For those of us still waiting....

[ploughboy]

Regardless, the study shows this. I don't see how 4 weeks is enough to trump 4-18 years (minimum of 4 for attending hs, and max of 18 because thats the age you graduate). If you are from the area you will be more inclined to ultimately return there.

 

Or more likely to get the heck out of town and never come back. But UWO can't control for that...

[Alastriss]

Indeed. Kudos all.

 

I think I understand where you're coming from, dp88. I just happen to think that you're wrong!

 

One more point to add about the quality (or lack thereof) of Swomen applicants. The criteria for interview invitations for Swomen applicants differ in only one respect from those not lucky enough to have gone to highschool in the humidity capital of Ontario: Swomen applicants can get by with one or more 8's on their MCAT. But they need to make up for it in other sections ie they still need to get a total numeric score of 30 on their MCAT which puts them at least in the 74th percentile off all MCAT test-takers, just like all the other applicants. They also still need to meet the same GPA cut-off as other applicants.

 

Now you could justifiably say "but ploughboy, somebody with an 8 in BS might only be in the 25th percentile for that section". I can't argue with that. An 8 in BS isn't very competitive. But said hypothetical applicant would have had to make up for that 8 with an 11 in PS (80th percentile) and an 11 in VR (85th percentile) or a 12 in either PS or BS (90th or 95th percentile) and a 10 in the remaining section.

 

Long story short: Swomen applicants aren't retarded, but they may have different academic strengths than their peers.

 

Is having an 8 in BS going to make somebody a poor physician? I'd argue no, especially since not that long ago (< 10 years) having all 8's would probably get you interviews at most Canadian schools. I'm sure there are tonnes of attendings out there who only got 8's on their MCATs. Sucks to be applying now, when things are more competitive.

 

Now any post-interview advantage for Swomen applicants...I don't know anything about. I saw the stats that Alatriss (I think) posted and was a little gob-smacked by the percentage of Swomen applicants who got offers. Do they interview better than non-Swomeners? Do they get a post-interview bonus? Who knows...

 

 

All numbers from : http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/examineedata/combined07.pdf

 

 

Just wanted to agree on applicant swomen quality

In addition I want to point out that swomen applicants may have backgrounds and experiences that permeate into their interview answers and just happen to come across as a great fit for the school. Even if they did have a post interview advantage, their background alone may exaggerate or mask the true power of their post interview advantage, if they have any at all.

[Vallinar]

just wanted to add to the above comments about swomen applicant quality; in regards to swomen applicants that get multiple interviews but only get into to shuclich, you must consider other factors (in addition to what ploughboy mentioned) such as ppl having better interviews at once school than another. Speaking from my own experience, my first interview was a disaster, i did a mock interview before my second one and it went better, by the last interveiw (UWO) i had taken yet another mock interview and built from the other two interviews and did whatever i could to improve them. Essentially I was totally resolved and prepared on how i wanted to present myself in the interview. I honestly felt that my UWO interview was my best one . Its not unheard of for ppl with multiple inteviews to greatly improve through the course of each interview such that their last one is their best one.

[Sheena815]

And in further defense of swomeners... its not like they are interviewing people with 8 8 8 or anything. Your total still has to be 30, just like the non-swomeners. You are just allowed to have a section (or even two) be an 8... but then your third section would be, say 14 (with two 8's). Is someone with say, 8, 11, 11 really all that different than someone with 10 10 10? I don't think so, personally. You have more flexibility in each individual section, but overall the applicants have the same score... there's not much difference overall. The key is in that increased flexibility.

 

And lots of us made the non-swomen cutoffs anyway...

 

ETA: whoops, ploughboy already brought that up. I probably should read the thread more carefully before posting!

[danceprincess88]

And in further defense of swomeners... its not like they are interviewing people with 8 8 8 or anything. Your total still has to be 30, just like the non-swomeners. You are just allowed to have a section (or even two) be an 8... but then your third section would be, say 14 (with two 8's). Is someone with say, 8, 11, 11 really all that different than someone with 10 10 10? I don't think so, personally. You have more flexibility in each individual section, but overall the applicants have the same score... there's not much difference overall. The key is in that increased flexibility.

 

And lots of us made the non-swomen cutoffs anyway...

 

ETA: whoops, ploughboy already brought that up. I probably should read the thread more carefully before posting!

 

I agree with many of the points but the ones about the MCAT are just plain ludicrous. The SWOMEN setup is WAY easier. Getting a 30 total where each section is 10 is WAY harder than getting a thirty total with an 8 or 9 in 1(or 2) sections. Also getting a Q is substantially harder than getting an O.

Take my score for example: 12 14 10Q = ~96% I am on the cutoff for two sections: one or two more questions wrong and that 10 could have turned into a 9 or one less example in my WS and I go from Q to P and I go from interview to no interview. However if I was SWOMEN I have a huge buffer. I could get my 12 10 9 P and I have a larger buffer from the cutoffs and a lower score (~82%) Also on a personal note, I have a friend who is SWOMEN and scored a 42O which is basically the top score for most MCAT tests, that O would have cost him an interview had he been non SWOMEN. SWOMEN allows you to screw up one or more sections whereas there is no mercy for nonSWOMEN.

 

Getting a 30 total is WAY WAY WAY different than getting 10's in each section. Statistically you should realize the sum of combinations of scores that add up to 30 with an 8 in one or a 9 in one or two sections is way higher than 10 in each section where there is only one combination.

 

You can defend SWOMEN and I will agree with some of your points but the idea of the MCAT cutoffs being roughly the same is just naive.

[Vallinar]

i don't know what your trying to say here....

 

 

if two ppl get the SAME score then you can't conclusively say that the person who had at least 10 in all subjections had a "harder" score than one that had an 8 or 9 in one or two subsections, because the later would have had to make up for it by scoring much higher on the other subsections.

[danceprincess88]

I was talking about meeting the cutoffs and so clearly making 10 10 10 is harder than making 8 8 8 with a 30 total with the logic I mentioned before.

 

in my opinion 30 with 10 10 10 is harder to get than with any combination with sections over 8 and that is because you have to do well in each section. With 8 8 8 you can play to your strengths. Ie. "Well no matter how hard I work at verbal it is always an 8 or 9 so I will study Bio and Phys to raise my 10s to 11s", whereas if you are non SWOMEN and you are always getting 8 or 9 in verbal you are working your butt off to raise it at the expense of your other sections.

 

Although the MCAT isn't that much chance, there can be deviations in each section so look at the math of it, 30 with 10 10 10, there is only one combination.

 

30 with each section above 8 has dozens of combinations ie. 14 8 8, 8 14 8, 8 8 14, etc. Therefore you have a higher probability to score 30 with 8 8 8 because random deviations from your mean score on a particular section are allowed (ie. say you normally score 10 10 10, if you are SWOMEN you are allowed to score 11 9 10).

 

Seriously people, there is no weight whatsoever to the argument that 30 with 8 8 8 O is equivalent to 11 9 10 Q (while most people writing it thought they were aiming for a 10 10 10 Q). I understand you have to defend SWOMEN and all of its sanctity at all times but be a logical unbiased physician that we all want you to be and acknowledge it.

[Vallinar]

lol ofcourse an 8 8 8 O isn't equivalant to 10 10 10 Q the former score is much lower overall. but total score being equal you cannot say that one that has 10 in each section at least always has a "harder" score. Lets say some gets a 10/9/12 R is this any "easier" than a 10/10/11 R? don't think so. Even if your are "playing to your strengths" you still have to work extra hard to get the higher score in the certain subsection to make up for a lacklustre score in another. You seem to beleive that all scores with a 8-9 in one subsection is automatically "easier" than an equal total score with at least a 10 in each subsection.... this thinking reaks of bitterness/bias. I will ackowledge, however, that yes certain unbalanced scores like 14/8/8 can be arguably "easier" than a more balance 30 like 10/10/10, but that is just one extreme example and you can't use it to generalize all scores with and 8-9 in a section

[danceprincess88]

lol ofcourse an 8 8 8 O isn't equivalant to 10 10 10 Q the former score is much lower overall. but total score being equal you cannot say that one that has 10 in each section at least always has a "harder" score. Lets say some gets a 10/9/12 R is this any "easier" than a 10/10/11 R? don't think so. Even if your are "playing to your strengths" you still have to work extra hard to get the higher score in the certain subsection to make up for a lacklustre score in another. You seem to beleive that all scores with a 8-9 in one subsection is automatically "easier" than an equal total score with at least a 10 in each subsection.... this thinking reaks of bitterness/bias. I will ackowledge, however, that yes certain unbalanced scores like 14/8/8 can be arguably "easier" than a more balance 30 like 10/10/10, but that is just one extreme example and you can't use it to generalize all scores with and 8-9 in a section

 

This is starting to get a bit annoying Vallinar, but I will try and be more patient. 1. I have no bitterness or bias towards the MCAT cutoffs, I wrote it once two years ago and I already said my score.

 

10/9/12R is easier to get than 10/10/11R, want to know why? Because if a non-swomen person got it, they would have to rewrite it. Is 10/10/11R a better score than 10/9/12R? No it is not, but one equals an interview and the other doesn't. To get a 30 with 10 10 10 is lucky and fortunate. If a few questions didn't go your way in any of the sections, you have a rewrite on your hands. To get 30 with 8 8 8, you do not need this luck.

 

Someone who is scoring 32 who is non swomen is worried before they write the MCAT, they know that they will need a bit of luck to meet the cutoffs.

 

Someone who is scoring 32 who is swomen is set (unless 12 13 7 or something happens).

 

Non SWOMEN has to be strong in all sections. SWOMEN can afford to have a weak section. Do you know how common it is for a science student to get 8 or 9 in verbal and 11's in the other sections? I have heard of countless friends and classmates in that predicament. They end up rewriting. I have not heard of a single SWOMEN person rewriting the MCAT.

 

I wish other people would jump into this thread and agree with me because I am starting to feel like I am crazy that something that seems so simple to me and so straightforward, another person can think the complete opposite. Plus I would be willing to bet my tuition that the average nonSWOMEN mcat score is significantly higher than the average SWOMEN mcat score because of these cutoffs.

[Vallinar]

i didn't know you were defining diffuculty as the whether or not it gets you an interview; i thought you were saying a score is "easier" becuase its actually "easier" to get that score on the MCAT. You weren't totally clear imo.

[danceprincess88]

You are right, my apologies.

[thecoolest47]

The biological sciences section of the MCAT is a lot easier than the verbal section (for most). Getting a 8V/10PS/12BS is easier for a lot of people than getting 10V/10PS/10BS...

 

For arts students, it may be the opposite... verbal may be a strength, and PS may be a weakness... in that case, getting a 12V/8PS/10BS is a lot easier than getting a 10V/10PS/10BS.

 

With the 10/10/10 cutoffs, you're forced to be balanced, whereas with the 8/8/8 sum 30 cutoff, you can be a one-trick pony and get an interview.

 

I'm not saying that SWOMEN students are one trick ponies, though. In fact, they may have life experiences that would make them more suitable to optimizing Canadian healthcare as we know it.

[Sheena815]

Aah, I finally understand what danceprincess was trying to say. It definietly was not clear... Of course it makes it easier to get an interview, that's the whole point. It doesn't mean that one person is smarter than the other or that it was harder to achieve that mcat score in the first place.

[lostintime]

But in all honesty, I have to agree that where you've lived for your entire life or went to high school does have a bearing on where you're likely to practice. My family's not in London, and I most likely won't stay there. HOWEVER, I am open to new opportunities and if I grow to love London, then I may stay for a while and if I find I enjoy rural medicine, I may go into it.

 

I think as long as you're open-minded, and not like "I can not stand non-megacity locations", it should be ok for interviews, etc. Like I didn't say in my interviews, "I PROMISE to go serve rural areas" but I did note the need for physicians there and showed an interest in it, which I do have.

[Alastriss]

Wow that argument dragged on for a long while! Of course getting an 8 8 8 O and having a total of 30 is a lot easier than getting 9/10/11 Q. No one can argue otherwise - because the whole point of such a discrepancy to make it easier for SWOMEN applicants to get an interview!!!!!

The argument saying that a total score of 30 is needed for swomen which puts them in a similar percentile range to non-swomen was simply one made in their defense so as to restore their seemingly threatened academic integrity, which really was never an issue, at least not in my books.

[Vallinar]

threatened academic intergrity? no lol

 

 

the poster above was arguing that any score with a 8-9 in a subsection or more is automatically "easier" to get than a score with a at 10 in all subsections... and by easier, she was referring to whether it gets you an interview. On that defintion ofcourse its "easier".

 

I was simply arguing that if two students have an equal total mcat score... having 8/9 in one subsection or more doesn't automatically make it an "easier" score to get than a total score with at least 10 in each section.

[estairella]

Wow that argument dragged on for a long while! Of course getting an 8 8 8 O and having a total of 30 is a lot easier than getting 9/10/11 Q. No one can argue otherwise - because the whole point of such a discrepancy to make it easier for SWOMEN applicants to get an interview!!!!!

The argument saying that a total score of 30 is needed for swomen which puts them in a similar percentile range to non-swomen was simply one made in their defense so as to restore their seemingly threatened academic integrity, which really was never an issue, at least not in my books.

 

After reading a little of this thread, I think I'd have to agree with danceprincess88 on this point... having a total score of 30 where the minimum score of any section can be 8, you will have a significantly lower average in the sample size than a total score of 30 where the min is 10.

 

But actually, that's not what matters. Everyone knows why UWO has the cutoffs, it's because they're not interested in reviewing applications and thus they set arbitrary cutoffs on a yearly basis to get the right interview pool size. They believe (rightly) that anyone who gets at least 30 (and didn't screw up any one section) is capable of being a good doctor, which is why SWOMEN get that benefit. But they can't grant it to everyone or there'd be too many interviews.

 

I was simply arguing that if two students have an equal total mcat score... having 8/9 in one subsection or more doesn't automatically make it an "easier" score to get than a total score with at least 10 in each section.

 

For accuracy's sake, statistically-speaking people tend to get the higher scores in PS and BS and the least in VR, which suggests a 11PS 10BS 9VR or 10PS 11BS 9VR are both easier to get than 10s across the board.

 

To danceprincess88 regarding your OP: The whole purpose of SWOMEN is to get rural doctors working. That's what medical schools SHOULD work for - getting equitable healthcare access to the general population, not some circle-wank for the "best applicants". Put it another way: if you had to sign a 10-year rural contract post-residency if you were to go to UWO medical school, how many of those amazing non-SWOMEN do you think would even APPLY?

 

/said as a non-SWOMEN who loved his UWO interview and the people there

[Alastriss]

After reading a little of this thread, I think I'd have to agree with danceprincess88 on this point... having a total score of 30 where the minimum score of any section can be 8, you will have a significantly lower average in the sample size than a total score of 30 where the min is 10.

 

But actually, that's not what matters. Everyone knows why UWO has the cutoffs, it's because they're not interested in reviewing applications and thus they set arbitrary cutoffs on a yearly basis to get the right interview pool size. They believe (rightly) that anyone who gets at least 30 (and didn't screw up any one section) is capable of being a good doctor, which is why SWOMEN get that benefit. But they can't grant it to everyone or there'd be too many interviews.

 

 

 

For accuracy's sake, statistically-speaking people tend to get the higher scores in PS and BS and the least in VR, which suggests a 11PS 10BS 9VR or 10PS 11BS 9VR are both easier to get than 10s across the board.

 

To danceprincess88 regarding your OP: The whole purpose of SWOMEN is to get rural doctors working. That's what medical schools SHOULD work for - getting equitable healthcare access to the general population, not some circle-wank for the "best applicants". Put it another way: if you had to sign a 10-year rural contract post-residency if you were to go to UWO medical school, how many of those amazing non-SWOMEN do you think would even APPLY?

 

/said as a non-SWOMEN who loved his UWO interview and the people there

 

I bet enough to merit a serious file consideration. I want to ask, how many SWOMEN do you think would think twice?

[Alastriss]

After reading a little of this thread, I think I'd have to agree with danceprincess88 on this point... having a total score of 30 where the minimum score of any section can be 8, you will have a significantly lower average in the sample size than a total score of 30 where the min is 10.

 

of course, I agree as well. In fact, based on the numbers, no one competent can actually disagree. I was pointing out that the total of 30 and how it could be putting swomen in a similar percentile as non-swomen is just an argument made in swomen's favor - whether or not it stands is another story.

[Sheena815]

I want to ask, how many SWOMEN do you think would think twice?

 

I wouldn't be too pleased about it. Not because I want to leave the swomen area, but because I have no idea where I'm going to be working, and there will be several factors other than just my own preference of work location that will be involved in making that determination. Its likely that I will stay here, but I could not commit myself 100% to it.

[classA]

I think CARMS will have a big factor into who stays and who doesnt. If you do not get your speciality in SWOMEN area then you will be gone.

I wonder if Western gives preference to SWOMEN Post-Grad?

[danceprincess88]

I think SWOMEN is a bit of a crock. In theory: amazing! In practice, the amount of A.B. Lucas SS grads who are from a wealthy part of london and who are not first generation university students that take advantage of it is unreal. (For those of you that don't know it is a high school in the same area as UWO where many of the residents are affluent and affiliated with the university) I am not criticizing them, for it is not their fault they have an advantage, but instead it is the SSMD that does not have the foresight to see that they are missing their target applicants and instead filling their class with kids from London high schools, not strathroy, chatham, etc. So in this case I believe that Western is getting London students who could not get in anywhere else (and for those of you who did and chose Western I apologize). However, only speaking from personal experience, if I went to high school in London and had lived there for 18 years, I would look to branch out and live in a different part of the province or country for 4 years.

[classA]

I didn't go to a high school in London and I'm SWOMEN. I went to one in Elgin County. I know of a couple of other SWOMENS that are in Western but are not from London. Western does not post where the SWOMEN people attended high school so where your getting this information is beyond me.

[supafield]

edit: I misread

[classA]

edit: no need for the reply!