Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

2011 Interview Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 770
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Probably not, they did a rolling process last year, and there were strict cut-offs.

 

I think what they mean by rolling is...today we will send out notifications for the first half of the alphabet..we will send the other half of it another day.

 

Last year, I was rejected after the holidays as my last name is near the near the last half of the alphabet. As soon as they send out the first batch, you can pretty much deduce what the cutoff is given other people's stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vast number of applicants.... I think they just enter people into their respective mailing lists as they go and send them out when they have a good enough batch.

 

There is a large data entry component I'm sure. It's not like Queen's can say these are our cutoffs OMSAS.... send e-mails. They do it all themselves, and have to look at each application to make sure the applicant has the minimal pre-requisite courses (maybe not if your taking them in the current year), and find the grad student applications, who they consider below the GPA cutoff on a case by case basis. Seemingly simple stuff can take a long time.

 

Also, 2 years ago, they had a server error trying to send out all emails at once on a Friday. Most of the rejections went through but nothing else which lead got tonnes of calls and e-mails on the Monday morning to the effect of where is my e-mail... did I make the cutoffs?

 

Spreading it out gives them time in case of error.

I think this is spot on (especially the bolded part)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike most of you guys, I'm most worried about the BS cut-offs? Any chance at all it will be a 9? Has it ever been that low? I'm good for VR (13) and written (S) and GPA (3.92). Also, WHY did they send out that stupid "Mid-December" email?? It would have just been a nice/horrible surprise if they unexpectedly came early, and now the tension is killing me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tempted to post 3.92, 12/12/12/Q rejected in that thread... must... resist... urge....!

 

;)

 

at least you picked a somewhat reasonable, yet scary thing to think about posting... instead of posting something like 4.00, 14/14/14/T rejected... that would lead to additional calls of shenanigans lol

 

On a different note... Do reference letters and Ecs play ANY pre-interview role at queen's?

 

I have 14/11/14T (B/V/P) and a 3.88 cgpa, does that mean I'm pretty much guaranteed a interview with the exception of the cgpa being lower than a lot of applicants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On a different note... Do reference letters and Ecs play ANY pre-interview role at queen's?

 

I have 14/11/14T (B/V/P) and a 3.87 ish cgpa, does that mean I'm pretty much guaranteed a interview with the exception of the cgpa being lower than a lot of applicants?

 

LMAO. Just cutoffs. I'd bet my money on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Queen's introducing the MMI format this year, they have the potential to interview more candidates than in the past. Thus, it's possible that the cutoffs will not be as stringent as a result.

 

Also, bear in mind that the predicted cutoffs of past years are all based on people who post their stats on forums like this one. As this represents a fraction of the people that were actually invited for interviews, it's quite likely that the true cutoffs are lower than predicted from this sample size (i.e. I would not be surprised if people with 9/Q were in fact invited for interview last year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, bear in mind that the predicted cutoffs of past years are all based on people who post their stats on forums like this one. As this represents a fraction of the people that were actually invited for interviews, it's quite likely that the true cutoffs are lower than predicted from this sample size (i.e. I would not be surprised if people with 9/Q were in fact invited for interview last year).

 

I find that highly unlikely, as people were rejected with 4.00s/way above 9 verbal/Q. Although premed101 had a small sample size, it seems the true cutoffs deduced are pretty accurate...

 

Invited

- 3.8 (N/A), 10/11/12 R

- 3.79 (cGPA), 13/12/13 S

- 3.97 (cGPA), 14/11/11 S

- 3.69 © 3.77 (2 yr), 11/10/11 S

- 3.93 (N/A), 13/10/12 R

- 3.85 (cGPA), 12/11/11 S

- 3.78 (cGPA/grad), 11/11/11 S

- 3.92 (cGPA), 10/11/10 S

- 3.83 (cGPA), 11/11/11 S

- 3.79 (cGPA), 12/10/14 T

- 3.98 (2 yr), 9/10/12 R

- 3.96 (cGPA), 13/11/12 R

- 3.83 (cGPA), 12/10/14 R

- 3.97 (2 year), 11/10/14 S

- 3.86 (cGPA/grad), 10/10/10 S

- 3.85 (2 year), 12/11/12 T

- 3.40 (cGPA/grad), 3.50 (2 year GPA/grad), 11/11/12 R

- 3.92 (cGPA), 12/10/11 S

- 3.89 (cGPA), 11/11/11 R

- 3.76 (cGPA?), 10/10/10 R

- 3.5 (2 yr GPA/Grad), 10/11/11 R

- 3.95 (cGPA), 12/11/11 R

 

Rejected

- 3.85 (2 yr), 11/10/13 Q

- 3.73 (cGPA), 11,13,10 Q

- 3.55 (grad), 10,11,15 Q

- 4.00 (cGPA), 14,13,11 Q

- 3.91 (cGPA), 12/9/10 Q

- 3.79 (cGPA), 12/11/10 Q

- 3.64 (cGPA), 11/11/12 Q

- 3.86 (2 year), 13/9/10 R

- 4.00 (cGPA), 11/9/13 R

- 3.90 (2 yr), 13/13/10 Q

- 3.4 (N/A), 8/11/10 Q

- 3.81 (cGPA), 12/9/12 R

- 3.98 (cGPA), 13/11/14 Q

- 3.70 (cGPA, grad), 12/11/10 O

- 3.87 (N/A), 9/11/9 S

- 3.84 (N/A), 12/10/13 O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that highly unlikely, as people were rejected with 4.00s/way above 9 verbal/Q. Although premed101 had a small sample size, it seems the true cutoffs deduced are pretty accurate...

 

I saw that list before.....however, keep in mind that Queen's does look at your reference letters (but supposedly not the sketch). As the interview is weighted 100%, it suggests that GPA, MCAT and references are factored into play pre-interview. Thus, it's entirely possible that those 16 people who posted their stats on premed (10/Q) might have had poor references. This is a mere 16 people from 3000+ applicants.

 

I'm very much inclined to believe that Queen's does not merely use an algorithm that spits out optimal GPA/MCAT cutoffs for interview invitations for the given applicant pool. I think there is some degree of "human intervention" in considering things like the reference letters. We already know that for grad applicants, they do undertake a case-by-case review of applicants if the GPA is below cutoffs. This could also explain why they embark on rolling interview invitations to give them time to assess candidates by metrics other than computer based cutoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could also explain why they embark on rolling interview invitations to give them time to assess candidates by metrics other than computer based cutoffs.

 

I was thinking the same thing. If all they have to do is data entry, followed by number crunching through a simple formula, they'd have the invitations ready to go already. Then again I thought that UBC was going to release their invitations all on one day at the start of the window that they'd announced, and that didn't quite work out as I expected so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that list before.....however, keep in mind that Queen's does look at your reference letters (but supposedly not the sketch). As the interview is weighted 100%, it suggests that GPA, MCAT and references are factored into play pre-interview. Thus, it's entirely possible that those 16 people who posted their stats on premed (10/Q) might have had poor references. This is a mere 16 people from 3000+ applicants.

 

I'm very much inclined to believe that Queen's does not merely use an algorithm that spits out optimal GPA/MCAT cutoffs for interview invitations for the given applicant pool. I think there is some degree of "human intervention" in considering things like the reference letters. We already know that for grad applicants, they do undertake a case-by-case review of applicants if the GPA is below cutoffs. This could also explain why they embark on rolling interview invitations to give them time to assess candidates by metrics other than computer based cutoffs.

 

 

While you are right in that they use reference letters, chances are they use it post-interview for a small percentage or as a red flag.

 

Queen's (like UWO) for a while now has used the algorithm for interview invites. While grad students/non-trads are given a case by case review, undergraduates are put into the computer and names are spit out. What you call "human intervention" for the ref. letters takes place post interview while selecting acceptances.

 

Premed101 does have a small sample size, but I think I can confidently say that no one under R was invited to an interview last year. Also of the matriculants, doesn't seem like anyone had below an R.

 

And the rolling invites, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is to prevent the problem from a few years ago where when they sent out everything in one day, all the rejections went out but the invites got lost in limbo. Then they had to deal with tons of phone calls, and I'm guessing those weren't happy days. So they switched to rolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I called admissions last week and spoke to Jennifer, and was told the interview offers will most likely be sent towards the end of January, so I guess we still have quite a bit more waiting to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I called admissions last week and spoke to Jennifer, and was told the interview offers will most likely be sent towards the end of January, so I guess we still have quite a bit more waiting to do...

 

Interesting....perhaps a sign that there is more human intervention at work for Queen's interview selection process than in the past. Could translate to lower cutoffs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting....perhaps a sign that there is more human intervention at work for Queen's interview selection process than in the past. Could translate to lower cutoffs....

 

I don't necessarily think the logistics of the interview selection process has changed much since she did attribute the delay to a processing error. Although she did not divulge too much information in the brief conversation we had, I certainly do feel there's a chance of the cut offs dropping since she did mention that this cycle they received a lower number of applications. Yet, once again this in no way suggestive of lower cut offs since this depends on the strength of the pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very possible they could adopt such a system that is more accommodating in the years to come, but given the recent changes already this year with the transition to MMI, I think these new adjustments in screening applicants is still an experiment in progress and may take some time before they completely renovate their current framework for assessing candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hoping Queens employ some sort "make-up" system where if you are below the MCAT/GPA cut-offs, you will still have a shot at getting an interview if you can demonstrate excellence in other areas.

 

So in other words, Queen's should go through the 2500+ other applications in very great detail. Do you really think there would be many exceptional students in this pool who (a) won't get into another school or who (B) would be worth replacing a student who meets the cutoffs and performs well enough in the interview to get an offer?

 

I think you have to think about the marginal gain from this strategy. They would probably find two or three people who would meet criteria (a) and (B) mentioned above, but is this worth going through so much extra work (and spending tens of thousands of dollars) for?

 

I think people need to consider the reality of medical school admissions. They have thousands of qualified applicants and need to select a tiny percentage of these with limited resources. Yes, of course there are a million things they "should" do, but in the real world sometimes there isn't enough money or time to do everything that "should" be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...