from what i gathered from last year, the two schools tend to have a lot of overlap in their interview pool, resulting in greater numbers of people turning one school down for the other (and for some reason it looks like western was more popular than queens)... so maybe this score was chosen so that queen's doesn't have this statistic of all these people turning down their acceptances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stina135 Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 maybe they used such a high WS cut-off because after you get an interview your acceptance is basically 50/50 between your interview performance and your written submissions. Perhaps they figured a high WS means better written submissions? maybe??...probably not. i don't know what they're thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 maybe they used such a high WS cut-off because after you get an interview your acceptance is basically 50/50 between your interview performance and your written submissions. Perhaps they figured a high WS means better written submissions? maybe??...probably not. i don't know what they're thinking. A couple people have indicated that the weighting of the interview has gone up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest begaster Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I'm still standing by my lottery system hypothesis. There are plenty of excellent candidates who get cut off every year due to the MCAT. People who score 28+ and would make fabulous doctors, but don't stand a chance at any Canadian school due to the absolutely outrageous requirements. So they took the most subjective mark, one which has the least amount of predictive value, and used it to create a random group of people. Basically making it into a lottery of sorts, where a lot of people who would have been overlooked last year had a fighting chance this year. I guess it all comes to the argument of whether or not someone with a 28 will make a worse doctor than someone with a 32 than a 36, etc. They decided the answer was no, such a person is not going to be a better doctor. So they found a new way to cut people. One that was more fair to all the potentially good doctors applying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobey Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 So what are people thinking about reference letters. I mean, some schools take them really seriously (UofT I think), but I have not heard about Queens. Do they take them into consideration at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 hmm, I believe the admission website said that they along with essays and sketch counted for 50% (this was before the change in admission procedure)... now people have been saying the interview is weighted much more heavily than essays/references Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted February 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 ok question, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about this is the link:http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/2008_admissions_book.pdf so it was 72 declined, 98 offers sent out, and 520 interviewed? or do I have the total offers sent out mixed up with the number interviewed form a different year? cuz it says 2006/2007 is the year for which admission was sought.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.