Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Ad is the Free Press


Recommended Posts

I read the add, but don't have it on hand. It was someone looking to get in contact with people that were rejected for (I am assuming start years and not application year) 2009, 2008, 2007 and possibly 2006(don't remember). They contact was a hotmail address, but the cost of placing an ad makes it interesting. I'm thinking it is a study on backup or new career choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is what they sent me. Looks pretty contreversial.

 

Hello

 

Thank you for your inquiry based upon the Winnipeg Free Press as of Saturday April 23, 2011 page A5.

In May 2011, information will be released online that challenges the integrity and the validity of the medical admission process at the UofM for those years in question. You will receive a link in due course. In the duration, you may consider registering your name and application year(s) with the UofM office of public affairs. Once the information becomes public with the media and students, the UofM will be forced to address these egregious admission flaws. This information is first come first serve.

 

Good Luck!

 

Medical Admissions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're identifying themselves as Medical Admissions in ads and emails, and they're using a Hotmail account. This is clearly legit.

 

Honestly though I'm really curious as to what this person wants. Or possibly people. In any case, I'm tempted to email them just to see what it's about (I mean I did apply for two of those cycles without getting accepted, clearly I'm eligible to participate in whatever crackpot studies/activities they have planned).

 

But I decided it's not worth my time. LivetoDance you should keep us posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another response regarding the ad in the Free Press:

 

Hello,

 

Please find 2 links related to medical admissions at the UofM for 2007. The first is a list of medical interviewers from 2007. See Page 17

 

http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/media/MB_Med_Fall_07.pdf

 

At least 1 interviewer had a biological child who applied in 2007 and that child received admission in 2007. This volunteer interviewer had access to interview questions, scoring formula, scoring criteria and scoring format. THIS WAS NOT INTERVIEW EQUITY. Furthermore, this interviewer had the means, motive and opportunity to score down his/her child's competition to further aid the child's application. Perhaps in 2007, this interviewer interviewed you? If this were true, you were doubly disadvantaged as you did not have access to the questions et al. AND you were scored down.

 

The second link is to the current UofM conflict of interest policy regarding evaluation.

 

http://umanitoba.ca/admin/governance/governing_documents/students/277.htm

 

Despite this scenario being a clear policy violation, documents will show that the UofM knew of this parent child medical interview relationship BEFORE the medical interviews took place. Moreover, several high ranking UofM officials have known of this policy violation for years and have endorsed its cover-up.

 

In fact, it was claimed that the media made an inquiry on this specific issue before May 2009. Perhaps, this was an attempt to shut down this matter.

 

The specific names of the interviewer, successful applicant, UofM officials involved and all related documents will be released next week.

 

In the duration, if you applied to Medicine in 2007, please contact John Danakas at public affairs by phone or email and make a request to find out the names of your 2007 medical interview panel on Monday May 16, 2011. Also, request the name of the media outlet that inquired on this matter before May 2009.

 

Truly,

 

Medical Admissions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did the ad include 2008 and 2009, but not 2010? Was 2010 the first year where both parties had the ability to report conflicts of interest? What is up with the dates associated with the university's policy, are the effective and last revised dates backwards?? The policy isn't clear on whether it also applies to evaluating the competition of people having close personal relationships. Isn't clear if it applies to having knowledge in the process when one has a close personal relationship.

 

Maybe if this really blows up people will be inserted into the class of 2012 (2011's are already done)? Maybe only med 2's that got rejected that year will get to skip 3rd year? jk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admitted in '07 would have graduated in this year. You could compare names published in the Free Press today against names in the interviewer list.

I know of a mother-son conflict from that year, but the mother has a different last name than the son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm gonna say it.

 

Based on this preliminary statement that the "admissions committee" (a title extremely disingenuous at the least) is trying to cite some discrepancy about the 2007 admissions cycle, let me remind the cadre of a few things. This was one of the first years that U of M implemented the MMI, so lets be clear. The only way that having a biological relative on the committee would help would have been if they had been the interviewer in one of those one-hour sessions. Do you suppose that they might have realized that there could have been an inherent problem with interviewing a blood relative in this manner? Of course they would have, The interview committee is not stupid.

Which suggests that the parent could have had the relative in an MMI spot (which, as before mentioned, was in 2007 which had both MMI and traditional interviews being conducted). Do enough reading and you learn that the MMI is marked as an average and outliers are removed. If one mark is considerably higher than the others, it is analysed to try and quantify why. Do you really think that if the student was being shoe-horned through, the high mark on their one station (where the parent was) would NOT send up some kind of red flag to the admissions committee? I repeat, These are not stupid people!!!

 

Which leaves only two possibilities. Either:

a) this student had the biggest connections ever to coast into Med school and the ensuing scandal will bring shame to the University of Manitoba for years to come

 

OR

 

B) the claim is full of sh!t.

 

My money is on sour grapes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm gonna say it.

 

Based on this preliminary statement that the "admissions committee" (a title extremely disingenuous at the least) is trying to cite some discrepancy about the 2007 admissions cycle, let me remind the cadre of a few things. This was one of the first years that U of M implemented the MMI, so lets be clear. The only way that having a biological relative on the committee would help would have been if they had been the interviewer in one of those one-hour sessions. Do you suppose that they might have realized that there could have been an inherent problem with interviewing a blood relative in this manner? Of course they would have, The interview committee is not stupid.

Which suggests that the parent could have had the relative in an MMI spot (which, as before mentioned, was in 2007 which had both MMI and traditional interviews being conducted). Do enough reading and you learn that the MMI is marked as an average and outliers are removed. If one mark is considerably higher than the others, it is analysed to try and quantify why. Do you really think that if the student was being shoe-horned through, the high mark on their one station (where the parent was) would NOT send up some kind of red flag to the admissions committee? I repeat, These are not stupid people!!!

 

Which leaves only two possibilities. Either:

a) this student had the biggest connections ever to coast into Med school and the ensuing scandal will bring shame to the University of Manitoba for years to come

 

OR

 

B) the claim is full of sh!t.

 

My money is on sour grapes

 

Actually, in 2007 panel interviews were used. Apparently there was a pilot MMI that certain candidates did in addition to their panel interviews, but it did not count towards their PAS scores.

 

Regardless, I'm curious what exactly these "medical admissions" folks expect the University to do. If they just want to highlight the unfairness, why are they soliciting unsuccessful applicants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, in 2007 panel interviews were used. Apparently there was a pilot MMI that certain candidates did in addition to their panel interviews, but it did not count towards their PAS scores.

 

Regardless, I'm curious what exactly these "medical admissions" folks expect the University to do. If they just want to highlight the unfairness, why are they soliciting unsuccessful applicants?

 

Sorry, that's what I meant in referring to the "one-hour sessions". I realize I didn't clearly indicate that the panel was what I referred to. But seriously, the kind of discrepancy these individuals are alluding to would be highly unlikely to occur at the U of M, given the environment and culture of the school faculty. They take their integrity seriously, this would represent a huge mis-step if it had any merit. Based on my experiences, I am disinclined to believe these claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have strong reasons (and first-hand experience) to suspect that the U of M has had big issues with integrity and their admission process, but I also suspect that it is not the only medical school to be guilty, in at least some regard, in this respect.

 

alright, i'm curious. do tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright, i'm curious. do tell.

 

It's now five years past and I'm over it, but without revealing too many details, I was offered the opportunity to get a leg up on the competition at the interview stage. I rejected the offer, had the interview without any help, and was not offered admission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you didn't go to the media at the time? I guess I have to respect your morals and say thank you for declining the help, but me and maybe others would have appreciated if you attempted to get the word out.

 

Go to the media? That would have done me and others absolutely no good, as I had no proof, written or otherwise, of what took place. It would have been my word vs. the word of very respected individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...