lostintime Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Everyone has different opinions and I totally respect yours The_B, but I think I disagree with two points. 1) I don't agree with setting arbitrary GPA cutoffs as being "valid" or "enough". It is VERY program-dependent and to some extent school-dependent. For some engineering programs out there, a 3.0 is considered like top 5% of the class and that is certainly not the same as another class where > 50% of the class is at a 3.0. However, I am not here to bash GPA cutoffs because there are x # applicants and x # spots, and there has to be SOME way of cutting them down. Therefore, you use cut-offs, MCAT, etc. Whether a holistic approach is applied or not doesn't really mean one method is "better" than the other and there really is no one perfect method. But that does not validate this arbitrary set point that somehow a 3.0 as a cutoff is enough and a 3.9 is too ridiculous of a cutoff. 2) Prep for interviews...depends on you personally. If you're the type that CAN quickly think on your feet in verbal situations, pretty witty in real life, and very used to these type of situations, over-prep might psych you out instead of doing you more good. HOWEVER, if you are not used to this type of thing, if you are a bit more introverted, have not thought carefully about how to phrase certain things, then you should really prep as much as you can. Sometimes it's not about "cheating the system" and "rehearsing answers" as it is simply trying to make sure you've got your bases covered. And prep really depends on how you view it. Just because you THINK you know the answer doesn't mean you will be able to articulate it that well in a high pressure situation. There are some questions you are BOUND to be asked, and you really are doing yourself injustice if you don't prep a great # of times to make sure you got it down pat. If you are already good at this, then don't bother. But I am willing to bet not every applicant is, and that is okay. That doesn't mean you're less worthy and seriously I think if someone goes to the effort of prepping and doing all the work before hand to try their best, it shows initiatve as well. Not EVERYONE is super human and well-read on politics, current events, healthcare system, etc. So really it's up to you to decide what you need to do to make a good interview. Prepare well (whether it's simply re-reading your statement, doing mocks, or anyway that works for you ~ some people need more prep, others less), and that's all you can do at this point. Whether you get good/bad interviewers who like/dislike you is not really up to you at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneDay Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 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. So you feel that you need great marks to do research? Notice how MSc and PhD programs have much lower cutoffs than med school. Grad school and research is much different from memorizing and recalling info that you would do in undergrad classes. I know many grad students, post-docs, PhDs etc, who did not have 4.0s in undergrad. The recent inflation in undergrad marks is what's driving the med school cutoffs to be higher, as well as the limited number of spots. For grad school admissions however, the competition is not as fierce. So GPA cutoffs are lower. I just don't think that you need a 4.0 to be a great physician or to do research. Marks depend a lot on what program and university you were at, and it's not always a true relfection of intelligence/ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 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. So you feel that you need great marks to do research? Notice how MSc and PhD programs have much lower cutoffs than med school. Grad school and research is much different from memorizing and recalling info that you would do in undergrad classes. I know many grad students, post-docs, PhDs etc, who did not have 4.0s in undergrad. The recent inflation in undergrad marks is what's driving the med school cutoffs to be higher, as well as the limited number of spots. For grad school admissions however, the competition is not as fierce. So GPA cutoffs are lower. I just don't think that you need a 4.0 to be a great physician or to do research. Marks depend a lot on what program and university you were at, and it's not always a true relfection of intelligence/ability. Nope. The_B and I assumed that GPA correlates with intelligence and critical thinking. So I am trying to explain that it takes more than just memorizing knowledge and spitting it out to be good at research (hey you just said that), which the_b feels a 3.0 is just adequate for. Secondly, A lot of classes in undergrad are more than just information spitting but I guess this varies. Secondly MSc and PhD programs have lower cutoffs because they are less desired than med school. There are people who are attracted by the money and prestige you can get at med school, and the idea of medicine (because it is so diverse in and of itself) appeals to a much much much larger crowd than spending x hours in a lab. Thirdly, I know some profs that won't take students who don't have marks equal to what you would need to get into medicine, so some grad programs do look at marks as well. I never said that you need a 4.0 to do research, and I have no idea how you can make that leap from what I said. I just disagreed that a 3.0 was "adequate", and just because I do disagree with a 3.0, doesn't mean I think a 4.0 is what you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_B Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Ok, let me respond to a few things. 1- To the interview prep part; I'm just stating what I find to be true. I could be wrong, but I think it is hard to come across as genuine while also having readymade answers for the questions you are to face. But hey, whatever floats your boat. I simply stated my advice for others...and advice isn't always right. 2- Meh, research The 3.0 cutoff I was alluding to what simply the cutoff I believe people need to meet intellectually to handle medical school. Of course it is program dependent, and of course a higher GPA is better than a low one, but really, if you went to a Canadian university, and got 3.0 or higher, you have the chops to handle medical school. That’s my point. Nothing more. As to the research thing, from my experience in seeing it (and doing a bit myself), what makes a good researcher isn't intellect, it is work ethic. Sure there are those very select few that will win Nobel prizes, but they'll get in anyways The vast majority of quality research done in medicine is simply trial and error. 3- To the communication thing. This one is tough, because I do understand what you are saying Alastriss. I have known many introverts that are very competent and caring people, and I would trust them with my life as well; but having said that, I can say that because I had the time to get to know them. Being a good communicator in medicine means you can foster rapport in a short encounter with a patient, have a quick dialogue with them, and communicate what needs to be said to them. The first few years of medical school in clinical skills are all about the interview because it is where the bulk of your information will come from… much like the interview to get into medical school. 4- I’m here at Queen’s and I’m chugging along in 3rd year right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 You guys have made some very good points, but I just thought I should point out that as someone who will be conducting the interviews at some point (though not for Queens), I would tend to be more impressed with someone who simply worked during their summers to help put themselves through school as opposed to volunteering overseas, etc. The reason is, someone who worked in the summer to pay their way through school I can pretty much know for certain that they didn't simply do so to put it on their resume, whereas with volunteering abroad, I wouldn't know. I think it shows maturity and dedication and an ability to be realistic if you use your summers to work as opposed to simply asking parents for a cheque when paying tuition. My 2 cents, take from it what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheena815 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I agree with Mick. I'm really looking forward to being an interviewer. I will definitely be impressed by students that don't look like they're picking all the standard activities that they think adcoms want to see (menial hospital volunteering, overseas volunteering, etc.) These are good things to do, of course, but they're so... cliched at this point for a premed- don't think your interviewers aren't aware that part of your motivation for doing these activities was probably to pad your resume (if you're one of those people who genuinely just really wanted to volunteer overseas, with no thought about how it would help you get in that's great, but be aware that that perception is out there.) It would be refreshing to see candidates who do totally unique and different things with their spare time (non med related as well as med related), as well as responsible things like working in the summer to pay your tuition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00b Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 They should just implement the US approach. The Canadian system is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 So maybe there's hope for us old, non-traditional premeds, if we are lucky enough to get an interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I agree with Mick. I'm really looking forward to being an interviewer. I will definitely be impressed by students that don't look like they're picking all the standard activities that they think adcoms want to see (menial hospital volunteering, overseas volunteering, etc.) These are good things to do, of course, but they're so... cliched at this point for a premed- don't think your interviewers aren't aware that part of your motivation for doing these activities was probably to pad your resume (if you're one of those people who genuinely just really wanted to volunteer overseas, with no thought about how it would help you get in that's great, but be aware that that perception is out there.) It would be refreshing to see candidates who do totally unique and different things with their spare time (non med related as well as med related), as well as responsible things like working in the summer to pay your tuition. You know sheena you bring up a good point. I want to say that the one thing I love the interview is that you can tell which activities are done to pad and which ones you do because you enjoy. It's not what you say it's how you say it. When a friend of mine was giving me a mock, she knew which ones I was so passionate about and which ones I was doing to put on my application. For the former, I got on the edge of my seat, got into the conversation and went on and on about what I liked. For the latter, I was like "yeah..I do this..its cool". That's why this year I cut my list down from 35 items to the 20 that really meant something to me. I know some of my friends disagreed, but as far as I am concerned, if they any of those 45 minutes I have go to asking me about something I wasn't passionate about I would have wasted time and made myself look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueensInterview2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 How do you know all this info about Queen's if you don't mind my asking????? Thank you for everything by the way I am helping to plan this interview weekend. The information is based on meetings with the admissions directors. Good luck in your preparation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Personally, I'd say working at a camp over the summer is as valid as any other summer job. My thinking is you have the motivation/responsibility/etc to have a job in the summer. Really depends on who your interviewers are though. I put emphasis on having held a job and making an effort to pay for your own education (any job, doesn't matter if it's med related or not), but that's my bias, and doesn't apply to all interviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odie Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I am helping to plan this interview weekend. The information is based on meetings with the admissions directors. Good luck in your preparation. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcwxyz Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Yeah, see, this is the problem with interviews... with all the talk about the unfairness of X GPA as a cutoff, as least it's objective. Interviewers are already posting in this thread their own biases and how they will subjectively pick some applicants without basis. There is no reason that working to support oneself is better or worse than volunteering abroad. There is also no reason that following the typical route of premed activities is better or worse than not following said activities. The apparent biases of the interviewers in this thread is surely to cloud their judgment. I guess this is what the MMI was supposed to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcwxyz Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 don't think your interviewers aren't aware that part of your motivation for doing these activities was probably to pad your resume The reason is, someone who worked in the summer to pay their way through school I can pretty much know for certain that they didn't simply do so to put it on their resume, whereas with volunteering abroad, I wouldn't know. I think it shows maturity and dedication and an ability to be realistic if you use your summers to work as opposed to simply asking parents for a cheque when paying tuition. My 2 cents, take from it what you will. Yeh most biased **** ever. This is the problem with interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoMed Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yeah, see, this is the problem with interviews... with all the talk about the unfairness of X GPA as a cutoff, as least it's objective. Interviewers are already posting in this thread their own biases and how they will subjectively pick some applicants without basis. There is no reason that working to support oneself is better or worse than volunteering abroad. There is also no reason that following the typical route of premed activities is better or worse than not following said activities. The apparent biases of the interviewers in this thread is surely to cloud their judgment. I guess this is what the MMI was supposed to fix. I too am frustrated with the admissions process, and I understand all of the anxiety that a "subjective" experience in an interview can present all of us; however, I would argue that medicine is a very subjective career and that uncertainty is a fact of life. If you want objective measures for everything, maybe try looking at accounting as a career? Looking for the best, well-rounded candidates should be assessed using both objective and subjective material. Frankly, stating that the interviewers have no basis in their subjective decisions is untrue. Every rational person has a basis for their decisions--whether or not you agree with those decisions is what is debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastriss Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I too am frustrated with the admissions process, and I understand all of the anxiety that a "subjective" experience in an interview can present all of us; however, I would argue that medicine is a very subjective career and that uncertainty is a fact of life. If you want objective measures for everything, maybe try looking at accounting as a career? Looking for the best, well-rounded candidates should be assessed using both objective and subjective material. Frankly, stating that the interviewers have no basis in their subjective decisions is untrue. Every rational person has a basis for their decisions--whether or not you agree with those decisions is what is debatable. The subjectivity in the admissions process is not the same as that in medicine. Regarding the bolded part: No. It's not whether "we" agree with those decisions, it is whether or not the "end-goal/telos/function" of medicine that agrees with the adcomms. Who's to say that what they deem a vice is in fact a virtue in the realm of medicine and vice versa? That's what's at questionhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoMed Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 The subjectivity in the admissions process is not the same as that in medicine. Regarding the bolded part: No. It's not whether "we" agree with those decisions, it is whether or not the "end-goal/telos/function" of medicine that agrees with the adcomms. Who's to say that what they deem a vice is in fact a virtue in the realm of medicine and vice versa? That's what's at questionhere. By the very nature of the term "subjectivity", the process is not the same in any situation--whether it be an interview, career, etc. Whether we like it or not they are the individuals chosen to deem or decide our merits and "worthiness". This is a fact of life. Do we have to like it? Nope. Do we have to deal with it? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheena815 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Interviewers are already posting in this thread their own biases and how they will subjectively pick some applicants without basis. There is no reason that working to support oneself is better or worse than volunteering abroad. Hmm... I don't think its bias, my point was exactly what you said in your second sentence: ie, I will not necessarily give someone "brownie points" for doing overseas volunteering rather than working a regular summer job to pay their tuition. Both are good things to do, but I'm not going to automatically take the person with a life-changing overseas experience and score them higher than someone who waited tables to make ends meat. Similarly, hospital volunteering is not going to make you score higher than say, elementary school volunteering. Do stuff you like and talk genuinely about it- I totally think Alastriss has a good strategy there. Fact is though, that every single interviewer has personal opinions and biases, and I'd wager that many applicants who get rejected could have been accepted with another panel and vice versa. (Within limits, I'm sure there are some candidates out there who genuinely aren't that great, but I think most people at this level are doing a decent job). This part of applying really sucks, but there's not much to be done about it. Regarding cutoffs (I believe that was the initial thread topic), I do think the system is not ideal. I mean, take an applicant with a 4.0, and a 40Q mcat- but by last year's "R" cutoff, they're out. I mean, really, how frustrating would that be? One lousy section, by one point. Seems like the cutoffs are not doing what they're intended to do, which is presumably to award interviews based on unbiased, academic merit. However, I still think that your gpa and mcat score is extremely important, and the only objective measure we have. I'm not sure why they don't take the 500 or so with the highest totals and interview them? Ie, convert gpas into something out of a hundred, same with mcat numbers if you like (just cause gpa number ranges are so small) weight mcap and gpa as you see fit, and total it up- take those with the highest scores as your interviewees. The potential problem here is people with vastly unbalanced mcat scores (eg, say you got a 35, but your score was 15, 15, 5, and you're totally incompetent at verbal or something) and an vast imbalance between mcat and gpa (eg, your awesome mcat score masking your terrible gpa) So, maybe add a flag of 8 or so in any given section for mcat, keep a minimum gpa cutoff to keep it balanced, and then take your highest. That way, we don't have applicants with really fantastic numbers getting cut by one mcat point, or .1 of a gpa, or other such silliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cling Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I agree with the above poster. Also, the whole notion of "good extracurricular activities" makes me sick to the stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostintime Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 On the same token, people are probably getting NEGATIVE brownie points in many interviewers' minds for doing traditional volunteering, such as hospital-related, student leadership club etc. In the sense that they are written off as "boring,tyipcal premed". Now applicants have to "impress" the interviewers. Sure, they can say they're not biased, etc. and that it's the quality blah blah, but I bet there is inherent bias there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafield Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I train rural seeing eye dolphins... But I train them to be surgeons as well to ease our doctor shortage. Unfortunately for me... neither myself nor the dolphins were SWOMEN youngsters.... no Western Interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supafield Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Before I really get into how many people are going to be at the interview I need to get one.... After hoping Western would lose the whole 11 in bio business... I was deeply devastated.... I had put all my eggs in that basket I thought and then applied to Queen's just on the off chance that my 3.75 2 year GPA would pull through... Since hearing the bad news for Western... I've somehow managed to review my chances at interviewing at Queen's and am too hopeful about what is likely a slim chance. I'm much too hopeful for my own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostintime Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Based on some of the doctors I've seen, I feel sorry for anyone who was interviewed by them. This is quite the minority, but still....if you're the unlucky one....then it just really really sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpanishFly Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 I train rural seeing eye dolphins... But I train them to be surgeons as well to ease our doctor shortage. Unfortunately for me... neither myself nor the dolphins were SWOMEN youngsters.... no Western Interview haha I read the first line and thought "WTF now I have to compete with this!" You had me for as second...and despite the humor, I think you make a very poignant statement: I interviewed last year, and didn't feel I did a terrible job, but wasn't accepted. Now that's just one interview and so I am willing to concede that perhaps I could have performed better on interview day. But I also had 5 other people from my area interview, and out of 6 people not one got an acceptance. You could argue that perhaps nobody from the area was qualified enough or perhaps we're all terrible at interviewing, however quite a few of those people were accepted into arguably better schools. I guess what really makes a great doctor is which high school they went to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostintime Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 It's more like what makes them a better doctor in Area x (particular region, province, etc). Because if you aren't going to stay in Area x, then you can't be a good doctor there---by not even showing your presence! But yeah, that probably has a lot to do with it (not saying it's fair, but realistically, people from Area x will likely stay in Area x). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.