CutOff Posting

[Jochi1543]

I think Queen's should double their med school spaces.

 

Edit: I think all schools should double their med school spaces.

 

I think Law should be auto-rejected from all med schools, how about that.

[Jochi1543]

i'm not at all nervous, not yet at least, and watch me be the one cut out of us

 

I'm not nervous, either.

 

But saying I'd be cut would suggest I were nervous, sooo....

[Jochi1543]

I don't think it's a lack of respect at all. I know know - it decreases your shots for getting admitted if you are granted an interview. However, I think that Queen's, by interviewing 760 applicants, believes that there are alot of great doctors out there who don't necessarily have a 4.0 gpa and >34 mcat. I know lots of brillant people out there sitting with a 3.5-3.7 and the cut offs might be ridiculous if they move it to 500 and they might miss out on choosing these incredible people. Just because you have a 4.0 and great mcat doesn't mean you'll be a good doctor.

 

Yeah, but then this assumes you can come off as "incredible" in an interview that was cut 20 minutes short where your interviewers 1) have a preconceived notion of you from the file review, and nothing will change their opinion 2) start rolling their eyes at each other and checking their watches after they say "do you have anything else to add" and you actually say "yes" - the way it was in my interview.

[Alastriss]

I don't think it's a lack of respect at all. I know know - it decreases your shots for getting admitted if you are granted an interview. However, I think that Queen's, by interviewing 760 applicants, believes that there are alot of great doctors out there who don't necessarily have a 4.0 gpa and >34 mcat. I know lots of brillant people out there sitting with a 3.5-3.7 and the cut offs might be ridiculous if they move it to 500 and they might miss out on choosing these incredible people. Just because you have a 4.0 and great mcat doesn't mean you'll be a good doctor.

 

3.5-3.7 is a pretty low GPA assuming you haven't proven yourself in the last two years. Secondly having "great stories" to share doesn't mean you will be a good doctor either.

Besides if you want to admit the type of people you are suggesting, they might as well do pre-interview file reviews and select for people who might be more competitive. As I said the lack of respect is just my opinion. I may have gotten used to the idea of an interview being a "first date", but it seems now that its going to be a little one sided. Again, it comes back to my opinion, and again, selecting for a higher GPA and a higher mcat is going to tell you more about a person's aptitude for medicine than a 45 minute interview. There are also a lot of people with 4.0s and >35 that just haven't lived enough to tell the incredible stories that older applicants have, and a lot of which really isn't needed to make a good physician in the first place, but often makes a lasting impression on the interviewees.

[The Law]

3.5-3.7 is a pretty low GPA assuming you haven't proven yourself in the last two years.

 

Well, not necessarily. I have one bad grade from first year that's dramatically dropping my GPA down to a 3.70. I took a really hard class that had an incredibly low average and had I taken another class, my GPA would be looking a lot sexier. The GPA scale is somewhat ridiculous in and of itself and people in more challenging programs are diasdvantaged. Interviewing more people does make it harder to gain acceptance, but also, raising cutoffs to really high levels isn't necessarily going to select for people who are more likely to succeed in medicine. A lot of people have accomplishments that show they are able to take on very challenging tasks, while maintaining respectable GPAs. By keeping the cutoffs reasonable, the medical school is going to have a wider range of people to choose from and this will help them select the best possible candidate. The cutoffs are probably not going to be low by any stretch of the imagination (so as to hurt quality of the applicants they interview), and will allow them to fully review the applications of many more people.

 

In addition to that, a lot of people are in easier programs and get really high GPAs. By posting crazy cutoffs, you are giving these people an unnecessary advantage and cutting out some really tremendous applicants.

[supafield]

Generally people are going to argue based on their own strengths...

 

Mind you I think Ontario schools are at a point where they're not walking the line between acceptable and potentially unqualified applicants....

 

Some lower tier American schools are posting mean GPA's in the 3.3-3.5 range for their entering classes.

 

At some point you do start to teeter on the brink of interviewing questionable applicants.... but not in Ontario. What Queen's is doing is keeping the cutoffs from going beyond reasonable.

 

They do make an attempt at a file review post interview... taking interview score, reference letters and your sketch into account. So I have no problem with them bringing in more people to look at in favor of keeping cutoffs down. I don't believe there's too much difference in someone with a 2 yr gpa of 3.72 vs. 3.78 but then again I do sit right at last years cutoffs and would be inclined to argue for my own good, wouldn't I?

[Alastriss]

Lol law i'm sorry, not because I offended you, butbecause I didn't mean that 3.7 wasn't competitive. I meant 3.5-3.6 but for some reason hit 3.7 (I have a 3.74 myself).

 

What I was trying to say is having an incredible background is no excuse to be allowed in with low marks. We often lose sight about how important it is to be super unique and have a compelling story. And to an extent this holds, but it gets to a point where a super unique background isn't all that necessary to become a spectacular physician. Just because you didn't save babies in africa or tried really hard to get into meds for 9-10 years of your life does not mean you will become a doctor than someone who didn't. Yet it is these kinds of things that ultimately thrive in a panel interview with so many people. That is all I was trying to say.

 

Which brings me to supafield's point. The interview has a huge score. Sure they have kept the cutoffs reasonable, but I suspect that for you to stand out out of 760 people you will need to have unusual, or maybe we should use the world unreasonably deep experiences to draw on. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. This is once again me sharing my opinion, which may not be agreed upon at all. Comments sure are welcome, after all we have to post SOMETHING till the e-mails are sent out .

[The Law]

Haha, there was no offense taken at all. With current trends, 3.70 is not all that competitive. I have to agree with supafield's comments though, they're not walking the line between acceptable and potentially unqualified applicants... not even close. The cutoffs a few years ago were way, way more lenient. You do raise a good point though, by interviewing that many people, you must have some really compelling background to gain that acceptance spot.

 

The bottom line is that it's extremely competitive here. Many great people are not getting in. Our country is facing a major doctor shortage and we are not pumping out nearly enough doctors. The will is there for people to become doctors, but we aren't providing our students the opportunity to get in by keeping the number of spaces in our medical schools so low. I'm not intending on turning this into a political debate, but what are medical schools to do? It's not their faults that they need such difficult requirements. All of this stems from the lack of medical school spaces in our country.

[Jochi1543]

I suspect that for you to stand out out of 760 people you will need to have unusual, or maybe we should use the world unreasonably deep experiences to draw on.

 

QFT.

[Alastriss]

Someone said something and I think that much of what I am saying is emotionally based. I don't think I can objectively assess the rationality behind my argument.

 

I don't have a compelling story. I didn't live through a war, I didn't go through substandard living, I didn't go on a ridiculous oscar-winning journey for 10 years of my life trying to find my vocation and then realize that its medicine. I don't even have a moral dilemma example that plays out on epic levels. I don't have something unique that makes me stand out of 760 people. Well I feel I do, but it has no bearing on my ability to become a physician.

 

So realizing that I just don't have those experiences to draw on when I am up against 759 people, I feel disadvantaged. Why? because it will seem that I may be lacking in something, but I'm not. I don't need to have that movie quality story about my journey to find my career, and I don't need to have that compelling story to be dedicated to medicine.

As far as I'm concerned, one "cutoff" will be unreasonable. It's either going to be the one dealing with your numbers (GPA MCAT) or the one dealing with your life experiences. Given that Queen's questions are mainly "Describe a time when..", the latter is a big deal.

 

There is a "cutoff" that will become unreasonable. It just so happened that the "cutoff" is not the one I am in favor of, so that's probably why I am speaking like this. I bet things would be different if I was the guy just dying for a chance to "share my story".

[The_B]

3.5-3.7 is a pretty low GPA assuming you haven't proven yourself in the last two years. Secondly having "great stories" to share doesn't mean you will be a good doctor either.

Besides if you want to admit the type of people you are suggesting, they might as well do pre-interview file reviews and select for people who might be more competitive. As I said the lack of respect is just my opinion. I may have gotten used to the idea of an interview being a "first date", but it seems now that its going to be a little one sided. Again, it comes back to my opinion, and again, selecting for a higher GPA and a higher mcat is going to tell you more about a person's aptitude for medicine than a 45 minute interview. There are also a lot of people with 4.0s and >35 that just haven't lived enough to tell the incredible stories that older applicants have, and a lot of which really isn't needed to make a good physician in the first place, but often makes a lasting impression on the interviewees.

 

Very interesting argument Alastriss, I have read your posts in the past and often thought you made good arguments, but I have to take this one to task for one reason.

 

What makes a good physician isn't their experiences, you are right. But neither does their brains. Fact is, if you have a 3.0+ in university, you have the capacity to master the knowledge aspect of medicine. Making ever increasing cutoffs doesn't serve anyone. Too many qualified people would be left behind. You say that 45 minutes isn't enough to judge a person's aptitude, but you miss the point of the interview. It is meant to judge your temperament, maturity, ability to handle pressure, and get a sense of what drives you. During the interview, the interviewer may think it is cool that someone went to the Congo and brought peace to two warring tribes, but I can promise you the next question would be how. And questions like that are meant to get a sense of who you are. If you don't have good stories to tell, but come across as mature, thoughtful, and insightful, then I can promise you it would matter more than a great story. This is the mistake some people make when they go to the interview. They think they need to be someone else for the interviewers, and so come across as nervous, or non-genuine.

[Flame219]

Going back to the original argument, I think I agree to the fact that Queens set up too many interview spots for this year. With a ratio of 7.6: 1, for every one person to be admitted, there's 6-7 people getting rejected post-interview, and I think that's a bit unreasonable. Schools in the US get normally 6000-9000 applications, although the standards of applicants (at least from the POV of gpa and mcats) are not as high, they do manage to cut down the number of interviewees to a reasonable number (around the ratio of 3-4 : 1). Many applicants feel like they're qualified enough and prepared for the interview, travelling long distances, only to find out that they get rejected after. (At least for the majority) I mean, if it was you getting an invite for Queens, your attitude wouldn't really think that you'd be getting in as much as say if you got one from the other Ontario universities. (of course, that was just based on stats, I'm putting aside other factors for now)

[Retsage]

I agree with Alastriss, it is deeply disrespectful by the school's administration to make an already ****ty process even more stressful.

 

You want to cut down on applicants? Ask for an essay. Look at their activities. Take a holistic approach alongside with numbers. Don't bring 760 people to interviews when you will offer maybe 140 acceptances. Less than one in five interviewees will be accepted. That's atrocious. People are flying thousands of miles to these interviews, spending hundreds of dollars, for what? A minute chance to get a group of interviewers that they really hit it off with? 'Cause let's face it, the same person may charm the hell out of one person, irritate the hell out of a second, and be completely forgotten by a third all on the same day. And now, even more people will be lumped into that forgettable category.

 

Not cool. Not cool at all.

[Sheena815]

I don't have a compelling story. I didn't live through a war, I didn't go through substandard living, I didn't go on a ridiculous oscar-winning journey for 10 years of my life trying to find my vocation and then realize that its medicine. I don't even have a moral dilemma example that plays out on epic levels. I don't have something unique that makes me stand out of 760 people. Well I feel I do, but it has no bearing on my ability to become a physician.

 

So realizing that I just don't have those experiences to draw on when I am up against 759 people, I feel disadvantaged. Why? because it will seem that I may be lacking in something, but I'm not. I don't need to have that movie quality story about my journey to find my career, and I don't need to have that compelling story to be dedicated to medicine.

 

I can totally sympathize, as I was (and am) the exact same way. I too have no compelling story or wildly interesting/ inspirational/ altruistic reasons for my career choice. I personally find medicine waaaayyyy too romanticized and idealized as a career (to an extent that annoys me sometimes). Yes, its a unique job... but its still a JOB... I picked it cause I thought it would be the most rewarding, interesting and secure job for me personally. And that's pretty much it. The fact that one doesn't have some ultra-special reason for choosing medicine does NOT mean that one cannot make an exceptional physician.

 

And questions along this vein (yes, queen's asks you a lot about specific experiences and what you learned from them, regardless of whether you've had such an experience worth noting) seem to elicit a lot of BSing from applicants (myself included) who genuinely don't have an interesting answer but are aware that they need to stand out.

 

I don't have any real solution to this issue... just rambling my thoughts on the matter.

[QueensInterview2009]

Hi,

 

In response to the last post.

 

I am sorry that you feel that way. I can assure you that the decision to interview 760 people was in no way an attempt to make the incredibly toll-taking process more stressful than it already is.

 

Queen's has always had a pretty simple formula for getting an interview -- meet the cutoffs and you have one. Following this, your offer of admission was based on a. your interview b. your essays.

 

A. The interview is pretty self-explanatory. Perform well and that's that. You are certainly correct that the (randomly assigned) makeup of the panel can potentially make or break one's interview. One set of interviewers could be totally impressed by one person, while another set of interviewers might not. I happen to believe though, that someone who is honest, genuine and able to clearly express their thoughts is going to impress almost any set of interviewers they meet.

 

B. The problem with asking for an essay with the OMSAS submission and then using that essay to infer one's readiness for medicine based on life experiences, empathy, intelligence, communication, etc. is that people don't always write them themselves. Hired "advisers", friends, and parents often have a huge (or total) role in what turns out to be the finished product submitted to the universities. I know it is not the case for all, but certainly for many. In light of that, the increase in the number of interviewees was decided upon to be more fair to all of the applicants. Now, you will have the chance to fight your own battles and demonstrate your own worth.

 

Best of luck next week.

[sbrugby]

I can totally sympathize, as I was (and am) the exact same way. I too have no compelling story or wildly interesting/ inspirational/ altruistic reasons for my career choice. I personally find medicine waaaayyyy too romanticized and idealized as a career (to an extent that annoys me sometimes). Yes, its a unique job... but its still a JOB... I picked it cause I thought it would be the most rewarding, interesting and secure job for me personally. And that's pretty much it. The fact that one doesn't have some ultra-special reason for choosing medicine does NOT mean that one cannot make an exceptional physician.

 

 

I just had to quote this because I think this is a great post and I agree 100%

[kalia]

Are the interview questions standardized this year as they were last year? Or are they more geared towards our sketch like the years before?

[cling]

The problem with asking for an essay with the OMSAS submission and then using that essay to infer one's readiness for medicine based on life experiences, empathy, intelligence, communication, etc. is that people don't always write them themselves. Hired "advisers", friends, and parents often have a huge (or total) role in what turns out to be the finished product submitted to the universities.

 

Sounds like the QueensInterview people should knock some sense into the MacInterview and possibly UofTInterview . From the aspect of an applicant, it is much more meaningful to get rejected because you don't do well compared to others on some silly test or some silly class than for some random, small sample group to say "Hmm, her life does not sound impressive enough compared to others...not really doctor material" or the "I don't think medicine is the right career based on her volunteering record..."

At least low grades or MCAT indicate you did screw something up for whatever reason, but when someone says you lived your life the wrong way to qualify for a degree in medicine, it makes it much more difficult to swallow.

[Alastriss]

Ok this may be a super long post because I would like to share some of my ideas. Let's start with The_B's post. First and foremost, thanks for your reply The_B. I can't say I agree with someone being ok with a 3.0 GPA in undergrad. I think the most difficult part of medicine might be that you need to remember all the info and just recall it on the spot and communicate it to the patient who may have no idea what you are talking about. It also means being able to be innovative working with the patient to find the right solution for them, which requires a true mastery. Having extensive knowledge and mastery over it is something that should exude from a physician, it gives the patient confidence in the decisions you will be partaking in regarding their health-care. A 3.0 is just too low for that. I believe you are in meds tho right? so your opinion may be more credible, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

You bring up some great points regarding the interview. But we gotta remember a few things too. Some people are really good with words and use that to get their advantage (I knew someone with virtually 0 related experience that got into Queen's - she always had the right words and was contemplating this or law). Others know how to sell themselves, but wait - we aren't here to be salespeople.

 

Temperament, maturity and any virtue of the sort is a dime a dozen in the interview scenario. How many people do you think come off as unprofessional or immature? A lot of people have this, and I agree an interview does measure this like you said, but its not NEARLY the entire picture.

 

"Also a lot of interviewees get a sense of what drives you and everyone has their reason" I am so glad you have brought up this point because I can show you exactly what I mean. If you have two people. One guy in their 4th year and another guy who had a "revelation" when they went abroad or had spent the last 9 years seeking their career. It is really not that hard to believe that the applicant who had some crazy experience will a stand out, and will just appear to be more driven.

 

Secondly, these "uncommon" experiences are what really makes that interviewer stop playing with their pen, rocking in their chair, and REALLY listen to what you have to say. I have seen this in so many interviews so far. The moment I bring up that I went abroad, they ALL perk up. Then the line of questioning begins. The fact is experiences that are unique make these interviewers be biased to whatever you will be saying for the rest of the session. It may be enough to have them circle that "7" instead of that "6", or that little extra effort to make the report presented to the panel just a touch better. If you don't stand out, you are like what Retsage said "in that unforgettable category".

 

With 760 people, it's not about having NO answer to "why not x applicant?" - this is not enough. It will be "Why applicant x?". Having these ridiculous experiences will be concomitant with having a solid answer for "Why applicant x".

 

 

This is the mistake some people make when they go to the interview. They think they need to be someone else for the interviewers, and so come across as nervous, or non-genuine.

 

I will seriously reflect on this The_B. I really like what you said here. I am very much looking forward to your response, as I suspect many others are as well, so don't keep us waiting too long!

 

 

I can totally sympathize, as I was (and am) the exact same way. I too have no compelling story or wildly interesting/ inspirational/ altruistic reasons for my career choice. I personally find medicine waaaayyyy too romanticized and idealized as a career (to an extent that annoys me sometimes). Yes, its a unique job... but its still a JOB... I picked it cause I thought it would be the most rewarding, interesting and secure job for me personally. And that's pretty much it. The fact that one doesn't have some ultra-special reason for choosing medicine does NOT mean that one cannot make an exceptional physician.

 

Double quote for this one. Sometimes it seems that people expect physicians to be experts at everything. Some of my friends "mock interview" me out of no where and expect me to be an expert on foreign economic policies, have read every bestseller novel out there,know the health-care of Canada and other countries of the world like I am a policy analyst, and know the scoop on current events all the time. Ugh, sometimes they forget I'm interviewing for an opportunity for a career, not to be a Messiah.

 

 

The interview is pretty self-explanatory. Perform well and that's that. You are certainly correct that the (randomly assigned) makeup of the panel can potentially make or break one's interview. One set of interviewers could be totally impressed by one person, while another set of interviewers might not. I happen to believe though, that someone who is honest, genuine and able to clearly express their thoughts is going to impress almost any set of interviewers they meet.

 

I really think people underestimate how many people who really are genuine get in. And How many people who aren't genuine still get in. So really, its not nearly as simple as you put it. We can call out so many people here who have just gone into interviews with a panel who was apathetic from the very first minute. It is simply too subjective. That's what sucks about these panels, it isn't perform well and that's that. It's perform well and hope to God you hit the jackpot with your interviewees.

[Guest viscous]

Ok this may be a super long post because I would like to share some of my ideas. Let's start with The_B's post. First and foremost, thanks for your reply The_B. I can't say I agree with someone being ok with a 3.0 GPA in undergrad. I think the most difficult part of medicine might be that you need to remember all the info and just recall it on the spot and communicate it to the patient who may have no idea what you are talking about. It also means being able to be innovative working with the patient to find the right solution for them, which requires a true mastery. Having extensive knowledge and mastery over it is something that should exude from a physician, it gives the patient confidence in the decisions you will be partaking in regarding their health-care. A 3.0 is just too low for that. I believe you are in meds tho right? so your opinion may be more credible, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

You bring up some great points regarding the interview. But we gotta remember a few things too. Some people are really good with words and use that to get their advantage (I knew someone with virtually 0 related experience that got into Queen's - she always had the right words and was contemplating this or law). Others know how to sell themselves, but wait - we aren't here to be salespeople.

 

Temperament, maturity and any virtue of the sort is a dime a dozen in the interview scenario. How many people do you think come off as unprofessional or immature? A lot of people have this, and I agree an interview does measure this like you said, but its not NEARLY the entire picture.

 

"Also a lot of interviewees get a sense of what drives you and everyone has their reason" I am so glad you have brought up this point because I can show you exactly what I mean. If you have two people. One guy in their 4th year and another guy who had a "revelation" when they went abroad or had spent the last 9 years seeking their career. It is really not that hard to believe that the applicant who had some crazy experience will a stand out, and will just appear to be more driven.

 

Secondly, these "uncommon" experiences are what really makes that interviewer stop playing with their pen, rocking in their chair, and REALLY listen to what you have to say. I have seen this in so many interviews so far. The moment I bring up that I went abroad, they ALL perk up. Then the line of questioning begins. The fact is experiences that are unique make these interviewers be biased to whatever you will be saying for the rest of the session. It may be enough to have them circle that "7" instead of that "6", or that little extra effort to make the report presented to the panel just a touch better. If you don't stand out, you are like what Retsage said "in that unforgettable category".

 

With 760 people, it's not about having NO answer to "why not x applicant?" - this is not enough. It will be "Why applicant x?". Having these ridiculous experiences will be concomitant with having a solid answer for "Why applicant x".

 

 

 

 

I will seriously reflect on this The_B. I really like what you said here. I am very much looking forward to your response, as I suspect many others are as well, so don't keep us waiting too long!

 

 

 

 

Double quote for this one. Sometimes it seems that people expect physicians to be experts at everything. Some of my friends "mock interview" me out of no where and expect me to be an expert on foreign economic policies, have read every bestseller novel out there,know the health-care of Canada and other countries of the world like I am a policy analyst, and know the scoop on current events all the time. Ugh, sometimes they forget I'm interviewing for an opportunity for a career, not to be a Messiah.

 

 

 

 

I really think people underestimate how many people who really are genuine get in. And How many people who aren't genuine still get in. So really, its not nearly as simple as you put it. We can call out so many people here who have just gone into interviews with a panel who was apathetic from the very first minute. It is simply too subjective. That's what sucks about these panels, it isn't perform well and that's that. It's perform well and hope to God you hit the jackpot with your interviewees.

 

1 love for speaking my thoughts. I feel that every person's life experiences are unique if they learn something out of it, and we have no objective criteria available, as of now and probably will never, to judge and rank them on the basis of their suitability to medicine.

 

Who is the ad-com to decide that the son of a rich daddy or mommy, who were the heads of some health department in some hospital, who had the chance (time, luxury and money) to go to Uganda to help deliver babies is better than a newly arrived immigrant who is trying his best to do some community work in a local clinic and, to make his ends meet and to keep at gpa at 4.0 ...

[lostintime]

The thing with the GPA is that some programs and schools are more challenging than others. Sure, this is politically incorrect but it's simply true based on the demographics of your competition.

 

So a 3.0 at one place is NOT equivalent to a 3.0 elsewhere, so when you really look at it, there is no one great predictor of anything.

[kalia]

I personally would rather have Queen's admissions process, both post and pre-interview, than McMaster's. What does a high GPA and 5 random questions tell you about an individual? A high GPA can be acquired easily with the right courses and an easy program. 5 random questions marked by random people does not, in my mind, suggest standardization. Queen's, on the other hand, is trying to give a chance to ppl who might not have 4.0 GPAs, those who did willingly take challenging courses even if it will lower their GPA. Post-interview, everybody is on a level playing field. People who have received an interview have passed the academic portion of admission, and now, it's time to determine if the individual has the characteristics to be a doctor. Is the interview process subjective? Yes, but it's like that for all universities in Ontario, especially universities which use the traditional 2 or 3 to 1 interviewing approach. In this respect, I think Mac's MMI is more standardized among applicants, as everybody gets the same interviewers (for that interview day at least). However, for the rest of the universities in Ontario which don't use MMI, there will be a subjective portion in the interview regardless, as the resources to get the same group of people interviewing hundreds of eligible applicants (whether it's 400, 500 or 700) is simply impossible and very time-consuming.

[The_B]

Haha I will respond Alastriss, simply because I was impressed by your post again.

 

1)

3.0 is enough really. Medicine isn’t difficult in terms of content; it is difficult in terms of volume. Fact is, if you can pull a 3.0 (my arbitrary cutoff for medicine) you have can study enough to learn everything you’ll need to know. Anyone can read something enough to eventually remember it. Sure there are those special few that read something once and have total mastery of it, but the majority studies a fair amount to get those high GPAs. I’ll admit that it may speak to their commitment, but my point was that I can understand Queens not wanting to limit themselves in who they interview based solely on that cutoff, as it isn’t (IMO) a good gauge of who will make a good physician.

 

2)

You mention that some people are good with words in an interview. Well that is kinda important. Being a good physician means having the skills to communicate with a multitude of different people and convey what you need to. Being able to sell yourself is much the same skill as being able to sell your idea and educate others, which are fundamentals in medicine, and difficult to teach. So those who can show they can do that in an interview are showing the interview panel they understand one of the important aspects of being a physician.

 

3)

You are right, saying you have had a cool experience helps get the interviewers attention. But I think you underestimate yourself in understanding what is considered “cool” to the interviewer. For me, when I interviewed many moons ago, I talked about ultimate Frisbee. I got one of those, “what is that, tell me more things”. The interviewers want to know you as a person, and these experiences often help show that. Maybe you are is someone who travels the world which is great (unless I interview you, then BORING ) but really what matters is that you haven’t been someone who solely focuses on being a doctor and cares for little else. These people rarely make great doctors, because they learn that there is more to life eventually, and move on, or they burn out.

 

4)

On a more focused note, my advice for people is usually: do ONE mock interview, and only one. The reason for this interview isn’t to prepare for some questions, but to get an idea if you do things during an interview that you probably don’t want to do. Some people fidget when they are nervous, some play with their hair. Maybe you are a lot louder (or not loud enough) and it puts people off. That is the beauty of the mock. Otherwise, that rehearsed, non genuine thing comes back to bite you. Don’t worry about not knowing certain facts. If you don’t know who the current minister of health is, simply say, I don’t know. The only answer I think one should be prepared for is: “why do you want to be a doctor”. Personally, if I was asked that again, I would say: “this is going to sound rehearsed, because it is. I have thought this over in my mind a lot in the last little while because I wanted to be sure with myself if I wanted to make this kind of commitment” then go into your schpeal. Other than that obvious question, it is better to be yourself. You’d probably be surprised how much poise and confidence counts. I can promise you, it usually matters more than the words used.

 

5)

This is kind of a cheat sheet, but I’ll throw this out there for people to get an idea of what medicine is looking for. This will also help you to understand why I don’t think anything more than a 3.0 is required. http://rcpsc.medical.org/canmeds/index.php

 

As you can see, scholar is but one aspect of the pie (or flower in this silly diagram...why not use pie, I mean who doesn't love pie....but I digress) If you want to over-prepare and try to be something you are not and tell the interviewers what they want to hear, and you think you can do so without coming across as fake, just have a way of answering these roles. Obviously, I think you'd do yourself a disservice in doing this, but I know there are people out there that will ignore this advice and think that more preparation is better.

[Odie]

Hi,

 

In response to the last post.

 

I am sorry that you feel that way. I can assure you that the decision to interview 760 people was in no way an attempt to make the incredibly toll-taking process more stressful than it already is.

 

Queen's has always had a pretty simple formula for getting an interview -- meet the cutoffs and you have one. Following this, your offer of admission was based on a. your interview b. your essays.

 

A. The interview is pretty self-explanatory. Perform well and that's that. You are certainly correct that the (randomly assigned) makeup of the panel can potentially make or break one's interview. One set of interviewers could be totally impressed by one person, while another set of interviewers might not. I happen to believe though, that someone who is honest, genuine and able to clearly express their thoughts is going to impress almost any set of interviewers they meet.

 

B. The problem with asking for an essay with the OMSAS submission and then using that essay to infer one's readiness for medicine based on life experiences, empathy, intelligence, communication, etc. is that people don't always write them themselves. Hired "advisers", friends, and parents often have a huge (or total) role in what turns out to be the finished product submitted to the universities. I know it is not the case for all, but certainly for many. In light of that, the increase in the number of interviewees was decided upon to be more fair to all of the applicants. Now, you will have the chance to fight your own battles and demonstrate your own worth.

 

Best of luck next week.

 

How do you know all this info about Queen's if you don't mind my asking????? Thank you for everything by the way

[Alastriss]

Haha I will respond Alastriss, simply because I was impressed by your post again.

 

1)

3.0 is enough really. Medicine isn’t difficult in terms of content; it is difficult in terms of volume. Fact is, if you can pull a 3.0 (my arbitrary cutoff for medicine) you have can study enough to learn everything you’ll need to know. Anyone can read something enough to eventually remember it. Sure there are those special few that read something once and have total mastery of it, but the majority studies a fair amount to get those high GPAs. I’ll admit that it may speak to their commitment, but my point was that I can understand Queens not wanting to limit themselves in who they interview based solely on that cutoff, as it isn’t (IMO) a good gauge of who will make a good physician.

 

2)

You mention that some people are good with words in an interview. Well that is kinda important. Being a good physician means having the skills to communicate with a multitude of different people and convey what you need to. Being able to sell yourself is much the same skill as being able to sell your idea and educate others, which are fundamentals in medicine, and difficult to teach. So those who can show they can do that in an interview are showing the interview panel they understand one of the important aspects of being a physician.

 

3)

You are right, saying you have had a cool experience helps get the interviewers attention. But I think you underestimate yourself in understanding what is considered “cool” to the interviewer. For me, when I interviewed many moons ago, I talked about ultimate Frisbee. I got one of those, “what is that, tell me more things”. The interviewers want to know you as a person, and these experiences often help show that. Maybe you are is someone who travels the world which is great (unless I interview you, then BORING ) but really what matters is that you haven’t been someone who solely focuses on being a doctor and cares for little else. These people rarely make great doctors, because they learn that there is more to life eventually, and move on, or they burn out.

 

4)

On a more focused note, my advice for people is usually: do ONE mock interview, and only one. The reason for this interview isn’t to prepare for some questions, but to get an idea if you do things during an interview that you probably don’t want to do. Some people fidget when they are nervous, some play with their hair. Maybe you are a lot louder (or not loud enough) and it puts people off. That is the beauty of the mock. Otherwise, that rehearsed, non genuine thing comes back to bite you. Don’t worry about not knowing certain facts. If you don’t know who the current minister of health is, simply say, I don’t know. The only answer I think one should be prepared for is: “why do you want to be a doctor”. Personally, if I was asked that again, I would say: “this is going to sound rehearsed, because it is. I have thought this over in my mind a lot in the last little while because I wanted to be sure with myself if I wanted to make this kind of commitment” then go into your schpeal. Other than that obvious question, it is better to be yourself. You’d probably be surprised how much poise and confidence counts. I can promise you, it usually matters more than the words used.

 

5)

This is kind of a cheat sheet, but I’ll throw this out there for people to get an idea of what medicine is looking for. This will also help you to understand why I don’t think anything more than a 3.0 is required. http://rcpsc.medical.org/canmeds/index.php

 

As you can see, scholar is but one aspect of the pie (or flower in this silly diagram...why not use pie, I mean who doesn't love pie....but I digress) If you want to over-prepare and try to be something you are not and tell the interviewers what they want to hear, and you think you can do so without coming across as fake, just have a way of answering these roles. Obviously, I think you'd do yourself a disservice in doing this, but I know there are people out there that will ignore this advice and think that more preparation is better.

 

 

hey The_B. Thanks for the response. I just wanted to point one 1 thing. I think why I said more than 3.0 was part of my definition of a physician is doing a good deal of research. I didn't articulate this before, but after a few moments of reflection I have come to conclude that it was an underlying reason that moved me to state that I felt that more than a 3.0 is required. I believe it was the Mayo Brothers who said this, but the quote is something along the lines of "The ultimate goal of medicine should be to eliminate the role of a physician". Without research, nothing changes, and I feel that intelligence is critical to an MD to advance at least the clinical facets of research.

 

I hear you on the communication. But let me rephrase. Communication is very important there is no question. Yet I believe the communication a physician should possess is different than what I was alluding to, which is more characteristic of a Lawyer. Think communication like in the speech by Al pachino in "Any Given Sunday" or Mel Gibson in Braveheart.

 

A lot of people have that. I have friends who do and some who just don't. I know a friend who is a lurker her but has had very little success. I would trust this girl with my life if she were a physician. She is gifted, compassionate, and reliable, but she feels like she doesn't "inspire" when she talks. This 'x factor' (for a lack of a better word in my lexicon to articulate this notion) is something that plays a bigger role. However in the end, this x factor is me debating semantics, because a ton of people without it still get in. Just wanted to clarify that bit.

 

You also reminded me of something. When I did my fourth year thesis, my professor was a faculty interviewer for Queen's. She, along with another prof I had gotten to know on the same floor, said the same thing. It got to a point where a lot of applicants just sounded the same because they both felt that the answers all sounded so prepared and memorized. Just wanted to throw it out there.

 

 

(btw which med school are you at, and what year)