Final Acceptance Notices

[MedPen]

That's actually very UNfair. Somebody misses a GPA cutoff by .01, but would've been the perfect candidate, and they don't get the chance to show it. Holistic is better, IMO.

 

Holistic would be better if schools had the time and ressources to actually be holistic i.e. have more than one person review a file and take more time to look at the files. As it stands, holistic feels very subjective but like you said, it's never fair...

 

In the end, though, I think it's good to have a discussion about the issues surrounding admissions than just accept it will always be unfair and mysterious.

[RiceWine]

 

And, yes, I think the MMI isn't the best tool nor do I know what is. I have no clue. I think the MMI feels like a game and if you're good at improv, you do well. Overall, the french schools way of doing things just feels fairer.

 

Hi MedPen. As someone who has been through 3 actual MMI's. I'd say each school is looking for different qualities ("diversity") in selecting their incoming students through their specific MMI questions.

 

If you think MMI is a game ..... life IS a game too in a way. You need to know how to improve, always.

 

good luck

[kirilkralev]

The more I think about it, the more I think the french schools have a better approach. At least the first part of their selection (interview invites) is objective. And, then, the MMI can weed off the weaker candidates. McGill starts off very subjectively by looking at an abstract a candidate wrote. If the person who reviews your file doesn't like it, you're done. That's what I think is wrong.

 

And, yes, I think the MMI isn't the best tool nor do I know what is. I have no clue. I think the MMI feels like a game and if you're good at improv, you do well. Overall, the french schools way of doing things just feels fairer.

 

Fairer?

 

The french schools' interview selection is totally based on the Côte R or CRU.

First, they can hardly be called fair and

Second, every nerd with no social life, no social implication, no acctivities at all is still in better position than someone who invested himself in extracurricular activites and got a lesser côte.

 

It does not fit in my understanding of fair!

 

Learning capacities are not the only required skill to make a good physician, probably not even the most important , how can it be the only criteria for interview selection?

[MedPen]

Fairer?

 

The french schools' interview selection is totally based on the Côte R or CRU.

First, they can hardly be called fair and

Second, every nerd with no social life, no social implication, no acctivities at all is still in better position than someone who invested himself in extracurricular activites and got a lesser côte.

 

It does not fit in my understanding of fair!

 

Learning capacities are not the only required skill to make a good physician, probably not even the most important , how can it be the only criteria for interview selection?

 

I think it's fairer. You work hard, you get a shot at an interview. As for ECs, life is an EC. No one I know has spent their entire life just studying. People socialize, partake in activities, hang out with friends etc... Some learn something from the things they do, some don't. Life lessons and abilities don't magically develop because you log in 100 hours at a hospital or play a sport.

[MedPen]

It's not fairer, because it's saying only people who worked so hard at their GPA get a shot.

 

Maybe my GPA is only 3.7 because I spent a lot of time running coaching clinics for a sport, competing at a high level in that sport, or developing other skills. We both worked just as hard, just you only worked hard at improving one number (GPA), while I worked on other things too.

 

So, it's not "fair" that you don't get an interview for worse ECs, but it's also not "fair" that I don't get an interview because my GPA suffered while I did other equally important things.

 

At least GPA is more standardized while ECs are very subjectively evaluated. It's much easier to compare numbers than activities because, IMO, it's not the activity that matters, it's what someone learned from it.

[gb35]

At least GPA is more standardized while ECs are very subjectively evaluated. It's much easier to compare numbers than activities because, IMO, it's not the activity that matters, it's what someone learned from it.

 

Yes but I'd argue that GPA isn't that important beyond a certain point. If somebody got a 3.6 but did tons of other things, my bet is they are as intelligent and capable of learning as the person who devoted themselves wholly to their studies and got a 3.9. In fact, the person who got the 3.6 but did more things is probably more used to learning different things in different environments beyond straight "book learning". So objectively excluding someone with a 3.6 is not the way to go.

 

And GPA is not standardized. At some schools, cell bio/orgo is an easy A, and at others it isn't.

[Dominique615]

Holistic would be better if schools had the time and ressources to actually be holistic i.e. have more than one person review a file and take more time to look at the files. As it stands, holistic feels very subjective but like you said, it's never fair...

 

In the end, though, I think it's good to have a discussion about the issues surrounding admissions than just accept it will always be unfair and mysterious.

 

Actually MedPen, McGill's admission committee told us that no fewer than 14 individuals reviewed EACH application....that's a pretty holistic and and very fair approach in my opinion.

 

Then again, I was offered admission....good luck with the rest of your applications!

[Corie]

Agreed. Furthermore, people take the easiest classes to achieve a high GPA. Is it fair if someone chooses classes they genuinely enjoy but takes a minor blow to their GPA to not get an interview?

 

Also, MedPen mentioned that McGill only has one person reading each applicant letter. I question the validity of that assumption.

 

I believe a holistic approach is still better than a strict GPA cut off even though the latter would have benefited me much more.

 

Yes but I'd argue that GPA isn't that important beyond a certain point. If somebody got a 3.6 but did tons of other things, my bet is they are as intelligent and capable of learning as the person who devoted themselves wholly to their studies and got a 3.9. In fact, the person who got the 3.6 but did more things is probably more used to learning different things in different environments beyond straight "book learning". So objectively excluding someone with a 3.6 is not the way to go.

 

And GPA is not standardized. At some schools, cell bio/orgo is an easy A, and at others it isn't.

[MedPen]

Yes but I'd argue that GPA isn't that important beyond a certain point. If somebody got a 3.6 but did tons of other things, my bet is they are as intelligent and capable of learning as the person who devoted themselves wholly to their studies and got a 3.9. In fact, the person who got the 3.6 but did more things is probably more used to learning different things in different environments beyond straight "book learning". So objectively excluding someone with a 3.6 is not the way to go.

 

And GPA is not standardized. At some schools, cell bio/orgo is an easy A, and at others it isn't.

 

You have a very valid point but I don't think having some arbitrary person judge applicants' ECs is the way to go either. I agree that the person with a 3.6 shouldn't be excluded if he/she is indeed really implicated and has developed many qualities in their activities but how does one assess that? It seems to me that a letter of intent and an abstract don't always paint an accurate picture. Don't ask me what would... I don't know.

 

For some people, it really represents them and thus, there are some amazing people in McGill med right now. Some people, though, really misrepresent themselves and everyone who knows them, knows it.

[Corie]

Wow really? I never knew...

 

Actually MedPen, McGill's admission committee told us that no fewer than 14 individuals reviewed EACH application

[MedPen]

Actually MedPen, McGill's admission committee told us that no fewer than 14 individuals reviewed EACH application....that's a pretty holistic and and very fair approach in my opinion.

 

Then again, I was offered admission....good luck with the rest of your applications!

 

I'm not sure 14 people reviewed every single applications but probably just the ones that someone found interesting.

[kirilkralev]

some people really misrepresent themselves and everyone who knows them, knows it.

 

Exactly the same could happen and actually happens with your score!!!

[Corie]

For some people, it really represents them and thus, there are some amazing people in McGill med right now but some people really misrepresent themselves and everyone who knows them, knows it. Other people are never given the chance.

 

Yes this may be true. It happens at all universities, all programs. MMI was intended on bring out the true personalities. I do believe it works significantly better than traditional styles.

[MedPen]

Yes this may be true. It happens at all universities, all programs. MMI was intended on bring out the true personalities. I do believe it works significantly better than traditional styles.

 

I am not convinced MMI brings out true personalities. I think it's more fair than being interviewed by one person because more opinions are always better but I'm not convinced MMI is the final solution to admissions. We'll see...Maybe in a few years, schools will use another system.

[MedPen]

Exactly the same could happen and actually happens with your score!!!

 

How do you figure? Do you mean people taking easier classes to boost their GPA?

[new user name]

It's just the way you presented it that rubs some people the wrong way. Of course, we all know some people who don't ever get in, and would've made fantastic doctors. And I'm sure every med class has a few head-scratchers. But, saying that MMI does not correlate with real life is a bit ridiculous. It may not be the best venue for EVERYONE to show off their personality, but med schools use it because their research has found it works the best for most people, or helps schools identify the character traits they are going after.

 

I don't know what you'd have them do. Panel interview? A lot of people would argue they'd rather the opportunity to have "fresh starts" which the MMI allows, and the chance to meet with more assessors. Would you rather no interview? That's just a little silly. So I just don't know what you'd have them do....There's no perfect system, only the system that is the fairest for the largest number of people.

 

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but don't post that some people who got in aren't worthy, or that a school doesn't know what they're doing. That isn't a productive attitude, and won't get you anywhere.

 

I thought this was very eloquently and accurately stated!!!

[sleeping_sickness]

That's actually very UNfair. Somebody misses a GPA cutoff by .01, but would've been the perfect candidate, and they don't get the chance to show it. Holistic is better, IMO.

 

I completely agree. Last year, I was granted an interview by U laval. four days after the interview I got an e-mail saying that they had made a mistake in giving me the interview. my CRU (whatever that is) was 31.516, whereas the lowest that was given an interview had a 31.546. so, for 0.03, I got a $100 refund. I have never been so insulted in my life. Major lack of tact.

 

On another note, I got into McGill on my first attempt!

Class of 2015!!!!!

[doc5]

I completely agree. Last year, I was granted an interview by U laval. four days after the interview I got an e-mail saying that they had made a mistake in giving me the interview. my CRU (whatever that is) was 31.516, whereas the lowest that was given an interview had a 31.546. so, for 0.03, I got a $100 refund. I have never been so insulted in my life. Major lack of tact.

 

On another note, I got into McGill on my first attempt!

Class of 2015!!!!!

 

wow, good on you for getting into premed.....Im among the group who are waiting for interview invites from mcgill. You must have did exceptionally well on your interview:)

[sleeping_sickness]

I didn't actually get into premed. I completed a second bachelor's degree (I needed a GPA boost), and then applied to McGill this year and was accepted.

 

Good luck waiting. You'll find out whether you'll interview or not soon enough. The waiting is truly the hardest part. I think I have tendonitis from hitting the refresh button so many times, lol.