"Tons" of sports

[Corsci]

I agree lying won't get you far... but I would also like to see this reference. These must have been extreme situations i.e. You lied that you had no criminal record, not that you rounded your volunteer hours up.

[biomed1010]

Didn't say it was a joke and didn't say it didn't happen.

 

reference?

 

I agree lying won't get you far... but I would also like to see this reference. These must have been extreme situations i.e. You lied that you had no criminal record, not that you rounded your volunteer hours up.

 

Sarcasm detector not working?

[Leon]

Sarcasm detector not working?

 

LOL

 

10 char

[Cnussey]

Sarcasm detector not working?

 

Must be, I don't see the sarcasm at all. Seriously. Lol.

[Tango Charlie]

I think that they do care, because it establishes you as a person willing to do something for fun, as opposed to pad your resume. Its a nice reserve to have for those "so how do you spend your free time" questions during an interview. From what I heard, adcoms might frown upon people who seem only interested in doing something if there is an "official" ring to it. Ive met people who claim to be sooo interested in tutoring, and then quiting their obligations (albeit in a volunteer capacity) when it turns out that they wouldnt get a ref letter out of it in time for med apps.

 

The bottom line is that something which can't be realistically verified can't be weighed for much, because there's no way to be sure whether you're lying or not (and pre-meds being as they are, I doubt they'd be inclined to give us the benefit of the doubt). So, as to the original question, the unorganized sports or other activities you do for kicks would more than likely never be anywhere close to a deciding factor in a successful application. By all means mention that sort of stuff, but don't dwell on it, and certainly don't try and pad that aspect of the application.

 

Plus, when it comes down to it the person who says they throws a ball around with buddies every now and then will be his or her own verifier. Someone who routinely does athletic stuff with other friends is almost invariably going to be better socially adjusted than someone who doesn't do that sort of thing. There would be exceptions of course, but I think the real benefit from actually going out and doing other stuff with actual human beings is that it makes you better able to talk to people, more confident, develops a better sense of humour, etc etc. If you walk in and talk to someone and say that you're the quarterback on a casual football team in the town you live in, and you're awkward and shy and humourless and bland (let alone fat and weak), I'm sure anyone you talk to will know you're full of it. The real benefit of being a well-rounded person isn't that it looks good on your application, it's that you resemble a functioning human being and not a compendium of whatever you were taught in school in addition to Star Wars trivia.

[UTPEOPLE]

reference?

 

I think that there were numerous cases of this in the book

The Medical School Interview: Secrets And A System For Success.

[trymeover]

I think that there were numerous cases of this in the book

The Medical School Interview: Secrets And A System For Success.

 

That's only one of the few.

[AdamP]

I think TC pretty much hit the nail on the head (I like his posts)

 

my experience so far has been that the schools aren't all that interested in what your actual list of ECs is, really at all. You do all those things because they make you happy, are fun, and are good learning experiences. The grand result is that you come out from them as a more well adjusted person, better communicator, easy to be around etc. That's what they try and pull out of you at the interview.

[trymeover]

I think TC pretty much hit the nail on the head (I like his posts)

 

my experience so far has been that the schools aren't all that interested in what your actual list of ECs is, really at all. You do all those things because they make you happy, are fun, and are good learning experiences. The grand result is that you come out from them as a more well adjusted person, better communicator, easy to be around etc. That's what they try and pull out of you at the interview.

 

First applicant: Has abudant ECs with volunteering, some groups, one exec, research.

 

Second Applicant: Has Few ECs with low volunteering, 2 groups, no research.

 

Are you telling me that if the second applicant was more interactive than the first applicant in an interview, then the second applicant would be accepted before the first applicant?

 

AKA, they don't care about what's on paper?

[AdamP]

well at western, mac, and queens - 100% yes

 

toronto and ottawa, probably also yes.

[Pinky&theBrain]

well at western, mac, and queens - 100% yes

 

toronto and ottawa, probably also yes.

 

How can you be so sure?

[trymeover]

How can you be so sure?

 

Yeah, I don't know if he should be so sure. But he probably said that because those schools have closed file interviews I think.

 

But technically, we have no idea what they do with the ECs list because their method of selection is not divulged to anyone.

[rmorelan]

How can you be so sure?

 

Most of the reasons for defending those points if from the schools themselves - they often state what they don't consider. The schools really have no reason to lie - they hold all the power, so there is little point in playing games.

 

When you think about it evaluating an EC list is really hard and extremely time intensive. There simply isn't enough people involved at most schools to do it properly. Plus EC lists are vague and naturally written to come of as positive as possible and thus often misleading. They are hard things to really use effectively in the eyes of many schools. Even those that do use them for sure - toronto comes to mind - has to spend a huge amount of effort in screening (per interviewee way more than any other school I would think, and that is only possible because students are used for the task).

[UTPEOPLE]

Yeah, I don't know if he should be so sure. But he probably said that because those schools have closed file interviews I think.

 

But technically, we have no idea what they do with the ECs list because their method of selection is not divulged to anyone.

 

queens is not closed file. there is a ten minute period before every interview that is spent looking over your sketch

[rmorelan]

queens is not closed file. there is a ten minute period before every interview that is spent looking over your sketch

 

thought that was primarily for small talk etc - its use seems to clash with their rather standardized approach to things.

[jp1284]

well at western, mac, and queens - 100% yes

 

toronto and ottawa, probably also yes.

 

I know several people who were rejected by ottawa pre-interview (OOP) for not meeting ec cutoff despite meeting academic cutoff, so i think ec's do matter.

[UTPEOPLE]

thought that was primarily for small talk etc - its use seems to clash with their rather standardized approach to things.

 

Ideally, yes. But the problem is that once they see a person's sketch, they can be impressed and thus give you a better rating. It is very different between listening to an average joe talk about how he is dedicated and an olympic athlete talk about dedication. Little nuggets of information here and there can affect the interviewer severely

[UTPEOPLE]

I know several people who were rejected by ottawa pre-interview (OOP) for not meeting ec cutoff despite meeting academic cutoff, so i think ec's do matter.

 

Ecs most definitely count. At u of T, the interview is a piddling 20% of your final school. Perhaps there is a bit of wishful thinking going on? It would be fortunate for many people if AdamP turned out to be right because getting to the interview would put everyone on equal footing, despite differing GPA's/activities. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few schools, I dont think that this is the case

[AdamP]

Yeah, I don't know if he should be so sure. But he probably said that because those schools have closed file interviews I think.

 

But technically, we have no idea what they do with the ECs list because their method of selection is not divulged to anyone.

 

Ok I was answering your own hypothetical.

 

Essentially you posed it as, you have two applicants one with great ECs, one with worse ECs but was more 'engaging' during the interview.

 

Now it can't exactly comment on what you mean by engaging, but lets compare it to the most objective thing which is interview score. The fundamental assumption I was using is that being more 'engaging' = higher interview score.

 

In that case, for western and queens, and mac (academics being equal) the more engaging person would be offered acceptance before the lesser engaging person, regardless of ECs.

 

For toronto, well even if it's 20 percent interview, 80 percent file, 66 of that is marks, so were looking at 26% of your final score is some mix of your essay and ref letters (maybe abs but I doubt it, mine at no time came up), so still in that case if you believe amazing ecs = amazing essay then you might have a point, I personally don't.

 

I don't know too much about ottawa and their post-weighting formula, but if its like other ontario schools then I would imagine interview has a significant weighting in which case I think my probably yes still stands.

[nemesis]

The bottom line is that something which can't be realistically verified can't be weighed for much, because there's no way to be sure whether you're lying or not (and pre-meds being as they are, I doubt they'd be inclined to give us the benefit of the doubt). So, as to the original question, the unorganized sports or other activities you do for kicks would more than likely never be anywhere close to a deciding factor in a successful application. By all means mention that sort of stuff, but don't dwell on it, and certainly don't try and pad that aspect of the application.

 

Plus, when it comes down to it the person who says they throws a ball around with buddies every now and then will be his or her own verifier. Someone who routinely does athletic stuff with other friends is almost invariably going to be better socially adjusted than someone who doesn't do that sort of thing. There would be exceptions of course, but I think the real benefit from actually going out and doing other stuff with actual human beings is that it makes you better able to talk to people, more confident, develops a better sense of humour, etc etc. If you walk in and talk to someone and say that you're the quarterback on a casual football team in the town you live in, and you're awkward and shy and humourless and bland (let alone fat and weak), I'm sure anyone you talk to will know you're full of it. The real benefit of being a well-rounded person isn't that it looks good on your application, it's that you resemble a functioning human being and not a compendium of whatever you were taught in school in addition to Star Wars trivia.

 

+1

 

 

QFT

[nemesis]

queens is not closed file. there is a ten minute period before every interview that is spent looking over your sketch

 

thought that was primarily for small talk etc - its use seems to clash with their rather standardized approach to things.

 

I agree that a 'file review' is not consistent with Queen's method of evaluation; however, Queen's explicitly mentioned that the extra time (i.e. 10 min) was to allow the interviewers an opportunity to review the applicant's file prior to meeting them.

[nemesis]

well at western, mac, and queens - 100% yes

 

toronto and ottawa, probably also yes.

 

Not so at Queen's, which was already mentioned.

 

Also, I believe that McMaster also performs a 'cursory' evaluation of an applicant's autobiographical sketch.

 

What weight that carries, however, is unknown.

 

...

For toronto, well even if it's 20 percent interview, 80 percent file, 66 of that is marks, so were looking at 26% of your final score is some mix of your essay and ref letters (maybe abs but I doubt it, mine at no time came up), so still in that case if you believe amazing ecs = amazing essay then you might have a point, I personally don't.

...

 

If the 80% file score consists of 60% academics and 20% non-academics, then your 'academic score' (i.e. marks, etc.) make up 75% of the post-interview file score and 60% of the final decision (while non-academics are weighted at 25% in the post-interview file score and worth 20% of the final decision).

 

Where does the 66% come into play?

[AdamP]

Not so at Queen's, which was already mentioned.

 

Also, I believe that McMaster also performs a 'cursory' evaluation of an applicant's autobiographical sketch.

 

What weight that carries, however, is unknown.

 

 

 

If the 80% file score consists of 60% academics and 20% non-academics, then your 'academic score' (i.e. marks, etc.) make up 75% of the post-interview file score and 60% of the final decision (while non-academics are weighted at 25% in the post-interview file score and worth 20% of the final decision).

 

Where does the 66% come into play?

 

Well, like I said, I was using the logic that more 'engaging' = higher interview score, so in that case I would be right with queens, since it's 100 percent interview.

 

I thought for some reason U of T's file review was somehow 66 academic and 33 non. Maybe it's 60/40 I don't remember anymore, 60/20 doesn't make sense unless there is another 20 for refs or something.

 

Regardless my main point is, great ECs don't make up for a poor interview, and imo don't even make up for a average interview if someone with unimpressive ECs has an above average or great interview. More importantly I think there is a misconception among pre-meds that their great ec's are going to pull them through, when it is the most subjective and therefore least important part of the entire application.

 

By far though, interview performance is the most important part of most of the application for most of the schools. So if you are making the case that these amazing ecs are leading to better interview skills I can buy that to an extent, but it is by no means a hard and fast rule.

[nemesis]

...I would be right with queens, since it's 100 percent interview.

 

This may be true, but it could also be that reference letters (according to their website) and the applicant's file (according to interview information) are also factored into the final decision.

 

I thought for some reason U of T's file review was somehow 66 academic and 33 non. Maybe it's 60/40 I don't remember anymore, 60/20 doesn't make sense unless there is another 20 for refs or something.

 

I think you're thinking about one of the old interview formula's for McMaster or something...

 

For Toronto, 60/40 pre-interview and perhaps 60-20-20 post-interview (interview score and non-academic file score worth 20% each).

 

...More importantly I think there is a misconception among pre-meds that their great ec's are going to pull them through...

 

I'm not sure just how prevalent such an idea is.

 

I would think most premeds realize that academics are the single most significant factor for admission, and while non-academics are important, they take a back seat to GPA/MCAT.

 

However, I do agree that non-academics are much less important than most premeds seem to realize.

 

...when [extracurricular activities are] the most subjective and therefore least important part of the entire application..

 

Agreed. Even at a school like Toronto that places an equal emphasis on the personal statement and the autobiographical sketch, I'm inclined to believe that the former has a greater impact on your ability to secure an interview/receive an offer of admission.

 

Furthermore, as most of you know, what you've actually spent your time doing is less important compared to the insight, skills and experiences that you have gained and how you're able to convey these ideas via your personal statement and your interviews.