Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Change in Admissions Criteria


Recommended Posts

For those of you applying this round, the GPA:MMI ratio for admission purposes have been officially changed to 35%GPA:65%MMI (from 60%GPA:40%MMI), a quite significant change.

 

This will allow ppl with the not so high GPAs (ie the lowest mark that got in last yr was 85%GPA) to really stand a chance in gaining admission if they do really well on the interview

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From some numbers they gave us and depending on how many they admit this year, based on class of 2011 with the new weighting, you're looking at 84.3 if the same number are admitted, and 81.8 if 74 IP's are admitted. I don't know if they're increasing to 80 students next year or not (still 6 OOP), that you'd have to confirm with admissions. Remember those are from last years applicant pool so it could go up or down depending on this years pool. I'm guessing the OOP gpa won't change much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! That's crazy that they've shifted the balance that much! I guess I'm glad, cause my GPA wasn't all that hot (86.5%) but I think I could do pretty well in an interview.

 

The seat count for next year will increase to 84 for 2008/09.

 

Do you mean the seat count will increase to 84 for the class that begins in 08/09 (this admission cycle) or do you mean the admission cycle of 08/09?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your feedback ccoh, I assume since you are so clued up with numbers you must be med I this year? I'm starting to prep for my interviews right now, did you find that practicing with groups for the MMI helped you? What kind of things did you do to prepare?

 

Yeah, I'm Med I. We had a talk from the dean of admissions a few weeks ago about the change in numbers so that's what I was quoting.

Practice in groups or with whomever is available, profs, docs, classmates, teachers, anyone, and as many different scenarios as you can find or make up yourself. It's not the usual 'tell us about yourself' deal, so canned responses won't really help you. Just have to be quick on your feet, rationalize the problem in a logical manner, present both sides, and take a stand, but support your stance. I can't give you specific scenarios as we signed a confidentiality agreement, but there are lots online and on this forum (do a search), and they're apparently making up new ones this year anyway. if you've never taken an ethics course, Doing Right is a great little book to get your hands on, shows you how to work through an ethical problem logically.

Let me know if there's any other information I can help with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
For those of you applying this round, the GPA:MMI ratio for admission purposes have been officially changed to 35%GPA:65%MMI (from 60%GPA:40%MMI), a quite significant change.

 

 

Am I the only one that sees this as a giant kick in the balls to people who worked hard/sacrificed to get good grades? Now I think the MMI is a good system and should have significant weighting, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that it is so perfect and objective as to deserve 65% of the admission criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey xyz, I'm not completely sold on the huge weighting given to the MMI score either. However, I remember the Dean telling us that the first class to be admitted with the MMI demonstrated a significant improvement over previous classes in terms of the "problems with some students" the school usually ran into with the latter. I'm not sure what exactly he meant by that; it's just what I heard him say. So apparently, they attributed this improvement to the MMI and felt that by increasing its weight even more, they would be further improving the quality of matriculants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey agentchris

 

I would agree with that premise. I could see how before when it was 76% grades how you get people admitted with no social skill. So when they went to 60:40 academic:non-academic with a MMI that would have been an improvement. One would have needed both excellent grades and a a solid MMI for admission. They could have even bumped it up to 50:50. But now, with no autobiographical sketch and remarkably low grades and MCAT cutoffs for IP, all one needs to do is BS though the interview and you can get in without showing a shred of excellence in academics or extra-curriculars. I think they went too far by giving 65% to the MMI and they will now be admitting people with the opposite problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the shift had anything to do with wanting an older/more mature class for the fall. I noticed when I interviewed this year that there were a lot of older interviewees, I'm sure the average age in my panel was 25 atleast. Perhaps with a lower GPA weighting, it gives people with other real life exposure, from other careers perhaps, a chance to shine in the interview.

 

I heard they were goign to have 100% interview in the next few years. I was told to watch the website for news about change in admission criteria shortly after tihs years class is announced.

 

Three weeks till the big day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add a few comments to this convo to.

 

Let me first start by saying when we first heard about this change, many current medical students were against this too, feeling that working hard for 4 years for good grades should be worth something, and that there should be a strong academic level at which medical students should be at. We in general felt that nonacademic experiences are also very important, and maybe should be weighted more, but not increased by so much.

 

Here's a few facts surrounding the idea why the change was made:

 

There has never been any evidence that someone with a 78% avereage will not be as successful in passing medical exams/LMCC/etc vs someone with say 90% average.

 

Given the change to 35:65, if we took for example the class of 2011, the bulk of the class of 68 would've remained with the same ppl. Only 5 of the ppl would have been exchanged (the ones with higher marks but 3rd quintile interview would be replaced with lower marks and 1st quintile interview results).

 

The entrance class avereage would've dropped something like 2% from 89% to 87% or sth.

 

The interview process is the only proven process to be able satisfactorily assess nonacademic criteria. (essays, lists of extracurricular activities, etc. has not been shown to be good assessments of nonacademics b/c of variabilities in how you present/write it, etc.)

 

In general, MMI is much harder to have preplanned answers to than panel interviews, as cases are different each year. It is also subject to a lot less variability to differences in marking between different panels.

 

 

As to why did it have to be 35:65, why not 40:60? or 30:70? or 33.333333333:66.6666666? -->thats up for debate....who knows what exactly is the best ratio, but the point is that if someone with 78% ave who based from history is good enough to be successful in med school, then should that person get an acceptance if they score in the 1st quintile in the interview~

 

UofS2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say 100% interview is quite unlikely though :)...academics is worth something!

 

Ottawa does it, and Queen's is pretty close too... I think as long as the academics are looked at fairly strongly in screening applicants for the interview, they can justify excluding academics in the final decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see how this could be justifiable if there was a fairly tight academic screen (may have to raise MCAT or sth), although i would tend to disagree b/c I believe most students believe that academics is 'worth' something (just like nonacademics is worth sth). So if academics was just a screen, that would basically eliminate any weight bearing effects of academics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the change to 35:65, if we took for example the class of 2011, the bulk of the class of 68 would've remained with the same ppl. Only 5 of the ppl would have been exchanged (the ones with higher marks but 3rd quintile interview would be replaced with lower marks and 1st quintile interview results).

UofS2010

 

IIRC, the dean's e-mail stated that 10 seats would have changed if the new admission criteria was retroactively applied to the 2007-8 admission process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...