supafield Posted December 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 "I heard" (from a friend of a friend who is a student involved with admissions) Western originally tried to keep it the same.... but rendered too many interviews.... their second option was to try a 10,10,10 with a 32 overall and it gave them too few, so they mixed up the numbers until they got the # of interviews they liked. By considering the whole Queens 9,9,9 R business.... It would make good sense if they were just trying to differentiate themselves from Western.... so they didn't accept all the same people as may have been the case in the past. I suggest this because of the WS.... While I'm not outraged it went up that high given they had a 10,10,10 P they year before.... and a 10,10,10 P with a 32 overall 2 years before that, to change their lowest percentile cutoff (the P) to the highest percentile cutoff (The R) a year later is obscure and inconsistent. However... now they have a bunch of applicants with 9's that didn't get an interview at Western and are auditioning just for them. So there is my theory.... lol likely completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBP Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 queens doesnt want science students to get into medicine humanities is better prep, because you can write better essays . the medical field is all about well thought out prose you know? doesnt matter if you know anything about physiology , after all, your capacity to write well directly correlates with your capacity to understand the science of the body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
young_n_ambitious Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 being sarcastic ? queens doesnt want science students to get into medicine humanities is better prep, because you can write better essays . the medical field is all about well thought out prose you know? doesnt matter if you know anything about physiology , after all, your capacity to write well directly correlates with your capacity to understand the science of the body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 I figure that he was being sarcastic haha. Anyways. Western Owns. School is sick. Number 1 choice here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoMed Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 I figure that he was being sarcastic haha. Anyways. Western Owns. School is sick. Number 1 choice here. I'll second that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egorema@hotmail.com Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I think if they dropped VR to a 9, a lot of people would be happy. agree... I would myself for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 If you want a predictable cookie cutter approach to getting interviews go to the U.S. Then compete for residency based on the prestige of your school. I've read through this thread before, but I must have missed this line the first time. Nicely put. i'm glad some of you you love your smaller cities/towns. i just hope that our discussion will help others make a more informed decision as to what school to attend. I doubt that many need this thread to help them contrast London and Toronto. Also, city is just a piece of the puzzle. I would moderately prefer to live in Toronto over London, but I much prefer Schulich's curriculum to U of T's, so my preference swings this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egorema@hotmail.com Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I wish VR drops to a 9 for 09/10 since i didnt apply this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FockI'mOld! Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 This wait is killing me:eek: Does anyone know when they posted the cutoffs last year? :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'd give it a couple of weeks more. Don't stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 This wait is killing me:eek: Does anyone know when they posted the cutoffs last year? :eek: Cutoffs went up January 25th last year, so we've still got some waiting to do. Hope things work out for anyone who's borderline! (If this is the year they decide to raise the GPA cutoff, I may leap off a building ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In_Valid Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Cutoffs went up January 25th last year, so we've still got some waiting to do. Hope things work out for anyone who's borderline! (If this is the year they decide to raise the GPA cutoff, I may leap off a building ). hopefully the building isn't too tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 hopefully the building isn't too tall. I'm thinking bigger than a dog house, but smaller than the CN Tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Did someone hear that Schulich is increasing the number of interviewed as well? or am I confusing this with Queen's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafield Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Did someone hear that Schulich is increasing the number of interviewed as well? or am I confusing this with Queen's? Darla had told me in a meeting that they were interviewing more people than ever this year prior to knowing how many people applied. While I can't remember the numbers she told me I remember going home and checking the amount of interviews they had last year and thinking they interviewed just as many people last year as she just mentioned to me lol. So she may have misquoted a number to me or who knows, but she did say out loud we will be interviewing more people than ever before this year. Hope that helps as unofficial as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 So she said they were interviewing more than ever this year, and then she told you a number, and you went home and checked, and it turned out that the number was the same as last years? which btw is ~ 470 (I e-mailed them and checked sometime last year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafield Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 So she said they were interviewing more than ever this year, and then she told you a number, and you went home and checked, and it turned out that the number was the same as last years? which btw is ~ 470 (I e-mailed them and checked sometime last year). Exactly.... and if I remember correctly she either said it would be more like 450 or 475 this year... and then I read the dean's report and thought to myself that's not more. So either she just grabbed #'s off the top of her head, or she didn't realized that they upped the interview number last year. She's quite the bright lady it seems though so if I had to guess.... she probably just didn't have the #'s off the top of her head.... The reason she brought up the number of interviews is because we were going over my stats and I have a 12,10,10 S and said I was worried about the 10 in bio.... which prompted her to say that they were interviewing more people so while there were no guarantees she wouldn't have been surprised if Bio went back to a 10. Who knows what that all means!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Exactly.... and if I remember correctly she either said it would be more like 450 or 475 this year... and then I read the dean's report and thought to myself that's not more. So either she just grabbed #'s off the top of her head, or she didn't realized that they upped the interview number last year. She's quite the bright lady it seems though so if I had to guess.... she probably just didn't have the #'s off the top of her head.... The reason she brought up the number of interviews is because we were going over my stats and I have a 12,10,10 S and said I was worried about the 10 in bio.... which prompted her to say that they were interviewing more people so while there were no guarantees she wouldn't have been surprised if Bio went back to a 10. Who knows what that all means!? Oh Phew. It seems she meant a few more than ever before and not a +260 like Queen's. Although I really really hope they decide to keep the number interviewed at 500 for Queen's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalia Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 The reason she brought up the number of interviews is because we were going over my stats and I have a 12,10,10 S and said I was worried about the 10 in bio.... which prompted her to say that they were interviewing more people so while there were no guarantees she wouldn't have been surprised if Bio went back to a 10. Who knows what that all means!? Huh. That says quite a bit actually. Queen's, on the other hand, is completely mum on the cutoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Huh. That says quite a bit actually. Queen's, on the other hand, is completely mum on the cutoffs. Well, I think she meant it as helpful speculation - i.e. if we want more interviews than last year, with all other things being equal, the cutoffs are likely to drop. But, then there was a jump in the total number of applications this year... so who knows, really. We'll find out in a week or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafield Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yes I believe so too in regard to the helpful speculation. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In_Valid Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think this whole increase in number of applicants thing is a sham. The only reason why there are more applicants is because Western removed the essay component of its application. A lot of people who may have not applied before (i.e. they don't think they had a chance) may apply just for the hell of it. I know I did that at Queen's. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafield Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think last year western and queens showed that their cutoffs that had either remained stable or increased each year all of a sudden allowed for a 9 on an mcat subject. I think this new variability prompted a lot of people that would have once believed that the cutoffs would never change to rethink that thought and go ahead with an anything could happen ideology. I also agree with the essays being gone more people said what the hell, why not try lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I honestly feel that the 9 10 11 is less competitive than a 10 10 10. Think about it, most students that apply are students that would have a stronger background in bio (all those life scis, medical scis, health scis, bchm, you name it). Generally speaking VR >> PS> BS in terms of difficulty. To compensate for that BS is put last so you are worn out by the end. If the cutoffs need to be more competitive, I would expect a 10 10 10 Q once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I honestly feel that the 9 10 11 is less competitive than a 10 10 10. Think about it, most students that apply are students that would have a stronger background in bio (all those life scis, medical scis, health scis, bchm, you name it). Generally speaking VR >> PS> BS in terms of difficulty. To compensate for that BS is put last so you are worn out by the end. If the cutoffs need to be more competitive, I would expect a 10 10 10 Q once again. There is some logic to what you are saying, but since the the MCAT has a scaled score should that completely compensate for the generally higher level of bio knowledge? I mean if everyone that took the MCAT were bio gods/goddesses there would still be the same number of 10s, 11s, 12s... etc handed out in the end, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.