50 Extra Interviews?

[thestranger979979]

Hey has anyone else heard about this:

 

Apparently UWO sent out 50 extra interview invitations, due to some sort of computer related glitch. According to a VERY GOOD source, the computer sent out 500 instead of the 450 it was supposed to. Now as you know the system at western is to rank the candidates based on GPA and MCAT, and determine the cutoff by cutting everyone below the top 450. This is normally around the 3.70 and 30 range. This year as you all know the cutoff was at about the same level, for both GPA and MCAT. Apparently what happened was, the computer cut off at 500 instead of 450, meaning 50 people were granted interviews even though they didn't technically meet the cutoff (since the cutoff would have been higher at the 450 mark). Now i didn't really believe this at first either, but looking back at the email sent out just after interviews were offered, about confirming your interview time, things start to make sense. A reasonable explanation for that interview booking problem is pretty obvious: after offering 500 interviews, the computer then tried to book those 500 interviews into only 450 spots, overwriting as it went. meaning 50 people had to reconfirm their spots, which makes sense even going by the wording of the email that said "several" spots were conflicting.

Now i don't know about you, but i think 50 extra people being in the candidate pool is unfair for various reasons: A) more people we're each competing with during interviews, the more people they interview, the harder the competition obviously. these 50 people didnt DESERVE to get interviews in the first place, seeing as they wouldn't have met the cutoff if the cutoff was determined as the top 450. C) of those 50 people, some of them may have been accepted, and some of them may be above others on the waitlist--> this means that people who were not even qualified to be offered interviews in the first place are now being given spots, and ranked higher than other deserving candidates on the waitlist (since waitlist rank is determined mostly by the interview score and partly by MCAT score, the 50 extra people may have had an amazing interview and were thus ranked higher, but this is unfair because they didnt' deserve an interview in the first place).

Now i don't KNOW if this is all true or not. but this is what i was told by a source that i am VERY confident in, i can't say who but believe me, i didn't just hear this from a random, theres not much more i can say but honestly i wouldn't be saying any of this unless it was from a good source. So quite frankly im very confident its true.

 

So has anyone heard anything about this? anything else fishy going on that anyones heard of? What does everyoen think of this?

I will also say that i was shocked to find that 5 peopel i know, each of whom were well above the GPA and MCAT cutoff, some of whom had excellent extracurriculars and research, all had good interviews if not excellent interviews, ALL got waitlisted. I dunno, maybe its anecdotal at best but you tell me if you weren't a little surprised that you didnt make it first round. It really seems like something is going on here.

[Alastriss]

Sure I was a little surprised, but I dont think that my evaluation is valid at all. Im not looking through the "looking glass" that counts - that of the interviewers.

 

I don't know what your sources are, but when I e-mailed them they said they were interviewing 470 people.

[thecoolest47]

Western has the right to interview as many people as they want. If anything, lowering the bar weeds out nerdy, socially inept individuals ;p

[Sheena815]

Interesting, but I don't think there's any way to confirm the info, and ultimately they can interview however many they want I suppose. It would have been worse to give out those interviews and then say, oops, sorry, you weren't supposed to get one! Who knows, maybe some of us were among those who would not have otherwise gotten an interview at all.

 

I don't think the interview confirmation through email was anything new. They did it last year, and they also did it with the dentistry interviews.

[KennethToronto]

From the medical school and public's perspective, an extra 50 interviews means all the better. Moreover, given the fact interviews only play one part of the selection criteria, any supposed interviewees who fell below the cut-offs but gained admission, in my opinion, must have had one amazing interview and deserve the position all the more.

[supafield]

Agree with the above posters...

 

If Western wants to interview a 1000 people it's their right whether they plan to or not originally....

[sweet_rain]

I will also say that i was shocked to find that 5 peopel i know, each of whom were well above the GPA and MCAT cutoff, some of whom had excellent extracurriculars and research, all had good interviews if not excellent interviews, ALL got waitlisted. I dunno, maybe its anecdotal at best but you tell me if you weren't a little surprised that you didnt make it first round. It really seems like something is going on here.

How do you know they had good/excellent interviews? some interviewers might look expressionless and disinterested, but that doesn't mean they don't agree with what you are saying. In contrast, some may appear very interested and supportive, still doesn't mean they'll score you high. On the other hand, some people have a natural tendency to feel good about everything whereas some people, like me, always feel there's room for improvement. Unless you've seen their interview score sheet, how well they performed on the interview isn't a very good indicator here.

on a separate note, if the extra 50 did well on their interviews, I don't see why they don't deserve their spots since they'll have to not only do well, but exceptionally well on their interviews to compensate for their lower MCAT scores. This means they do have qualities that medical schools look for even though their marks/mcat might be lacking a bit.

[chino]

I don't know about that, I distinctly remember seeing Darla that day and , while she did say they were interviewing the most people they have ever interviewed, the number I recall was something like 470 rather than 500 or 450, and i would imagine that the increased number of interviews likely has to do with the increased number of spots they have this year.

 

As well since they posted cu-offs well in advance of actually sending out the invites surely that either means that somepeople that didnt meet the cutoffs got interviews, which we see no evidence of, or that for the months between posting cutoffs and giving out the interviews noone checked to see what the number of interviewees produced by the cutoffs would be, which I find to be unlikely.

[MillerTime]

There may be some exceptions that would lead to them giving out more interviews than their cutoffs had originally been made for. For example, both last year and this year I wasn't going to get an interview because one of my years above 3.7 only had 4.5 credits out of 5, however I had a full course load at my university (31 credits). So even though their cutoffs were made to produce a certain number of interviewees, I probably would not have been counted in the original 450 (or whatever number desired) since my application probably wouldn't have been included since I seemingly didn't meet the requirements. Not sure how common this may be as it was a wierd case of 2/3/4 credit courses not adding up the same with the OMSAS credit system, but it provides a possible explanation for at least one extra interview!

 

It also might be hard/impossible to produce cutoffs resulting in an exact number of desired interviewees, especially since it seems that they only really play with the MCAT since the GPA has been at 3.7 for the past couple of years.

[Alastriss]

I don't know about that, I distinctly remember seeing Darla that day and , while she did say they were interviewing the most people they have ever interviewed, the number I recall was something like 470 rather than 500 or 450, and i would imagine that the increased number of interviews likely has to do with the increased number of spots they have this year.

 

As well since they posted cu-offs well in advance of actually sending out the invites surely that either means that somepeople that didnt meet the cutoffs got interviews, which we see no evidence of, or that for the months between posting cutoffs and giving out the interviews noone checked to see what the number of interviewees produced by the cutoffs would be, which I find to be unlikely.

 

 

That confirms it - i e-mailed them and they said 470. It might be tough to get a bang on interviewe number of 450 with the cutoffs they are using.

[C-Swirsk]

I have been unimpressed with Western's admissions process to say the least and this example just shows what happens when they rely on computers to select candidates purely based on GPA and MCAT. I was also surprised that nowhere in the process do they look at your extracirriculs, accomplishments or letters of reference. Their admissions process seemed very cold to me in that they are just interested in numbers and follow a set of standard hypothetical questions during the interview. It seems like their goal is to minimize time and resources spent on the admissions process compared to other schools. They are always the last school to send out interview notices (when their selection process is done by a computer and takes the least amount of time) and this year they sent out acceptances a day late. I think Western is an amazing school, but they should invest more time into their admissions process.

[Gob]

As far as I know the idea has always been to accept AROUND 450 students for interviews. I actually don't really have a problem with more interviews going out. If you can prove that these individuals didn't meet the cutoff, fine, I can understand being angry. But until then it's all hearsay and Chinese whispers.

[Sheena815]

Probably they aim for the cutoff that will give them the closest number to their goal.. and personally I'd say err on the side of more, rather then less.

 

I mean, if this were back at the time interviews were going out, people would be thrilled by the prospect of more spots.

[thecoolest47]

I was also surprised that nowhere in the process do they look at your extracirriculs, accomplishments or letters of reference. Their admissions process seemed very cold to me in that they are just interested in numbers and follow a set of standard hypothetical questions during the interview.

 

You should be integrating your extracurricular activities and accomplishments into your interview. I found that the Western interview was one of the more pleasant ones in terms of how the interviewers treated me. I must say that the UofT interviewers were also very kind.

[Alastriss]

Just because UWO does not have an explicit component in the selection process for "extracurriculars" does not mean they are not taken into account, particularly at the interview stage.

 

I find schools that assign point values to extracurriculars just as ridiculous.

 

I don't think any selection process will satisfy everyone - the farther you move away from a numerical process to select interviewees, the more complaints of bias/inconsistency. Conversely, a numerical system of hard cut-offs and you inevitably have applicants who are fantastic, but miss the cut offs by a single letter (as Queen's move to an "R" demonstrated all too clearly).

 

Consequently, given the plurality of selection systems, it's wise for applicants to 'play the game' and apply to the schools where they will shine. So don't apply to NOMS if you are from an urban area. Don't apply to Queen's/UWO if you don't ahve the stats. Don't apply to UofO/Mac/UBC if your EC list doesn't stretch a mile long and will score you lots of points (however those are calculated). etc etc

 

 

I love how the admissions varies significantly between one school to another. They all seem to produce spectacular MDs, so that shows you there isn't a golden standard. I think the diversity is much needed - it caters to the diverse applicant pool and gives you more than one means to be competitive. Whether you were that gunner who didnt do well on the mcat but aced his courses, or the one who had a rough time in the first couple years, or the one who has a lot life experiences, there is a place where you are competitive

[C-Swirsk]

You should be integrating your extracurricular activities and accomplishments into your interview. I found that the Western interview was one of the more pleasant ones in terms of how the interviewers treated me. I must say that the UofT interviewers were also very kind.

 

I did integrate my experiences and extracurriculars into my answers, but there is no way you can mention everything nor is it very modest to list off awards and accomplishments, particularly if they are not relevant to their questions. And I know that because someone has a lot of awards or accomplishments it doesn’t mean they will be a good doctor, but these give them the facts of what you actually done. I am sure some people are able to talk well, but in reality have little to back it up with. Med school interviews are similar to job interviews and I have never heard of people getting professional jobs without companies looking at their resume. I know all schools are different and some do a worse job then Western, but I just feel they should broaden their assessment and so too should other schools like Mac – just my opinion. I know with the number of applicants to med school these days this is easier said than done.

[Vallinar]

i thought the western interview gave ALOT of opportunity to sell yourself and discuss EC's, activities and experiences, much more so than Ottawa and more so than Queens.

[Alastriss]

more than queen's? no way in hell

[christinayangwannabe]

I only interviewed at Western

 

and one of the extra-curriculars I had mentioned WAS followed up...my verifier was phoned by one of the interviewers....so I'm pretty sure they MUST look back at something....however...whether or not is means anything is another question seeing as I'm on the waitlist :S

[Vallinar]

more than queen's? no way in hell

 

i thought so alastris...,my western interview was 1h and 5 mins... my queens one was only 35-40 mins

[lostintime]

Personally, I thoguht the Queens one gave you more opportunity to discuss your sketch, EC's, etc. UWO did give me an opportunity, but it was more structured.

 

But at the end of the day, there is a reason why people with more interviews get more acceptances..not just higher odds. Interviews not only take preparation, they take practice to get used to the atmosphere and selling yourself. No you do not have to be a smooth talker and exaggerate or anything, but you need to be comfortable in that setting. I felt a HUGE improvement in my mannerism from my 1st --> 2nd interview. I don't think I necessarily answered the questions that much better, but I was that much more calm than the first one.

[Sutler]

what's the typical question a verifier gets asked? what do they look for when they contact verifiers?

 

I only interviewed at Western

 

and one of the extra-curriculars I had mentioned WAS followed up...my verifier was phoned by one of the interviewers....so I'm pretty sure they MUST look back at something....however...whether or not is means anything is another question seeing as I'm on the waitlist :S

[aclementine]

what's the typical question a verifier gets asked? what do they look for when they contact verifiers?

 

I think it's basically a yes/no question.... Did student XYZ discover the cure for cancer when he/she worked in your lab from 1985 to 2009?

[Sheena815]

I felt a HUGE improvement in my mannerism from my 1st --> 2nd interview. I don't think I necessarily answered the questions that much better, but I was that much more calm than the first one.

 

Same here. I blurted out a couple incredibly dumb sounding things at my Queen's interview (and completely blanked on one question I simply didn't have an answer for) partly because I was SO nervous and had never done anything like this before. It didn't help that my interviewers were pretty poker faced the entire time. The doc didn't even look at me (stared at his notes throughout) and I'm pretty sure my community member didn't like me!

 

UWO, on the other hand, I was so much more composed and prepared, and my interviewers were really nice and actually conversational! That helped me to relax and be myself.

 

i thought so alastris...,my western interview was 1h and 5 mins... my queens one was only 35-40 mins

 

Wow, I was kinda worried cause my western interview was only 33 minutes! Queen's was over 50.

 

I felt my EC's were discussed more at Queen's, but the downside to them having everything in front of them was that I hadn't much choice in which activities we discussed. My "backup" was vet school (for which you HAVE to do a ton of volunteering under vets) and they seemed kinda suspicious of all the vet stuff I had relative to med stuff.

[christinayangwannabe]

It wasn't a yes/no...I'm not sure exactly how the conversation went...all I know is that the interviewer called my verifier, told him that he interviewed me, and then they talked about other stuff for like 1/2 an hour (the interviewer and my verifier were both in the same field and had never met/conversed before).