MMIs only count for 25% of your score. Is that a lot?

[tooty]

I can understand 50% MMI at UC being a very heavy factor in the final score. But 25% to me seems on the low side. It feels like those who've scored well pre-interview would typically do much better post-interview as well.

 

What do you guys think?

[astudentis]

hey i have no problems with that.... i think interview should be 20-30% of the admission process...anything more than that seems unfair to people that have worked soo hard to obtain a 4gpa and 40 on the mcat and have dozens of ECs (btw, i dont fall into that category, hence I am not giving a biased opinion)

[Steve-0]

I think that the interview is an important part of the admission process.

 

What difference does it make that you have a 4.0 GPA if you cannot communicate with people effectively? Who cares if you scored 40 on the MCAT if you can't make an ethically reasonable decision to save your life, or reason through a real-life problem? I think the interview accesses these non-cognitive skills that are (at least) as important as cognitive abilities. In my opinion, the difference between someone with a GPA >3.6 and one that is 4.0 is most often a reflection of time spent studying rather than actual intellectual abilities. In my experience, many people with these super high GPA's lack skills in other areas, and these areas are equally as important as smarts.

[tooty]

I think that the interview is an important part of the admission process.

 

What difference does it make that you have a 4.0 GPA if you cannot communicate with people effectively? Who cares if you scored 40 on the MCAT if you can't make an ethically reasonable decision to save your life, or reason through a real-life problem? I think the interview accesses these non-cognitive skills that are (at least) as important as cognitive abilities. In my opinion, the difference between someone with a GPA >3.6 and one that is 4.0 is most often a reflection of time spent studying rather than actual intellectual abilities. In my experience, many people with these super high GPA's lack skills in other areas, and these areas are equally as important as smarts.

 

I agree.

 

What do you guys know about how close the final scores are? I'm just wondering if doing well in an interview that's worth only 25% is enough to make a difference.

[Steve-0]

Well it comes down to percentages. If you are marginally behind on the pre-interview score and do proportionately better in the interview than those who have higher pre-interview scores, then it makes all the difference.

[astudentis]

I think that the interview is an important part of the admission process.

 

What difference does it make that you have a 4.0 GPA if you cannot communicate with people effectively? Who cares if you scored 40 on the MCAT if you can't make an ethically reasonable decision to save your life, or reason through a real-life problem? I think the interview accesses these non-cognitive skills that are (at least) as important as cognitive abilities. In my opinion, the difference between someone with a GPA >3.6 and one that is 4.0 is most often a reflection of time spent studying rather than actual intellectual abilities. In my experience, many people with these super high GPA's lack skills in other areas, and these areas are equally as important as smarts.

 

 

I agree, thats why i see the interview to be an important part too; however, giving it values greater than 40% seems unreasonable (giving it value under 20% also seems unreasonable)

 

The perspective I am coming from is, how much should one put emphasis on 3 hours compared to past 3-6years of achievements?

[Jochi1543]

I prefer the 50% breakdown. I did well on my MMI last year, but it ended up being meaningless, which made me wonder why I was even invited if performing at the admitted average still only resulted in a rejection. Then I talked to some other ppl here who performed way worse than me but whose GPA was literally smth like 0.04 above mine, and they were waitlisted...what's the point of the interview then, if it essentially changes nothing?

[anonymity]

The perspective I am coming from is, how much should one put emphasis on 3 hours compared to past 3-6years of achievements?

 

You think thats bad - what about Queen's 20-25 minute interview worth 100%? haha

[astudentis]

You think thats bad - what about Queen's 20-25 minute interview worth 100%? haha

 

yea now you tell me how a couple of people can just your non-cognitive abilities in 20mins

 

 

this debate can go on forever, people who think they tend to do better on interviews (who have feedback from previous year or are experienced) will obviously vouch for a higher interview values than people who aren't aware of how well the perform on interviews and have a better self understanding of their pre-interview score

 

 

what they need to do is a study of currently practicing physicians. Look at their patient satisfaction rate and correlate their original acceptance stats for medical school (interview, gpa, ECs, etc.)...

either you can waste more $$ doing such sociological research (or let premed waste time debating on how much the interview should be accounted for), or give larger funding to provincial governments to make more seats!

[Jochi1543]

You think thats bad - what about Queen's 20-25 minute interview worth 100%? haha

 

Yeah, 100% is ridiculous, I agree with that, as well. I believe in the middle ground.

[sparkles3288]

I think 50/50 is definitely fair. As was mentioned above, the interview allows assesment of non-academic skills which are equally important in becoming a good doctor. You ask how it's fair to judge someone in 3 hrs (or 20min haha) instead of years of work? Simply put, in the real world all you have usually to make an impression is a short time frame. People are not going to take a resume or CV each time they meet someone and be like "wow! You went to africa for 6 years" etc etc etc. You may think it's unfair, but it's totally realistic and practical in everyday life.

 

The 100% thing is extreme though, haha.

[xylem29]

What about the people who may lack what you call the non-cognitive skills but who have the potential to develop them during medical school? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to be rewarded for their effort if they can develop the social skills while in med school?

 

In my experience - people with insane numbers, 3.90 and 38+ MCATs (obviously with VR scores of 12+) tend to be EXTREMELY bright and excel in all areas, including communication skills.

[Steve-0]

I did well on my MMI last year, but it ended up being meaningless, which made me wonder why I was even invited if performing at the admitted average still only resulted in a rejection.

 

The fact that your MMI was at the admitted average points to your pre-interview score being below average. In order to have made it in you would have had to perform above the average of those other applicants who had stronger pre-interview scores. I don't think that it was impossible for you to get in, you just had to have a stronger interview

[Jochi1543]

The fact that your MMI was at the admitted average points to your pre-interview score being below average. In order to have made it in you would have had to perform above the average of those other applicants who had stronger pre-interview scores. I don't think that it was impossible for you to get in, you just had to have a stronger interview

 

Yes, but if the interview had been weighted at, say, 35% and not 25%, this performance would've probably turned into a waitlist, if not an outright acceptance.

[Jochi1543]

What about the people who may lack what you call the non-cognitive skills but who have the potential to develop them during medical school? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to be rewarded for their effort if they can develop the social skills while in med school?

 

Honestly, if you are at the med applicant age (20-25) and you still don't have social skills, you will probably never develop any. It's not kindergarten kids we're dealing with, it's adults who can be quite set in their ways at this point. You can't teach an old dog new tricks...and this is a field where non-cognitive skills play a very important part. If you are great at science but suck at dealing with people, you're probably a much better candidate for a research lab than a people-oriented area of medicine.

[Sundance]

What about the people who may lack what you call the non-cognitive skills but who have the potential to develop them during medical school? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to be rewarded for their effort if they can develop the social skills while in med school?

 

I am going to agree with you. It often seems like some folks forget that people are supposed to be attending medical school to learn how to become doctors, not because they already have all the skills necessary and just lack the piece of paper to hang on their office wall. Ethical decision making and communication are skills that can be taught, and bright and/or harding working people will be able to learn them and excel just as they could in any other area required for practicing medicine.

[Sundance]

Bah! So much for my quoting skills...

[Wut?]

The debate is really a moot point. As the MMI matures, I'm sure that we will see several schools across Canada change their weightings.

 

Regardless of whatever weightings on pre-interview / interview develop, there will always be people who are displeased with the current system. The argument goes either way, and at the end of the day, applicants will just have to 'live with' what admissions committees set as the requirements.

 

With that said, almost everyone who I have met with 4.0s and 35+ GPAs are stellar people, not only in terms of their academics but their life experiences and personality. Believe it or not, medical school classes are not a homogenized group of 'geeks', so to speak. Many people will be surprised by the diversity of personalities and experiences - I know that I was. I feel like a severe underachiever (not only academically) within my class, but I am comfortable with that. I would trust my life in the hands of every single one of my classmates.

[boodog]

according to admissions, they say that in terms of distribution of final scores, there are a "top 50" which are basically an arm up on the rest. these people will gain admission to multiple schools in canada. then there are the "next 100" which are esentially really good, but if you got rid of them the next 100 after that are essentially the same. and if you get rid of them the next 100 are the same too. After that quality starts dropping off the map.

 

So essentially, the point I'm getting at is this: About 350 applicants for U of A are totally qualified to enter med school. This is why they say you've got such a great chance if you got an interview. Literally all you need to do is be slightly better. I'm talking like 1-2 pts. Think about the waitlist last year at U of C and the scores that they gave out post interview. A heck of a lot of people were given scores like 71.04 then the next guy would have 71.02 or something.

 

You get the picture...

[apache]

calgary seems a bit much (although i love interviews, and think they prob help my score a bit) and alberta seems a bit low.... how about 37.5 percent?????? that seems like a perfect number

[kandy4]

How do you guys figure Queen's interview is worth 100%? Their website clearly states they have a ranking system?

 

I think an interview is more important than your marks. Any student in university can get 4.0, if they work hard enough, skip the social life and find the easiest mickey option courses. And I know several students applying to med school this round who did exactly that. Then they take a year of constantly studying the MCAT, doing 2 prep courses and endless practice tests, and they got a 40T on their MCAT.

 

I applaud their intense work ethics, but really... you need to be a person to be a doctor. Balance is key, and I think that would show more in an interview vs. a paper application.

[tooty]

according to admissions, they say that in terms of distribution of final scores, there are a "top 50" which are basically an arm up on the rest. these people will gain admission to multiple schools in canada. then there are the "next 100" which are esentially really good, but if you got rid of them the next 100 after that are essentially the same. and if you get rid of them the next 100 are the same too. After that quality starts dropping off the map.

 

So essentially, the point I'm getting at is this: About 350 applicants for U of A are totally qualified to enter med school. This is why they say you've got such a great chance if you got an interview. Literally all you need to do is be slightly better. I'm talking like 1-2 pts. Think about the waitlist last year at U of C and the scores that they gave out post interview. A heck of a lot of people were given scores like 71.04 then the next guy would have 71.02 or something.

 

You get the picture...

 

Which school's admissions did you hear that from?

 

The thing about your second paragraph is that although the scores will be close, I'm wondering how much of that close score is attributed to pre-interview scores. At UC, if your pre-interview score is divided by half by the end, everyone essentially starts at the same spot but UA is different.

[boodog]

U of A, Dr. Bagnall

 

Most people's pre-interview scores are the same +/- 3 pts. Its the interview that counts.

[Jamer]

U of A, Dr. Bagnall

 

Most people's pre-interview scores are the same +/- 3 pts. Its the interview that counts.

 

Ranked out of a total possible 75 points, most interviewed people are within 6 points? I don't know about that to be honest. I believe that's it's pretty close but IMO that's too close. It was mentioned by Dr. Bagnall that ~75% of the people who would be given acceptances if the interview didn't exist (so based on pre-interview score) get the first acceptances. So 25% are replaced by a lower 25%.

[Wut?]

It was mentioned by Dr. Bagnall that ~75% of the people who would be given acceptances if the interview didn't exist (so based on pre-interview score) get the first acceptances. So 25% are replaced by a lower 25%.

 

I think that this is representative of the fact that, despite the stereotypical statements many people like to apply, most of the high GPA / MCAT achievers who apply to medical school are also able to excel in 'social situations' such as the MMI.

 

The other 25% are probably those who have marginally lower stats, but who are able to compensate for this 'shortcoming', if you can call it one, by performing stellarly on the interview. I wouldn't say that the 25% are replaced by a lower 25%, unless I am misreading your post.

 

Cheers,

 

W?