Msc Applicants

[Slashsev01]

Whats the deal with

msc and phds, with ugpas around 3.6-.9, having published several papers and abstract

 

getting rejected?!

 

There must be a massive grad applicant pool....this is concerning...

[UTPEOPLE]

Whats the deal with

msc and phds, with ugpas around 3.6-.9, having published several papers and abstract

 

getting rejected?!

 

There must be a massive grad applicant pool....this is concerning...

 

or, the competitive grads are being squeezed out of the normal UG pool because of stellar 4th year applicants

[Noodle]

AT U of T, I think there were 600 grad applicants!

 

Yeah, I cannot believe that many PhD didn't even get an interview....cause a PhD is....well, quite frankly, I have immense respect for anyone that holds a PhD (Masters too, but I have one so its less wow to me compared to a PhD). It's too bad that not more grad applicants got interviews, cause grad school teaches you a whole new way of thinking, which would be beneficial for a doctor to have IMO (independence, self-directed learning, critical thinking, etc)!

[nemesis]

AT U of T, I think there were 600 grad applicants!

...

 

Actually, for 2010 entry, there were over 700 graduate applicants!

 

Source: http://utmedadmissions.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/graduate-applicant-notes/#comments [search/Find: "700"]

[Noodle]

Actually, for 2010 entry, there were over 700 graduate applicants!

 

Source: http://utmedadmissions.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/graduate-applicant-notes/#comments [search/Find: "700"]

 

woah! that's quite a bit!

[infomeddude]

I can't wrap my mind around the fact that a school will take a 4th(or even a third year) UG student over a person with a PhD..!!

[Starling]

I can't wrap my mind around the fact that a school will take a 4th(or even a third year) UG student over a person with a PhD..!!

 

I'm not surprised that it happens (although perhaps surprised that it happens so often). E.g. if you have a weirdo antisocial PhD versus a stellar 4th year applicant, I could see how the undergrad would win out, but you'd think that most of the time the extra 5+ years of life and research experience would end up favouring the PhD.

 

ETA: not saying that most PhDs are antisocial weirdos!

[UTPEOPLE]

I can't wrap my mind around the fact that a school will take a 4th(or even a third year) UG student over a person with a PhD..!!

 

Maybe because med schools measure grad school via research productivity and more and more UG are getting publications? Even second years these days are getting publications...

[nemesis]

I can't wrap my mind around the fact that a school will take a 4th(or even a third year) UG student over a person with a PhD..!!

 

Since when are graduate students always superior to undergraduates, when it comes to medical school admission?

 

Since when does holding a PhD translate into you automatically being a better candidate versus a student with an undergraduate degree?

[sgt.pepper]

Maybe because med schools measure grad school via research productivity and more and more UG are getting publications? Even second years these days are getting publications...

 

who? What lab cuz i'm in:D

[Noodle]

Since when are graduate students always superior to undergraduates, when it comes to medical school admission?

 

Since when does holding a PhD translate into you automatically being a better candidate versus a student with an undergraduate degree?

 

try doing a phd and then get back to me on that. Not meant as an insult at all, but doing a PhD provides you with a fantastic research perspective that you wouldn't have yet necessarily developed in UG. I mean, doing my masters made me think in whole new ways rather than what I learned in undergrad.

 

Different people have different experiences...but I remember thinking a few months into my Masters "damn, how the heck am I going to do this?". It was so different. Yes, you can publish in UG (I did too).....but usually you get lots of help from the supervisor or colleagues. In grad school a huge amount of that reponsibility is on you. Doing my own research was pretty intense and different from anything I did in UG.

 

Now, that being said, doing a PhD doesn't mean that you'd make a good doctor. A doctor, I feel, is part practice of medicine & part doing research/keeping up to date on research topics. I think that a good medical student candidate should possess both. I feel that a PhD would have an edge on that latter category.

[filter105]

There are many different types of people and some people, doesn't matter how old or what kind of education they hold, will not be a doctor and that's a fact.

 

However, I do find that lot of older people (grad students as opposed to undergrad students) with research and grad courses under their belt seems to be more reliable and more critical in approaching some of the problems (life experience I guess) and up to date with pharmacology and ethics research which involves reading journals critically and questioning their research method and capacity to understanding the caveat not mentioned in the paper.

 

Medicine is science and for doctors to make good choices for their patients, I think they should really understand the way around science.

Just reading the text book, lecture and memorize, regurgitate them and getting good marks are swell, but when thinking in long term, I sometimes think grad students would make good doctors, some better than 3rd or 4th year students. just because they were able to learn those skills while in grad school.

[UTPEOPLE]

try doing a phd and then get back to me on that. Not meant as an insult at all, but doing a PhD provides you with a fantastic research perspective that you wouldn't have yet necessarily developed in UG. I mean, doing my masters made me think in whole new ways rather than what I learned in undergrad.

 

Different people have different experiences...but I remember thinking a few months into my Masters "damn, how the heck am I going to do this?". It was so different. Yes, you can publish in UG (I did too).....but usually you get lots of help from the supervisor or colleagues. In grad school a huge amount of that reponsibility is on you. Doing my own research was pretty intense and different from anything I did in UG.

 

Now, that being said, doing a PhD doesn't mean that you'd make a good doctor. A doctor, I feel, is part practice of medicine & part doing research/keeping up to date on research topics. I think that a good medical student candidate should possess both. I feel that a PhD would have an edge on that latter category.

 

I agree, people who hold PhD are likely more critical thinkers, having read and thought about lots of articles. On the other hand, a significant proportion of Master's students do a masters not because they were into research, but because they needed a temporary alternative to med school. I don't think that these individuals get as much out of their education compared with UG. That said, nobody is likely to do a PhD as an "alternative" unless they were that into research, so yeah... I'm confused too, why so many Phd rejectees? Unless their GPA wasnt up to par?

[TheFonz]

I would be willing to bet that there is a quota or a cap on the number of grad students U of T interviews and accepts, even though they say the opposite.

 

I mean, looking through the U of T thread, I really don't understand how all of these grad students got rejected without even an interview. Besides the fact that they're older (and therefore have had more time to take part in meaningful activities than us), they also are far more likely to have strong research backgrounds, with awards and pubs, which is what U of T supposedly looks for. I've seen people make the argument that there might be something lacking in their essay, but aside from the possibility that they said something offensive, would you honestly throw out their app on the basis of a subjective essay, while disregarding their personal achievements and CV? "Well, this applicant has a high GPA, a PhD, 5 first author publications, significant awards and funding, but his essay rubbed me the wrong way, and so I think we should decline." This doesn't seem likely to me, especially for a school that claims to interview "every candidate that they wish to meet".

 

I've always just had the feeling that the grad pool is more competitive than the UG pool. I'm not taking ANYTHING away from the UG pool at U of T. Hell, I was stoked to get my interview. But my older brother (now a 2011 at UWO) applied after his master's and didn't get an interview at U of T (but had interviews everywhere else). My older sis and I both applied out of UG and both got U of T interviews, and I wouldn't begin to compare my achievements to my brother's.

 

A MSc is anything but a guarantee. It still doesn't take away from the randomness of this process. None of what I said above can be substantiated with any hard evidence, but it's just my feeling, given what I have seen posted here, and my own personal experience.

[Slashsev01]

well said!!It honestly blows how a

30 yr old with a phd, 5 publications, +

30 mcat, among other things and a 3.5 is getting rejected, pre-interview!!

 

After publishing, I have gained new respect for it (bc it is a long and difficult process- only those that have published can appreciate)

 

To me, that phd student seems like a better candidate than a 4.0 undergrad student with a 40 mcat.

 

The same can be said of a 4th year UG student compared to a 1st year or 2nd year UG student (although 1st and 2nd years cannot apply..lol).

 

 

And with respect to the antisocial phd student, iam sure its true for the antisocial 4.0 undergrad student (something that a 1 hr interview cannot really reveal)

 

 

Honestly, there is something seriously wrong about the application/admission process (and Iam guessing its bc of underfunding).

 

Also, you must understand (to the undergrad comment)- that medicine is based on research and the only reason why this field has excelled to what it is now. UG education, although research based (barely), is nothing compared to a phd or msc.

 

i think the scholastic factor can only go so far, that is why i appreciate the us- holistic application system more-but you need $ for that

 

 

thats my 2 cents

[Slashsev01]

but 700 applicants?!!!!

 

 

is that a typo?!!

 

how many UG applicants are there?10, 000?

[RiceWine]

Maybe because med schools measure grad school via research productivity and more and more UG are getting publications? Even second years these days are getting publications...

 

 

10th author maybe

[UTPEOPLE]

10th author maybe

 

Or second/third... if you worked really hard for a few years

[UTPEOPLE]

well said!!It honestly blows how a

30 yr old with a phd, 5 publications, +

30 mcat, among other things and a 3.5 is getting rejected, pre-interview!!

 

After publishing, I have gained new respect for it (bc it is a long and difficult process- only those that have published can appreciate)

 

To me, that phd student seems like a better candidate than a 4.0 undergrad student with a 40 mcat.

 

The same can be said of a 4th year UG student compared to a 1st year or 2nd year UG student (although 1st and 2nd years cannot apply..lol).

 

 

And with respect to the antisocial phd student, iam sure its true for the antisocial 4.0 undergrad student (something that a 1 hr interview cannot really reveal)

 

 

Honestly, there is something seriously wrong about the application/admission process (and Iam guessing its bc of underfunding).

 

Also, you must understand (to the undergrad comment)- that medicine is based on research and the only reason why this field has excelled to what it is now. UG education, although research based (barely), is nothing compared to a phd or msc.

 

i think the scholastic factor can only go so far, that is why i appreciate the us- holistic application system more-but you need $ for that

 

 

thats my 2 cents

 

but then again, since masters and PhDs study a very small aspect of something very intensely, the direct results of their effort (knowledge about an obscure diabetes gene) are likely inapplicable to medicine. Instead, what is more important is the process of critical thinking and not taking research publications immediately at face value (have to evalutate their reasoning/controls). Such reasoning skills is what is going to be needed in the future (thus, med schools do not need someone who already knows everything about med, cause that will never happen. Instead, they want someone with the capacity to learn to think like this). A graduate student shows this in spades. However, the adcoms may feel that a 4.0 student with the 40 Mcat is also capable of such higher thinking, without having to "prove it" during graduate studies. A 3.5 or even 3.7 undergrad applicant will likely find it hard to enter med school (because of low academics), while the same student might get in after a masters. To me, that suggests that the point of the masters, aside from the aesthetic benefit of showing an interest in research, is to demonstrate critical thinking

[RiceWine]

but then again, since masters and PhDs study a very small aspect of something very intensely, the direct results of their effort (knowledge about an obscure diabetes gene) are likely inapplicable to medicine.

 

are you kidding me? why do we do research in medicine at all then?

[UTPEOPLE]

are you kidding me? why do we do research in medicine at all then?

 

I meant that compared with the broad level of knowledge that a doctor is supposed to know, the unique significance of the actual research that a SINGLE grad student brings to the table is likely to not make a difference in their ability to be a good physician. Research as a whole is important though.

[GoReds]

You are comparing the contributions of a UG to a graduate student to a publication? UTPEOPLE.. undergrads just do what they are told in the lab (rarely will they spearhead their own project.. and if they do I promise you their hand is held the entire way).. if it works.. great they may get a publication.. to complete a first author involves a hell of a lot more work than that.. so not sure if you can equate the publications from and UG and grad student

 

You will learn a lot more than 'critical thinking' from grad school.. It's unfortunate that your lack of knowledge of this subject is read by other people in these posts.. I just hope they don't take them at face value..

[UTPEOPLE]

You are comparing the contributions of a UG to a graduate student to a publication? UTPEOPLE.. undergrads just do what they are told in the lab (rarely will they spearhead their own project.. and if they do I promise you their hand is held the entire way).. if it works.. great they may get a publication.. to complete a first author involves a hell of a lot more work than that.. so not sure if you can equate the publications from and UG and grad student

 

You will learn a lot more than 'critical thinking' from grad school.. It's unfortunate that your lack of knowledge of this subject is read by other people in these posts.. I just hope they don't take them at face value..

 

As opposed to the great and mighty grad students who do their projects completely unaided (most supervisors are heavily involved in guidance, thats what the weekly lab meetings are for)? What other sorts of things besides a way of thinking (and specific knowledge regarding to your field) does a graduate student capable of?

 

In the end, work is work. Even in undergrad, there can be people who are aiming for a graduate study in a specific lab and has essentially been there since second year. I concede that designing an experiment takes alot of background knowledge to do, but once that knowledge is there (and your hypothesis is formed), trying to figure out how to create an experiment is not beyond the intellectual capacities of "mere" undergrads. We still need to consider the same controls, and eliminate other rational explanations. In addition, once the background knowledge is in place, we can (with hard work of course) contribute meaningfully to a review article, if not a research article (because it takes more time to run the experiments necessary).

 

Perhaps the UG in your lab who "did what they were told" were just there to get a reference and had no interest in furthering the field. But I would like you not to overgeneralize to all UG, because some of us are quite self-motivated and are more than capable of designing experiments and discussing potential experimental flaws.

[infomeddude]

Sorry to derail the topic of this thread, but I am really curious about something: Is getting published, 2nd author(as an UG) impressive? Or is that what most people end up achieving anyway?

[UTPEOPLE]

Sorry to derail the topic of this thread, but I am really curious about something: Is getting published, 2nd author(as an UG) impressive? Or is that what most people end up achieving anyway?

 

I'd say any mention of you above 5th author in a non-UG journal would be somewhat impressive, but i dont think med school care THAT much about publications for undergraduate applicants