If you were the admissions officer

[NewfieMike]

Are you sure you're not the one who started clown school Newfie?

 

In any case, what people say about emphasis on academics pre-interview is in my opinion the best option.

 

not sure I get where you're coming from with that.

 

My friend is currently in a french medical school in New Brunswick, and did not do any form of interview to get accepted.

[Dongzhuo]

I honestly think interviews are a big show. The applicants all tool around to find the best "face" and "tone" with which to present themselves. The person with the best acting skills will win. They lose alot of good people this way.

 

Hence, I propose pass/fail interviews. Either you have enough "people skills" to be a doctor, or you flat out fail. This is similar to the marking in med school. either you are good enough, or you fail.

 

So in summary, 40%GPA, 25% MCAT, and 35% EC's. The GPA and MCAT are graded along a bell curve of all applicants. With say 1.5 standard deviations above mean getting full marks, and 1.5 standard deviations below mean getting 0.

[thebouque]

not sure I get where you're coming from with that.

 

My friend is currently in a french medical school in New Brunswick, and did not do any form of interview to get accepted.

 

The French medical school in NB is Sherbrooke. (the English one is Dal)

Maybe Sherbrooke doesn't require the MMI for their NB satellite campus.

[thebouque]

The French medical school in NB is Sherbrooke. (the English one is Dal)

Maybe Sherbrooke doesn't require the MMI for their NB satellite campus.

 

And when I say Dal I mean their satellite campus as well.. NB doesn't have a MD school per se they only have satellites.

[shouldieventry]

The French medical school in NB is Sherbrooke. (the English one is Dal)

Maybe Sherbrooke doesn't require the MMI for their NB satellite campus.

 

As of this year, Sherbrooke does require the MMI for NB candidates.

[Dr Pepper]

I'd say,

 

pre-interview: 70% GPA (Kind of like UofT, cumulative but lowest marks dropped if taken full-load), 30% MCAT no cutoffs, most recent (I think 15,8,15,N can still be a great doctor), Personal statement, sketch, LORs still required but count as 0% pre-interview.

 

post-interview: 65% pre-interview score, 35% interview score. # of interviewee should be twice the number of seats available. The interview should consist of 30 min panel to discuss personal statement, sketch, etc and MMI after. =D

[Jochi1543]

Hmmm. 35 academics -30-35 interview.

[apache]

im a calgary fan so ill throw a calgary sounding score in

 

25/20/55

[jp1284]

I honestly think interviews are a big show. The applicants all tool around to find the best "face" and "tone" with which to present themselves. The person with the best acting skills will win. They lose alot of good people this way.

 

Hence, I propose pass/fail interviews. Either you have enough "people skills" to be a doctor, or you flat out fail. This is similar to the marking in med school. either you are good enough, or you fail.

 

So in summary, 40%GPA, 25% MCAT, and 35% EC's. The GPA and MCAT are graded along a bell curve of all applicants. With say 1.5 standard deviations above mean getting full marks, and 1.5 standard deviations below mean getting 0.

 

+1 Hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. Having >50% interview like Calgary/Queen's allows the med-school to justify any acceptance/rejection because the strongest person on paper can be rejected too easily and the weakest interviewee on paper can be too easily accepted.

[apache]

meh, i dont think academics should play that much into it...

 

id calculate 2 academic scores:

 

one where its 100 percent GPA and courseload dependent... these guys will make great workhorses for the medical system

 

one where theres a 3.5 gpa cutoff then purely based on MCAT score... these guys will be the brains we need for the cerebral stuff

 

then id do some obsure calculation that allocates people into each pool depending on which theyd do better in, then select interviewees from each

 

add an extra curic score... screw the reference letters, theyre useless

 

....

 

if you make the cut off then 100 percent interview

LOL

 

I'd say,

 

pre-interview: 70% GPA (Kind of like UofT, cumulative but lowest marks dropped if taken full-load), 30% MCAT no cutoffs, most recent (I think 15,8,15,N can still be a great doctor), Personal statement, sketch, LORs still required but count as 0% pre-interview.

 

post-interview: 65% pre-interview score, 35% interview score. # of interviewee should be twice the number of seats available. The interview should consist of 30 min panel to discuss personal statement, sketch, etc and MMI after. =D

[apache]

i remember reading some study that said the only measure predictive of performance on the wards, apparently, is verbal reasoning score, and MMI score... i believe thats why mcmaster's only using verbal their mcat (which is a third of their score) ...

 

i don't like the term "strong" applicants on paper, i know a lot of people with 4.0 gpas who couldn't think themselves out of a box had they not spent 12 hours memorizing how too...

 

I'd also like to see some more Calgary-esh on sight essays across canada.

 

+1 Hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. Having >50% interview like Calgary/Queen's allows the med-school to justify any acceptance/rejection because the strongest person on paper can be rejected too easily and the weakest interviewee on paper can be too easily accepted.

[apache]

I strongly disagree, communication skills are the MOST important thing in medicine.... there's a reason 50 percent of people throw their prescriptions away without ever using them. In real life patient contact you use "face" and "tone" to earn peoples trust, get full histories (including sexual, drug abuse and other things people feel uncomfortable telling paternalistic doctors), get them to quit smoking, or to open up about a potentially abusive relationship, to come in for physicals more often, to feel a mutual obligation to you as a PARTNER in trying more exercise and eating better... to feel open explaining side effects they dislike rather than saying ok walking out the door and tossing out their meds

 

funny thing is tone and face are great for HEALTH care... diagnostic prowess is great too... but thats why there are academic standards too, it doesn't matter how good you are if you're not earning patients trust and openness, empathizing and eliciting the proper information necessary for best treatment, or at least treatment compliance

 

 

I honestly think interviews are a big show. The applicants all tool around to find the best "face" and "tone" with which to present themselves. The person with the best acting skills will win. They lose alot of good people this way.

 

Hence, I propose pass/fail interviews. Either you have enough "people skills" to be a doctor, or you flat out fail. This is similar to the marking in med school. either you are good enough, or you fail.

 

So in summary, 40%GPA, 25% MCAT, and 35% EC's. The GPA and MCAT are graded along a bell curve of all applicants. With say 1.5 standard deviations above mean getting full marks, and 1.5 standard deviations below mean getting 0.

[healthscigrad8]

Post interview, I'd say 35% best 3 years GPA, 15% sketch, and 50% interview. Maybe the MMI could be combined with a short panel ~ 20 minutes long, weighted 30% of your interview score with the 70% coming from the MMI. This could help out the people who say the MMI doesn't give them enough time with the interviewers.

 

Pre-interview I'd say 50% best 3 years GPA, 50% sketch/questions about what you have gained from your EC experiences. MCAT would be used as a flag, with no score lower than 9.

 

I also think LOR are not necessary except maybe for the Ph.D stream--then you might want profs to defend the applicant's research skills and abilities.

[Dongzhuo]

Interpersonal qualities are definitely very important attributes in a physician, but I believe that MMIs and panel interviews during an hour or so does poorly in assessing that ability. I was thinking more along the lines of people who have quite bad rapport with people generally, and if they used their everyday face and tone, they would be flat out rejected.

However, just for that 1 hour, they pretend to be a person they're not, and carefully manufacture an image they'd like to project. Then when they're in, they revert back to their old selves. They'd probably not put in the effort to "be fake" when its just them and their patients.

 

I strongly disagree, communication skills are the MOST important thing in medicine.... there's a reason 50 percent of people throw their prescriptions away without ever using them. In real life patient contact you use "face" and "tone" to earn peoples trust, get full histories (including sexual, drug abuse and other things people feel uncomfortable telling paternalistic doctors), get them to quit smoking, or to open up about a potentially abusive relationship, to come in for physicals more often, to feel a mutual obligation to you as a PARTNER in trying more exercise and eating better... to feel open explaining side effects they dislike rather than saying ok walking out the door and tossing out their meds

 

funny thing is tone and face are great for HEALTH care... diagnostic prowess is great too... but thats why there are academic standards too, it doesn't matter how good you are if you're not earning patients trust and openness, empathizing and eliciting the proper information necessary for best treatment, or at least treatment compliance

[TheFonz]

30% GPA

30% MCAT (11,11,11-Q) cutoff and there should be substantial points deducted for multiple attempts.

30% ECs + Essay

10% References

 

Interview - Cutoff only (acceptable or unacceptable based on MMI). For example if the school has 100 seats, interview only 150ish and take the top 100 that had an acceptable (past the cutoff) interview.

 

Why?

1) I really don't agree that he 30min interview should outweigh the year of work for GPA/MCAT/ECs etc. Also, I am not convinced they can get a real sense of who you are in less than an hour.

2) MCAT should be weighed heavily because it is a test that everyone has to do and is fair. GPA depends too much on the program/school you went to.

 

This.

 

I don't know that I would weigh the interview as nothing (or pass/fail), but I would follow a system similar to the US where the interview counts for relatively little (and IMO, US interviews are far more engaging and I feel are better suited to trapping the "fake applicants").

 

I'm really surprised that most people follow the idea that interviews should carry a lot of weight. I absolutely agree that interviews are important, because like muse87 mentioned, communication is an essential and integral part of medicine. However, the idea that you can gauge someone's preparedness for medicine (or even worse, personal characteristics like empathy and sympathy) from a 30-40 minute interview seems highly unlikely from a statistical viewpoint. There's just far too much subjectivity, and it's just not a long enough time. The variability is staggering. When people believe in the predictive power of interviews is when it leads to asinine statements, like the one made in the UC forums suggesting that the interviews at UA did not go well this year, and thus the belief of a lower caliber 2014 class at UA. I know that most intelligent people would ignore statements like this, but the idea that anyone would ascribe to this and believe it to be true is frightening to me.

 

I've been fortunate enough to have interviews at US schools, Canadian schools that use MMI, and Canadian schools that use traditional interviews. IMO, I thought MMI worked the best, and probably provides the most accurate depiction of the applicant. The fact that there are multiple stations, and that the questions were largely unpredictable (highly unlikely that you would have rehearsed answers to these questions) means that the final representation of this applicant and his/her personal characteristics would be far more reliable than a quick 30 minute interview with largely "predictable" questions.

 

I also believe in weighing the MCAT heavily. It's far from perfect, but it's as standardized of an evaluation tool as we're going to get. I DON'T agree with strict cut-offs though (especially cut-offs in the 80th+ percentile, the difference can just be one question). Once again, I think the US does it best. If you score relatively low in VR for example, you can compensate for that with relatively high science scores. It's a far more holistic view. I met one amazing applicant on the interview trail who had acceptances to UCSF, Stanford and JHU among others, with a 9 in VR (she had 14s in the sciences). It's scary to think she might not have gotten in anywhere in Ontario.

[JC5]

MAX (Academic, NonAcademic, Interview) - 40%

MIN (Academic, NonAcademic) - 20%

Average of all three - other 40%

 

with Academic 50% GPA 50% MCAT

 

This, of course, due to the MIN category would benefit well-rounded applicants the most. However, due to the MAX category, would allow those with special talents (either academically, nonacademically or whatever interviews measure nowadays) to have the advantage they deserve as well.

[bloh]

Academic - 30

Interview - 30

Non-Academic - 20

PhD - 10

Masters - 5

MCAT - 5 (not required)

An extra 1 for every year after 25

An extra 2 for every year after 30

 

The potential for scoring above '100' is intentional.

 

edit: The rationale for giving out points for age is simple. Far too many people go to medical school for the wrong reasons: family pressure, peer pressure, immaturity, naivety with regards to what medicine entails, etc.

 

A person in their late 20s/30s has likely matured enough to know what they want from life and there should be an avenue for them to switch career fields late in life. A happy person who loves their job is a productive member of the workforce. It is far too easy to spot physicians who are in it for the wrong reasons and it is detrimental to productive care.

[UTPEOPLE]

Academic - 30

Interview - 30

Non-Academic - 20

PhD - 10

Masters - 5

MCAT - 5 (not required)

An extra 1 for every year after 25

An extra 2 for every year after 30

 

The potential for scoring above '100' is intentional.

 

edit: The rationale for giving out points for age is simple. Far too many people go to medical school for the wrong reasons: family pressure, peer pressure, immaturity, naivety with regards to what medicine entails, etc.

 

A person in their late 20s/30s has likely matured enough to know what they want from life and there should be an avenue for them to switch career fields late in life. A happy person who loves their job is a productive member of the workforce. It is far too easy to spot physicians who are in it for the wrong reasons and it is detrimental to productive care.

 

maturity is overrated, if there is a significant improvements with maturity that is correlated enough with age to warrant giving points for it, then we can just assume that by the time the doctors are practicing (8 years of training), they will be more than mature enough. More pressing is the need to get doctors who will be able to practice for a longer time before age-related cognitive decline sets in (can happen as early as 30). Remember, doctor training are a huge investment by the government, so the government better get many years of usage out of them

 

the other weighting seems fine, except for the additional 10 points for a phd and only 5 for MCAT? Having a phd is not that much of a predictor of later success as a physician. I dont think it would even predict further success in doctor licensing exams (as the MCAT would). I think at the bare minimus, Mcat should be 10-15%

[DOC_Ma]

I think it should be

 

70/10/20 MCAT as a flag.

 

(just realized mine is pretty similar to uoft's

[bloh]

maturity is overrated, if there is a significant improvements with maturity that is correlated enough with age to warrant giving points for it, then we can just assume that by the time the doctors are practicing (8 years of training), they will be more than mature enough. More pressing is the need to get doctors who will be able to practice for a longer time before age-related cognitive decline sets in (can happen as early as 30). Remember, doctor training are a huge investment by the government, so the government better get many years of usage out of them

 

Having a phd is not that much of a predictor of later success as a physician. I dont think it would even predict further success in doctor licensing exams (as the MCAT would). I think at the bare minimus, Mcat should be 10-15%

 

The question isn't about maturity at the age of practice but rather the maturity at which a decision is made which will impact the rest of your life. I would imagine that a significant proportion of physicians who went to school early at life either regret the decision or aren't too happy with their profession. But of course no one will switch fields at that point but will continue practicing medicine with a miserable mindset. IMO, that's not very beneficial.

 

In contrast, someone at 30+ has had a lot of life experience, has likely worked in multiple fields and has exhausted their curiosity enough to realize that medicine is truly what they want. Mind you, the prior group of physicians I mentioned are not necessarily ill-suited for medicine. It may simple be a matter of "shoot, would I have liked X profession more instead?". Regardless of what the cause of their unhappiness with medicine, it's still there.

 

You are right about the PhD; neither is MCAT, which is why I put both at <10%.

[Leon]

People outside North America typically enter medicine much earlier in life. My friends from highschool started med in countries like Malaysia, Singapore and the UK at 18.

[UTPEOPLE]

The question isn't about maturity at the age of practice but rather the maturity at which a decision is made which will impact the rest of your life. I would imagine that a significant proportion of physicians who went to school early at life either regret the decision or aren't too happy with their profession. But of course no one will switch fields at that point but will continue practicing medicine with a miserable mindset. IMO, that's not very beneficial.

 

In contrast, someone at 30+ has had a lot of life experience, has likely worked in multiple fields and has exhausted their curiosity enough to realize that medicine is truly what they want. Mind you, the prior group of physicians I mentioned are not necessarily ill-suited for medicine. It may simple be a matter of "shoot, would I have liked X profession more instead?". Regardless of what the cause of their unhappiness with medicine, it's still there.

 

You are right about the PhD; neither is MCAT, which is why I put both at <10%.

 

what is your source for this? Besides, I get the feeling that 20 something year old are capable of distinguishing the direction that their life wants to go in, and a mere 5-6 year (for the 30 year old) isnt always necessary. After all, we arent talking about the difference between 13 year olds and 20 year olds. us younguns deserve the benefit of the doubt. After all, if the few 30 year olds were able to switch from some other career to med, that means that they got the benefit of the doubt too

[Guest success100]

It's put it 30%/10%/60%.

 

-Grades are easy to come by if you work well,it doesn't make an applicant "a better doctor".Should be just enough to give you an interview.

 

-Non-Academic should be taken into account but shouldn't be "the only key" for acceptation.It should be used to spot the most motivated people.

 

-Interview is what should "make or break you."This is where the interviewer will see your personality,evaluate your answers and determine how your mentality is for the Medical practice.

 

 

Here in Quebec,there is something that should be REALLY removed,the R-Score.

They should just give us an MCAT,so it will be Pass/Fail and no luck will be involved....

[thebouque]

It's put it 30%/10%/60%.

 

-Grades are easy to come by if you work well,it doesn't make an applicant "a better doctor".Should be just enough to give you an interview.

 

-Non-Academic should be taken into account but shouldn't be "the only key" for acceptation.It should be used to spot the most motivated people.

 

-Interview is what should "make or break you."This is where the interviewer will see your personality,evaluate your answers and determine how your mentality is for the Medical practice.

 

 

Here in Quebec,there is something that should be REALLY removed,the R-Score.

They should just give us an MCAT,so it will be Pass/Fail and no luck will be involved....

 

Ahah don't get me started on the r score.... it's most complicated thing ever. I don't understand why they don't simply use grades for cegep students and GPA for university students.

[newmeddude]

I say to hell with GPA. We all know GPA is a joke nowadays, and WAY far from being standardized. On one end of the spectrum, you have health sci at mac, where 4.0's are handed out like condoms at a free clinic, and on the other end you have programs like pathology at UofT where a 3.0 is really good. Given the blatant lack of standardization, I honestly don't see much value in it (and I'm saying that with a really high GPA, so i'm not biased).

 

that said, gpa just as a cut-off, 3.65 for best 3 years...

- maybe i'm naive because i haven't experiences these awful programs people talk about,

but even though i definitely acknowledge there is a huge discrepancy in difficulty between programs,

i feel that if you're going into med, you should be able to hit 3.65, regardless of program... i say 3

years because let's be honest, a ton of people bomb first year, and it means nothing (i know many

people who just don't do much first year, but then easily step it up for the remained of university and

get a 3.9+, but the first year kills them with some schools like Mac/UofT)... i think most Ontario schools

acknowledge this (Queens, Western, Ottawa, UofT to some degree i guess, but not really)... so this way,

you can do sub-par first year, and even second year (but you'll need an extra year)... essentially, as long

as you can do relatively well for MOST (not all) or university, you meet the cut-off and that's it

 

MCAT on the other hand should be weighed much heavier than it is now. It is a standardized test that tests critical thinking, communication, science knowledge, intelligence, competence under pressure, preparation, etc... and it is standardized! Why is this not huge????... it weeds out the people getting high marks either because they take easy classes, are in a joke program, etc...

 

I say MCAT be like 60%

- writing sample as a cut-off (maybe P), due to it's subjectivity, but

communication and ability to critically evaluate (ie. a prompt) is

still important

- verbal and bio weighed a bit higher than physics, but all significant

- have cut-offs for each (9), for consideration, but then absolute scores

still matter

- and DEFINITELY have a penalty for multiple writes... i'm all for multiple

tries (by no means should you only have one shot), but I'm sick of the fact

that someone who gets a 34 after three writes being equal to someone who

gets it after one... they're pretty clearly not equal... the first dude has the

benefit of tapping out at the height of the test's inherent intraperson variability

 

Personal statement - 20%

- to hell with this 48 autobio sketch... all it does is propagate the notion

that quantity = quality... let a person do what they do, and write about

why they want to be a doctor and what experiences they have had that

contribute... what can you learn about a person from a list of activities

without any context? useless

 

Interview - 20%

- to ask as more of a screening process for complete anti-socials... but

the interview should not be weighted so heavily such that really outgoing

people are going to inherently be evaluated as better... when you go to a

doctor, yea he/she needs to be a sufficient communicator, but all you

really care about is that they handle your health optimally - in terms of

diagnosis, proper treatment, etc... interview should be there to make

sure you are 'normal', but that's it... everyone is fake to some extent

in an interview anyways... that said, i still gave it 20% because

communication is still important, but like i said, it should be more so

of a screening process, rather than something that can let someone of

lesser academic/intellectual quality have a significantly better chance of

admission than someone who is extremely smart, but more introverted