New Evalution Process for Academics

[hking03]

This may be unclear because I haven't had time to read the entire thread in detail, but I seem to recall reading that the rule allowing you to drop the worst year is only applicable to students with 120 credits at the time of application? ie: someone who did the basic 30 credits per year, for a four year degree, only had 90 credits when they apply for entry after their 4th years, as the application goes in at the beginning of the final academic year. So the "averagel" students, ie: undegrad directly to md, wouldn't be able to use this rule?

 

Clarification would be greatly appreciated!

 

Yes, the rule can only be used if you have 90 credits after removal of your worst year... Up to 30 credits total.

 

For the most part it would only apply to those who have completed a degree, but if you took a year that was 15-20 credits and it was your worst you could use it while still completing your degree.

[TankMasterFlex]

Reading this thread gives me a good idea of what UBC has likely gone through in coming up with their admissions policies. As someone mentioned, they are never going to please everybody and no matter what they do there will be unhappy applicants. I'm sure in trying to come up with a rule they went through endless possibilities. It would be interesting to have heard about why they chose this. I think this rule is pretty fair.

 

I never had a terrible year but my grades got steadily better over the years. I end up going from a 77 overall average to 79 overall. I'm sure the new overall for interviews next year will go up by about this much and I think I'll end up in the same relative spot for academics... fingers crossed I won't have to worry about it. If they decide to include my terrible prereq GPA then I'm in trouble.

 

I am interested about the changes to their system for allocating AQ points (if any). I don't think they can keep the same system as very few people will score 87+ for the overall, meaning most people won't go above 17 or so on the AQ scale. The spread in numbers for the NAQ will be much larger, and it may mean people are more able to make up for a low AQ with a high NAQ.

 

good luck everyone!

[iwh333]

also if you're doing a 5th year and applying in 4th year.

[darknebula]

Just curious as to what you guys think of a candidate who had to live through the death of two loved ones and still was strong enough to pull off great grades despite a huge emotional blow. Should that candidate be given any special thought for this?

[notmeadoc]

I think that the death of two loved ones has to be defined. Your lab partner in o.chem and a great aunt - probably not. Your mother and your sister - definitely.

 

I really think they need to come up with an exceptional circumstances stream - death of immediate family member should qualify.

[hking03]

Just curious as to what you guys think of a candidate who had to live through the death of two loved ones and still was strong enough to pull off great grades despite a huge emotional blow. Should that candidate be given any special thought for this?

 

That's an interesting question... should the candidate be given any special thought for what they did given the fact that two loved ones died and they performed well in school.

 

It's tricky because a lot of times the special consideration comes in when you see a person who failed two courses or withdrew from full time studies as a result of family/personal medical issues. You have their other grades to show that yes they did well so this was as blip on the radar due to the medical issue. When somebody performs adequately during that period of time it would be difficult to hypothetically guage how well they could have done if circumstances were ideal given the fact that they have nothing else that is concrete to indicate that they would have performed better.

 

I do think it's an incredibly difficult thing to go through and I think that it shows a lot of character to be able to "get through" something that difficult relatively unscathed (academically speaking), but I don't know if the school would give extra consideration...

 

Like I said earlier, I think it's more of an issue when somebody failed or had a significant drop in GPA compared to other terms/years and it is related to a medical issue. It is in those situations that the adcoms can say- yes, this bad year does not reflect the true potential of this applicant due to the fact that the year prior they pulled a 92% average in 10 courses.

 

I hope that doesn't come across as rude or demeaning to what the applicant went through... It would be incredibly tough to lose two loved ones back to back. I've gone through some similar stuff and empathize greatly with the applicant. I hope that they get in and I'm sure it will have nothing to do with the fact that they were given special consideration.

[hking03]

I think that the death of two loved ones has to be defined. Your lab partner in o.chem and a great aunt - probably not. Your mother and your sister - definitely.

 

I really think they need to come up with an exceptional circumstances stream - death of immediate family member should qualify.

 

well, on the application you can write up a blurb about exceptional circumstances to describe why you didn't do as well in a class, took time off or whatever... what's to stop someone from writing it in that they still did well yet had two loved ones die.

[darknebula]

well, on the application you can write up a blurb about exceptional circumstances to describe why you didn't do as well in a class, took time off or whatever... what's to stop someone from writing it in that they still did well yet had two loved ones die.

 

It really is a hard situation to talk about. If someone did well despite a huge setback and then mentions it on the application, there might be a slight chance that the adcom thinks that the applicant is looking for a sympathy advantage, despite the best intentions of the applicant. It is one of those things where it might be best to just move on and hope to get in. Such a person definitely possesses a very strong character, is well-deserving to get in, and will more than likely, if life is fair, get in regardless.

 

I know someone who did crazy good in an honours program despite the loss of a parent. And I don't think the person even mentioned it anywhere on the apps or at any interviews. Just absolute hats off to that person.

[bonbon]

I wonder if this means that pre-requisite GPA will be weighed more heavily... hope not

[Larrivee]

I wonder if this means that pre-requisite GPA will be weighed more heavily... hope not

 

I really hope it does

[GinaM]

I really hope it does

 

me too!

[The Ace of Spades]

me too!

 

Same here.

[Larrivee]

Same here.

 

By the looks of it I think UBC ought to take a premed101 vote on this issue

[Chaplin]

I wonder if this means that pre-requisite GPA will be weighed more heavily... hope not

 

Certainly hopefully not.

[iwh333]

hopefully not. doesn't really make sense if they do

[future_md]

hopefully not. doesn't really make sense if they do

 

It makes sense in a way.

I think prereq GPA didn't count much in the past because it was considered after the interview was done (in which case, interview was the major determining factor)

Now they are no longer calculating last 60 GPA, but instead are looking at pre-req GPA BEFORE interview.

 

I hope they make the overall GPA 99% and prereq 1% when they calculate AQ

[GinaM]

It does make sense because everyone has taken those classes so they can directly compare people. I am not suggesting that how you do in the prerequisite courses will determine how good of a physician you will be, but I think it is better than last 60 credits for comparing academic performance.

 

Although I wish they would consider EVERYTHING before the interview and give you a score which would include mcat, prereqs, etc..and then add your interview score to this when they rank you. It doesn't make sense that people get invited for interviews and then get flagged for their mcat or prereqs after this. The system should not be designed so that they are interviewing people with literally no chance of getting in because of low mcat/prereqs..

[The Ace of Spades]

It doesn't make sense that people get invited for interviews and then get flagged for their mcat or prereqs after this. The system should not be designed so that they are interviewing people with literally no chance of getting in because of low mcat/prereqs..

 

That's what the hard cutoffs are for.

[TankMasterFlex]

It does make sense because everyone has taken those classes so they can directly compare people. I am not suggesting that how you do in the prerequisite courses will determine how good of a physician you will be, but I think it is better than last 60 credits for comparing academic performance.

 

Although I wish they would consider EVERYTHING before the interview and give you a score which would include mcat, prereqs, etc..and then add your interview score to this when they rank you. It doesn't make sense that people get invited for interviews and then get flagged for their mcat or prereqs after this. The system should not be designed so that they are interviewing people with literally no chance of getting in because of low mcat/prereqs..

 

I asked them about this - if people are ever interviewed with no chance of ever getting in because of a very low prereqs (i.e. me). The new MCAT cutoffs address this on that end. They said that they wouldn't interview anyone with no chance of getting in, and having a low prereq gpa doesn't disqualify you. It may raise a flag, but if that person has a strong MCAT and has done much better since taking the prereqs and has done well in science it wouldn't be something that would cause them to reject you.

 

Years ago they told me that they are more concerned if someone does an arts degree, takes the prereq courses and does poorly and has a low MCAT. In that case the applicant really hasn't shown they could do well in science and that person would likely not get in. At some point you have to show them you can do well in the basic sciences, and if one measure suggests that you can handle it they seemed satisfied.

[hking03]

It does make sense because everyone has taken those classes so they can directly compare people. I am not suggesting that how you do in the prerequisite courses will determine how good of a physician you will be, but I think it is better than last 60 credits for comparing academic performance.

 

Although I wish they would consider EVERYTHING before the interview and give you a score which would include mcat, prereqs, etc..and then add your interview score to this when they rank you. It doesn't make sense that people get invited for interviews and then get flagged for their mcat or prereqs after this. The system should not be designed so that they are interviewing people with literally no chance of getting in because of low mcat/prereqs..

 

that's why they have the mcat? why have yet another thing to compare all applicants to each other, especially when you factor in the fact that some people may have only taken those pre-reqs by themselves, or with a different prof, or in the summer, or with 4 other courses... there are way too many variables that are not accounted for when you compare across years, semesters, sections etc. The mcat standardizes the tests so you can compare applicants.

 

i think that if you are offered an interview you have a chance of getting in... we don't know how they break down the interview in terms of it's value when ranking commences...

 

if the mcat or prereqs or reference letters are used as flags that probably wouldn't be the breaking point... it would just be a flag. from what i understand it's more about how you perform at the interview. from years past i'm fairly certain that most of the applicants who did not receive an offer had average or below average interview scores.

 

if you get an interview you are "qualified" to be a student at that school... it's just that others may perform better and have a higher pre interview score and therefore be ranked ahead of you, but like i said- i think a great interview trumps most of that.

[GinaM]

Right, I hate the mcat but I do agree..it is a good way to compare people. I really do wish I knew how much the interview was worth, it would make things much more clear.

[kylamonkey]

USask has a system where EITHER your prereqs OR MCAT are used. You decide (this is my understanding- I could be misinterpreting it).

 

I'm a little bummed out because I retook certain courses at higher level specifically b/c of the 10-yr rule, last yr my pre-req GPA was about 87%. I think my pre-req score will revert to using my original marks, changing my pre-req score to approximately 79-80%. Boo.

But I have a 33MCAT.

[TankMasterFlex]

I just noticed the March senate meeting minutes were posted. Here's some discussion that went on around the removal of the 10-year rule if anyone is interested...

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Mertens stated that he had received questions from several students who objected to the proposed change. The previous policy had been to allow the exclusion of courses taken more than ten years earlier, whereas the proposed change would omit the academic year with the lowest academic standing. Students felt that the change would disadvantage applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who had performed poorly during the first years of their undergraduate degree studies.

 

The assembly recognized Dr. Joseph Finkler, Associate Dean, Admissions, Faculty of Medicine. Dr. Finkler stated that it was not possible to address the question being posed because the University did not collect information about the socioeconomic status of its students. He provided an overview of the history of the “ten-year rule”, noting that the original purpose had been to avoid automatic exclusion of mature applicants who had performed poorly in a first degree but markedly better over the course of a second degree. Over the decade that the policy had been in place, the Faculty had observed that its policy had offered an unfair advantage to a applicants who enrolled in a lighter course load and repeated courses for higher standing over a long period of time.

 

In response to a question from Dr. Cairns, Dr. Finkler acknowledged the existence of grade inflation within the applicant pool, but noted that this inflation was difficult to quantify.

 

In response to a question from Mr. Kim, Dr. Finkler clarified that Aboriginal applicants would be eligible for a full file review with an admission average of 70 or higher.

 

http://www.senate.ubc.ca/vancouver/minutes.cfm?article=minute10-11/0311/march.pdf

[kylamonkey]

Hm. Having spoken to a number of people who have used the 10-yr rule, I can't say I have heard of any of that.

 

By removing the 10-yr rule they're essentially forcing me to go back and take a lighter courseload with an easier degree if I want to be competitive, so this is somewhat amusing.

[maybeadoc]

Hmm...

 

I think students that objected to the rule change should have used the argument of significantly adapting and making sacrifices in their life to take advantage of this rule and changing it without notice is extremely unfair.

 

Also, I don't really agree that the 10-year rule would be disadvantageous to other students on the basis that they took lighter course loads. You could do that anyways as UBC doesn't look at course load (yet)! And who is using the 10-year rule, perhaps more mature students, maybe they have families and are working while going to school and thus taking lighter course loads.

 

So many variables here and many arguments to made on both sides. However, with a change that is this significant, there should have been some warning, perhaps an application cycle or two. Or perhaps providing the option of using either the 10-year rule or the drop the lowest 30 creds.