My New Admissions Policy, please read

[AndyDude]

I had this idea recently and was hoping to recruit some volunteers to sign a petition so we can make move to pass a bill based on my new admissions policy. On a serious note I think it might as well work.

 

As of now, acceptance into medical schools is based on a person's achievements (EC, GPA, MCAT), AB essay, LORs. And then there is the interview. I am sure we've all heard horror stories of top-notch candidates with high MCAT scores, GPAs, etc. but being rejected from med schools (My friend X: 3.9, 40, descent EC's, research, rejected by Queen's and Toronto post-interview). He didn't seem like a serial killer to me and nor did he say he would sell organs once he becomes a doctor. So here's my new policy:

 

From the 150-160 seats of most Canadian schools, I'd say reserve 15-20 seats that do not require interviews. Yes, I mean 15-20 acceptances/year for applicants with highest GPA, MCAT, best AB essay, EC's, Good LORs. And you're in. Well, it'd be subjective from adcom and not to mention highly competitive. But one thing it will provide is full-proof way of those extra competent candidates with awesome credentials that fall short on delivering interviews (more than few occasions). Some people are just better speakers than others and not being able to pursue one's dream because of this is little disadvantageous. We all have flaws!

 

Now I know most of you would think that's unfair to those who got rejected post-interview. To compensate for this, you have an option in your application to be considered for one of the two applicant pools. The catch is you must have a VERY high GPA to be considered if you choose the pool that opts out of interview; however, you can get an interview if you apply in the other pool despite less than amazing (perfect) grades. And you can work your charm from there upon.

[lostintime]

Very interesting, but good luck convincing the admin. And getting those signatures/petitions. I'm sure no one wants to make a first impression on the adcom even before their application goes in as a protester against their authority.

[Madz25]

hmmm...interesting

 

ok so you have an awesome GPA and killer MCAT score etc etc, but you cant do well in an interview? i think communication skills are really important in medicine (and i'm sure at least a few of you will agree with that). if you cant communicate effectively, then you're missing an important part of being a physician. i understand that an interview is a stressful situation and a lot of applicants become flustered. however, isnt it also important for physicians to be able to do well in high pressure situations?

 

i dont know...just a thought.

[Valentine]

I like your idea.

 

Heck, I think the interview should be abolished completely.

 

I'm surprised that medicine, with its erection for Evidence Based Medicine, still uses interviews for the admissions process. Where is the objective evidence that interviews are useful in recruiting the best people for the job?

 

Objective assessments are the only way to be certain of measurements.

[Superking25]

I had this idea recently and was hoping to recruit some volunteers to sign a petition so we can make move to pass a bill based on my new admissions policy. On a serious note I think it might as well work.

 

As of now, acceptance into medical schools is based on a person's achievements (EC, GPA, MCAT), AB essay, LORs. And then there is the interview. I am sure we've all heard horror stories of top-notch candidates with high MCAT scores, GPAs, etc. but being rejected from med schools (My friend X: 3.9, 40, descent EC's, research, rejected by Queen's and Toronto post-interview). He didn't seem like a serial killer to me and nor did he say he would sell organs once he becomes a doctor. So here's my new policy:

 

From the 150-160 seats of most Canadian schools, I'd say reserve 15-20 seats that do not require interviews. Yes, I mean 15-20 acceptances/year for applicants with highest GPA, MCAT, best AB essay, EC's, Good LORs. And you're in. Well, it'd be subjective from adcom and not to mention highly competitive. But one thing it will provide is full-proof way of those extra competent candidates with awesome credentials that fall short on delivering interviews (more than few occasions). Some people are just better speakers than others and not being able to pursue one's dream because of this is little disadvantageous. We all have flaws!

 

Now I know most of you would think that's unfair to those who got rejected post-interview. To compensate for this, you have an option in your application to be considered for one of the two applicant pools. The catch is you must have a VERY high GPA to be considered if you choose the pool that opts out of interview; however, you can get an interview if you apply in the other pool despite less than amazing (perfect) grades. And you can work your charm from there upon.

 

I think it's a pretty dumb idea (coming as an applicant on the lower end of the GPA/MCAT spectrum ). The med school application process is designed to be this thorough to get the best all-around people, a blend of book smarts/intellectual ability, and communication/people skills. Just because you have a 4.0 and a 40+ MCAT, you don't deserve to automatically get an acceptance as much as the most charming applicant should be able to cruise in without a reasonable gpa/mcat. I think most of us will agree, to be able to get an interview at a Canadian med school, you have to have a pretty competitive gpa/mcat that shows you have the academic ability to succeed. Interview/autobiography should be at least 50% of your score.

[lostintime]

I think it's a pretty dumb idea (coming as an applicant on the lower end of the GPA/MCAT spectrum ). The med school application process is designed to be this thorough to get the best all-around people, a blend of book smarts/intellectual ability, and communication/people skills. Just because you have a 4.0 and a 40+ MCAT, you don't deserve to automatically get an acceptance as much as the most charming applicant should be able to cruise in without a reasonable gpa/mcat. I think most of us will agree, to be able to get an interview at a Canadian med school, you have to have a pretty competitive gpa/mcat that shows you have the academic ability to succeed. Interview/autobiography should be at least 50% of your score.

 

I don't think he's saying to be mark-focused. He's just saying to allocate enough spots for the people who look amazing on paper. It is an interesting idea, but I mean, Madz does have a point with the stress handling thing.

 

Although I just think the interview is too short to really get a "whole picture view" of the applicant and if you're not gonna do that, might as well do MMI. I actually think I would do better in MMI than a traditional interview. But too bad Mac hates me.

[Superking25]

You have to be able to talk to people. It's the god damn job. Even if you're not directly working with patients, you're talking to someone (other doctors/staff). Hey, interviews are stressful, but if you know yourself and a bit of knowledge about the system, you should be able to "pass" an interview enough to get accepted if you already have a 4.0 and good MCATs. I wonder why those 4.0ers don't get in, are they arrogant overconfident jerks? I don't know, but something about them rubs interviewers the wrong way...

[lostintime]

That's not really a nice assumption to make....

 

At Western, even if you have a 4.0 for best year, it's like what--25% of score? If you get an average interview score (don't have to be arrogant...maybe just not superstar interviewee) and already, you're not so super anymore.

 

And at Queens, GPA = nothing after interviews....

 

And MCATs really don't matter that much in Ontario once you make the cut except for like Western.

 

So it's very variable...One thing I think 4.0ers may lack is experience just because having SUCH an amazing GPA = lots of time spent on that and not enough on EC's. But there ARE people who can do both (just rare). But doesn't mean they're arrogant/overconfident jerks who necessarily have to rub interviewers the wrong way....

[Guest begaster]

This is a stupid idea.

[supafield]

Not a fan....

 

I'm sure there are people with 40+ MCAT scores and 4.0's that I genuinely wouldn't want as my doctor..... the interviews stand as a screen for those that look good on paper but aren't the best doctors....

 

If there is going to be patient interaction.... no way.... maybe you could apply your strategy to a pool of pathologists lol...

 

All that said, I would expect the interview to be a strength for me over my scores and stats .... so there's my bias...

 

But I think most people involved in the process or impartial would agree. Just think.... Giant introvert with no people skills has a 4.0, 39R and worked in a lab.... recommended by professors and lab supervisors because really any people that know you usually would help out with an LOR.... and then that person becomes an oncologist.... just for example....

 

I get a serious cancer (which I have family history with) and put all my faith in a doctor I can't relate with and consequently lack confidence with....

 

It would be a step away from a biopsychosocial approach to medicine.... not that the interview is the perfect screen but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

[pedro_md]

i think this is pretty wack too. The whole idea behind having an interview is to screen out individuals as the ones you are suggesting should get in through this category. When I was doing my undergrad, I met quite a few smart fellows that excelled tremendously, but that I would not trust even with taking care of my fish. Come on, medicine is not just theory, it is also practical... and if you don't have the practical abilities of a physician, then you shouldn't go into medicine... rather, you should go into a PhD and become a lab rat, where you would succeed regardless of any lack in inter-personal skills.

[AndyDude]

The petition thing was a frivolous statement.

 

Regarding the posts stating communication as being inherent part of being a physician, I am well aware of it. Also, I am not saying I'd be dumb founded during an interview. I can make good impressions, and I think after four years of undergraduate work with numerous presentations and club activities, I can do well. My original post wasn't meant to be a personal thing.

I am at considerable loss of encouragement when seemingly competent people are rejected 2 times a row. I am just saying why should those who might come across with a best answer to questions like, "tell me about a time when...." or "your strengths and weaknesses"? should be admitted and not others. The questions are absurd and have no relevance to the indication of your competence. I realize the interviews are much more than that.

If I have (I have not but supposedly) a great GPA, MCAT - sure it's not a sign of communication abilities but good LORs, ECs, autobiography should suffice for the doubts of the adcoms regarding communication skills.

I mean strong academics is a way to offset any doubts about one's ability to perform good at an interview. My assumption behind all this is you have what it takes but just aren't the type of person who can truly bring your passion into words to impress the committee especially when your future depends on what you say...

[AndyDude]

Just think.... Giant introvert with no people skills has a 4.0, 39R and worked in a lab.... recommended by professors and lab supervisors because really any people that know you usually would help out with an LOR.... and then that person becomes an oncologist.... just for example....

 

I get a serious cancer (which I have family history with) and put all my faith in a doctor I can't relate with and consequently lack confidence with....

 

It would be a step away from a biopsychosocial approach to medicine.... not that the interview is the perfect screen but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

 

Well I am not asking to grant the applicants a MD just based on their undergrad marks. You ARE in med school, you ARE evaluated during your residency. You ARE referred (LOR) by your seniors and interviewed before matching in speciality of your interest. So there is a long way to develop those skills. And I agree a subset of communication skills is required prior to commencement of medical school.

The idea of A+ students as introverts is true to an extent but blown out of proportions most of the time. I think interviews are not a great way to assess applicants (but there isn't a better way so they should be done for the vast majority of matriculants but 20 seats in a class of 160 is about 12.5% of class, and worth a risk)

[Guest begaster]

Worth the risk for who, exactly?

 

If you are a good candidate with a perfect GPA and a great MCAT, you get to the interview phase. If you're not an absolute atrocity there, you're a shoe-in. Why would schools need to risk anything by scrapping the interview phase, when it works pretty damn well as is (97%+ graduation rates)? Because you or your friend didn't get in?

 

This is a terrible, terrible idea. Medicine is not purely academic, it's also a large part social. The notion that people who are just intelligent belong there is incorrect. You can't just rely on academics, you also need to be able to communicate effectively to become a doctor. If you want to scrap something, get rid of the EC/volunteer requirements, which are just needless hoops to jump through. Interviews should stay.

[AndyDude]

I don't think its a risk but considering the responses I am assuming that's what people would think it would be ... a risk.

[The Law]

With all due respect, I think this is ridiculous.

 

If having a really high GPA ensured you would be a good doctor, then all schools should just go with the applicants with the best GPAs. The interview reveals so much about an applicant that no amount of extracurricular activity or excellence in scholastic ability will ever be able to reveal. As mentioned by Madz, the interview can let interviewers know how well you communicate. As doctors, you have to be able to work well with your patients and be able to ensure you have the appropriate skills to deal with whatever scenarios you encounter working with people. The interview not only gages your communication skill, but how mature you are. Is this person mature enough to deal with people who are in the most sensitive of states?

 

The problem with admissions in Canada is not the admissions process itself. The problem is there are so many incredible applicants, and only a tiny amount of spaces to place them.

[lostintime]

Well I dunno, I think that there are some things an interview simply can not show. Commitment. Anyone can lie about commitment, but unless you really SHOWWW you can commit to something for many many years and SHOW you have been responsible, just talking about it is bull to me....maybe that's jsut me. Because I personally and unfortunately know many individuals who can b.s. their way through almost anything, and I'm sure interviews are no issues for them.

 

It should be more fof a mix, so I think UT's approach is generally fair.

[AndyDude]

But do you not think that somewhere among the 500 interviewed there was someone with amazing stats and very deserving that didn't happen to make a good impression? I mean the process is not changed in its entirety, these are only a small number of seats.

The presumption about good stats and bad social/communication skills is biased. I am only saying does it really hurt if you remove one subjective (which happens to be the most among all) hurdle for people with above par application package?

[lostintime]

The problem with your approach AndyDude is that people can get others to write their essays, pull b.s. verifiers, and shady LORs if they know there is no interview.

 

But in the end, there is no foolproof method that satisfies everyone.

 

I think some of you guys though, are overrating the interview. I don't think it is THE BEST indicator of social skills/maturity/etc. I would opt for life experiences over interview. But it is a good measure of dealing with stress, communication...yes.

[Guest begaster]

But do you not think that somewhere among the 500 interviewed there was someone with amazing stats and very deserving that didn't happen to make a good impression? I mean the process is not changed in its entirety, these are only a small number of seats.

The presumption about good stats and bad social/communication skills is biased. I am only saying does it really hurt if you remove one subjective (which happens to be the most among all) hurdle for people with above par application package?

 

 

The other 499 are just as deserving before the interview, and more deserving after the interview. There are many people who look great on paper but would make terrible doctors. The interview process weeds them out.

 

Nobody is presuming that good stats imply bad social and communication skills, so there's no bias to be had. We have all stated that we do not believe this is the case. We are saying that bad social and communication skills are demonstrable through an interview. Anyone who looks great in paper and isn't a terrible communicator will easily get in. Anyone who looks great on paper but lacks social and communication skills will not.

[The Law]

But do you not think that somewhere among the 500 interviewed there was someone with amazing stats and very deserving that didn't happen to make a good impression? I mean the process is not changed in its entirety, these are only a small number of seats.

The presumption about good stats and bad social/communication skills is biased. I am only saying does it really hurt if you remove one subjective (which happens to be the most among all) hurdle for people with above par application package?

 

Nobody ever said good stats = bad social skill. We are saying that just because you have a fantastic GPA, that does not necessarily mean you have the appropriate skill to be a great doctor. How can that be assessed? Get people in the field and in the community to determine - would I want this person to be my colleague? To be my physician?. The interview allows you to gage someone's maturity level and communicative ability. I know people who have fantastic GPAs and I would never want to be my physician...

 

I think the interview is the single most useful thing to determine how suitable you are after ensuring you have the appropriate academic qualifications.

[The Law]

Well I dunno, I think that there are some things an interview simply can not show. Commitment. Anyone can lie about commitment, but unless you really SHOWWW you can commit to something for many many years and SHOW you have been responsible, just talking about it is bull to me....maybe that's jsut me. Because I personally and unfortunately know many individuals who can b.s. their way through almost anything, and I'm sure interviews are no issues for them.

 

It should be more fof a mix, so I think UT's approach is generally fair.

 

I think we all have our personal bias here. We know what schools are better for each of us, so this influences how we look at things.

 

That being said, I personally think that it should be a balance between good academics and solid life experiences. I think UT has too much of an emphasis on GPA, but again, each school has a different approach to things which ends up balancing out.

 

I don't think the process has to be changed at all. The schools are different enough that there's bound to be one that fits your personal qualifications. This also diversifies the graduate pool, as each school will have selected from a slightly different applicant base.

 

I think some of you guys though, are overrating the interview. I don't think it is THE BEST indicator of social skills/maturity/etc. I would opt for life experiences over interview. But it is a good measure of dealing with stress, communication...yes.

 

Hmm, I'm not really sure about that. I think the interview is a good opportunity to explain yourselves to the admissions people. There are some things you can't really convey in the standard applicatoin questions, and it's so much better to talk to them in person. Of course it isn't the be all and end all, but I think it does a really good job at gaging how professional you are, and whether you have the appropriate life background.

 

The interview isn't the be all and end all at any school though. For the schools that place a huge emphasis on it, you still have to jump hurdles - the GPA, MCAT, essay screens, etc.

[BCBoy]

I think I get what AndyDude is trying to say, but I think in general those with very high GPA/MCAT tend to prepare well for the interviews and would try to cover most of the possible interview questions. I might be generalizing here but those who have done so much preparation and so much work into getting such great scores are probably going to be pretty good at prepping for the interview if they truly respect the admissions process and value their med aspirations.

 

It's an interesting suggestion to allocate a small percentage of spots to non-interviewed applicants, but it's an open process and you never know what "anomalies" you can get so just to be on the safe side it's probably better to keep the interviews. I suppose it's possible that some with high GPA/MCAT might just be having a bad day at the interview, in a bad mood or just having a brain cramp that day, but I guess the reasoning could be if an applicant can't prepare or present themselves well (or perhaps at least average for a truly stellar applicant on paper, this is pure speculation on my part of course) for "one" big day, then how consistent can you expect them to be when they're actually in medicine?

[doc2B]

I don't have great academic stats. I was accepted this year after my 3rd year applying. I know someone who was also accepted this year after his 3rd year applying, his stats were great. High GPA, high MCAT, decent ECs, etc. I know there may have been some trouble on the essay writing and the interview was the killer. This person is painfully shy. This person just needed the 3 years to improve the communication skills and it worked. I needed the 3 years to improve other stuff like my MCAT

 

I have another friend who is currently in medical school. She was telling me about someone in her class who was so painfully shy that when she went to take a blood pressure on someone (I don't know if it was in an OSCE type situation or on a real patient) she was fumbling and parts of the BP cuff were flying everywhere (my friend didn't really understand how it could go so poorly) its a very innocent procedure that med students, residents and physicians do all the time and this person had trouble. That's saying something. There's always going to be pressure to perform. Just because we've been accepted doesn't mean we're onto the lax easy stretch.

 

Your friends with the great stats probably just need to work on their communication skills and apply again. I know what you mean about it being discouraging seeing someone with seemingly great stats get rejected but that just shows you that each applicant is different and is reviewed thoroughly. It's hard not to compare yourself with the stats because it's not easy to compare your communications abilities. You weren't in the interview with your friends therefore you don't know what went on. You don't have to come across as a serial killer for them to think based on an interview that you are unsatisfactory. Usually, it happens from something like a person answering a question in such a way that we would normally consider social unacceptable. Or struggling with ethics questions. Or just struggling to come up with answers in general.

 

If your friends didn't get accepted purely due to the interview... then like everyone else that was rejected if they really want to study medicine they should go back and improve their applications. For some people that means going back to school to improve a GPA, or re-writing an MCAT, for others that means taking interview skills workshops, re-writing essays and just working on interpersonal skills. These people were rejected for a reason and it obviously was not their high GPA. If they were rejected because of something found in the interview, why would you want a system that blindly accepts without speaking to these people first? Then they will struggle in school and may ultimately not be the right fit for medicine. Doing well in undergrad and even grad school is a lot different than medicine. Getting high marks doesn't show someone that you're going to be able to do a proper neurological exam or even take proper history for that matter (very important).

 

Granted the interview is short and can't tell you everything about a person, I'm sure they miss stuff, but it's the best they can do right now. I did do an MMI this year and traditional interviews in past years, and I can say that I much preferred the MMI style. I actually found it fun.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Wolvenstar]

The fact is that most of the people who apply to med school are smart. I mean I hate to sound cocky but truthfully less intelligent people can't make it, a C+ average in your undergrad just doesnt cut it (at least in Canada). So this idea of yours pretty much just says that the we should reserve seats for those who are the smartest, but really there is only a slight difference in intelligence levels (except for some sort of uber genius who might decide to apply for med school).

 

But hey I am not just to throw out the same "importance of communication" bit. I look at the interviews and I believe that this is a way for a person to form an opinion about you. I put alot into the significance of intuition, and from decent interview you can quite accurately size someone up and be able to competently decide whether a candidate will make a good doctor or not.

 

Honestly I think every university should be like Queens, were the GPA is just a ceilling to keep out those who aren't very intelligent (no offense) and then those above this GPA are obviously intelligent enough, let's now see if they have the personal attributes that make a good doctor.

 

Marks don't show anything beyond whether a person is intelligent enough. They don't show maturity, intuition, common sense. It's quite sad but there are alot of smart people who just fell off the band wagon when it came to common sense, or they live in some sort of lala land and don't have a realistic view of the world.

 

Well that's my opinion, I hope I didn't offend anyone this time, but it is what it is.