Margins of acceptance

[Guest Champ]

Hello all,

 

I have a quick question. Based on my understanding of the final calculation for UT, the breakdown is 60% Academic, 20% non-Academic, 20% interview. Therefore, it is obvious that each of the interviewed candidates (of which they are approx 480 or so) would have a % score.

 

Now going on the assumption that the vast majority of interviewed candidates have extremely high scores (to be offered an interview in the first place), how exactly do they differentiate between the majority of applicants who would likely score in a very narrow range post interview.

 

Is it simply that many candidates have identical final scores or do they go to hundredths of decimal places in their final evaluation?

 

Sorry if this may seem like a silly question.

 

champ

[Guest YongQ]

Hi Champ,

 

It's not a silly question. It's just one that no one knows the answer to!

[Guest Ian Wong]

This is where the crapshoot part of admissions comes from. First of all, figuring out the ratios and scores that go with each part of the application, and then deciding on applicants who might, on paper, evaluate as identical or nearly identical. Should it ever come up that the difference between two applications come up as 0.01, it'd be a tough call to say that one person is truly more deserving of a seat than the other.

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest s]

You said, "it'd be a tough call to say that one person is truly more deserving of a seat than the other."

 

You know, I've been thinking about this, and I really believe that it doesn't make sense at all to talk about who "deserves a seat" and who doesn't. In fact, the medical schools admissions policies tend to make very little sense when considered in this context.

 

On the other hand, if you think about it in the negative sense, in terms of whether or not the med schools are able to ELIMINATE all the people who are definitely NOT suitable for a seat (I hate the word "deserving" in this context) it makes an awful lot of sense.

 

Let's all face it - if 2000 people apply to a med school, there are going to be at least, let's say, 300 of them who would make great doctors -- doctors aren't gods; they're professionals.

 

From the point of view of the medical schools, it shouldn't honestly matter which of those 300 they take, beyond issues of, say, having a balanced class. If they succeed in weeding out the *bad* applicants, then they've done a pretty decent job.

 

And, of course, within this paradigm, it is perfectly rational to accept someone who scores 0.01 above the other - since it doesn't REALLY matter which one gets picked anyways.

 

Well, just my rambling-pre-exam-two-cents, saying things that really don't matter at all in the scheme of things, and that we've probably all thought from time to time... After all, I still want to get accepted, and will be still be unhappy if I'm one of the perfectly acceptable candidates who doesn't win the number game. But, I hope, I can take it with a smile and a shrug knowing that I am not somehow less "deserving" or meritorious in some way, but just caught up in a system whose goals (producing a good *class*) are not exactly congruent with picking the *best individuals*, because, after all, there is no such thing. Producing a good class is the ONLY goal that really makes sense.

 

(and, incredibly, the post gets even more rambling. ok, time for bed. :-) )

[Guest medwant2b]

I'd like to think they pick the people for the last bunch of places by stepping back from the numbers and re-examining the sketch and essay. I think the interview score would be important to consider as well, but is perhaps less objective --especially if the interviewers were different for the candidates you're comparing.

 

I'm an applicant and I have no idea how things work in medicine at U of T. I just know, from someone that was on admissions a few years ago, in engineering (at U of T) they were filling the last 20% of the seats by trying to judge the whole person, when considering those relatively close to the cut-off. Is that arbitrary? I suppose it is. Interesting thing is--the people the admissions committee hand picked for the last bunch of spots were more often than not at the top of the class.

 

In any case, at this point the only thing you can do is try your best on the interview. Think positive thoughts and imagine yourself doing well on the interview. Best of Luck!

[Guest ThugJaan]

Hey,

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say that they 'final batch' is selected any differentely from the first few. Last year, I interviewed in the final batch [as did many on my classmates] and at the time I was a third year applicant. If I had to comment on my strengths in terms of what they saw, then it would have to be my marks. Don't get me worng, I had done a lot fo other stuff and was quite a unique candidate, but not anywhere close to the amount a lot of people have done.

 

However, I know of a couple of other people who claim their strong point was their sketch/life experience, and we interviewed together!

 

 

The point to remember is a) cadidates at all of the weekends are divided on a 'random' basis, so their is no preference for candidates in terms of marks/life experience according to their date of interview. Also is that just b.c you interview in may doesn't mean you aren't going to get in. I thought that I was jsut a 'filler' interview, but here I am

 

On the other hand, there was a supposed weekend added like a week prior to D-day coming on [may 25th or something] last year, and that was geared at taking in applicants that were different and was not marks based, as far as I have heard. But, this is not part of the usual weekends and notices go out much later.

[Guest medwant2b]

Hi ThugJaan:

 

What I meant by 'last batch' is the group that when evaluated by the composite score (consisting of the interview, GPA, autobio. sketch...) are very close to one another. Of this group a few admissions accepts --the rest it rejects.

 

I'm not quite sure how to explain this without an example.

 

Well... lets assume (for simplicity) U of T has a total of just 20 interviewees and 10 seats and the ranking by composite score is as follows:

 

Rank        Composite         Name

1        9.99                .

2        9.97                .

3        9.80                Omega

4        9.72                Eta

5        9.60                Pi

6        9.55                Nu

7        9.50                Delta

8        9.49                Alpha

9        9.47                Beta

10        9.46                 Gamma

11        9.45                Epsilon

12        9.44                Zeta

13        9.20                Sigma               

14        8.70                Mu

15        8.50                .

16        8.45                .

17        8.20                .

18        7.34                .

19        7.25                .

20        7.24                .

 

What I meant by last 20% is: the seats left after 80% of the class has been filled by the composite score. Alpha and everyone with a score above him/her gets an acceptance. If you fill the seats straight by score Beta and Gamma get acceptances, Epsilon and Zeta and the rest bellow them get wait lists/rejections.

 

The question Champ raised (if I understood it properly) is: are Gamma and Epsilon really that different? Or--for that matter... are Beta, Gamma, Epsilon and Zeta really that different?

 

What engineering admissions did after ranking is: re-examine those close to the cut-off--i.e. they re-examined Beta, Gamma, Epsilon and Zeta as a group --and then didn't necessarily base the admissions decision on the composite score.

 

I hope my explaination makes what I posted earlier clear.

Cheers, medwant2b