MED 2015 Admissions Statistics is now posted

[golgifun]

I agree with the posters who said UBC's decision to remove the 10-year rule and other related policies was an unambiguous sign to move admissions towards a more academically-based system. I suppose each school/program sees things uniquely and UBC can't be faulted by wanting things done a certain way. But the manner in which UBC removed these afore-existing and significant policies could have been done in a...less harsh way. There were many folks (myself almost included) who, with this 10-year exemption rule in mind, put in years of "redeeming" work to prepare for an application to UBC. Again, the school has the "right" to make policy changes accordingly at will, but out of general respect and consideration, I think the committee should have allowed a 1-2 year leeway/transition period of some sort for folks who had already made the investment. It felt like UBC just slammed the door in the faces of these applicants without much explanation or warning.

[spuddy999]

Guys if you look at the Accepted/Rejected/Waitlisted thread you will see several applicants who got in with less then traditional academic records. Some who failed a course. One person who was accepted spent 6 years getting his GPA to a reasonable level (it still was only in the high 70's). Others who were accepted with below average records. Then there were individuals also who were rejected with above average GPA's.

[ubcMDhopeful]

I agree with the posters who said UBC's decision to remove the 10-year rule and other related policies was an unambiguous sign to move admissions towards a more academically-based system. I suppose each school/program sees things uniquely and UBC can't be faulted by wanting things done a certain way. But the manner in which UBC removed these afore-existing and significant policies could have been done in a...less harsh way. There were many folks (myself almost included) who, with this 10-year exemption rule in mind, put in years of "redeeming" work to prepare for an application to UBC. Again, the school has the "right" to make policy changes accordingly at will, but out of general respect and consideration, I think the committee should have allowed a 1-2 year leeway/transition period of some sort for folks who had already made the investment. It felt like UBC just slammed the door in the faces of these applicants without much explanation or warning.

++++

 

I totally agree with this. It does seem completely unfair for UBC to eliminate such a rule without informing people well in advance. Its like removing the MCAT without prior notice for the next application where people spent like an entire summer studying for it.

[murphy303]

Wachaa, the problem is that the cutoff is indirectly set lower for NAQ and higher for AQ. With a high AQ, one can get an interview with extremely low NAQ score under last year's UBC system, which is what I am disappointed about. Changes have been made for this year's system though for both AQ and NAQ, so we'll see how it goes.

 

I agree with your post in general. I should have worded my post better. Again, I'm not against a certain group of applicants - I just prefer a better balance between GPA and non-academics, that's all.

 

I agree with these remarks. Look at the mean NAQ and AQ scores and consider how the interview is based on the sum of these scores. A student with a high average (and virtually no volunteer or life experience) can easily get an interview.

 

This is brutal if you consider an individual with a 20 NAQ (who'd probably be in the top single percentile of NAQ scores) and a 79.5% average, who probably would get in if they could get interviewed but they can't even get interviewed...!

[medisforme]

It would be very interesting to see the NAQ and AQ score of 3rd year applicants who were accepted/rejected and more "non-trad" applicants who were accepted/rejected. that would give us a much better idea of any so called bias or direction UBC is headed.

 

I am one of those bitter non-trads who feels ripped off by UBC's admission standards.

[spoudaios]

I think UBC is heading into the more academic with the more recent changes that they implemented over the past 2-3 years. I have tried 3 times (I did not really count the first one since my MCAT was so bad) and still unsuccessful. I have decided to go to the DO route in the US. I have 3 acceptances and will be starting med school next year.

 

Who to blame? Maybe Fiddler? Since he took the position, everything seems to revolve around the heavy weighting on academics.

 

I don't think there is solution as who is best to admit to class. Some prefer younger applicants while still trying to accomodate the more mature individuals. The younger applicants tend to be more ambitious and have more options in terms of what they want to do in their career and seem to choose to specialize. This is only my speculation eventhough it seems that way. The older applicants though probably just want to be a doctor and prefer primary care (e.g. GP) a little bit more. The DO schools in the US seem to be more appreciative of clinical experience and life experiences and majority of these schools do produce more primary care providers than the MD schools. There are lots of pros and cons and it will never end no matter which angles we look at things.

[keepontrying]

It's more like, medical schools like UBC can do whatever they want because in the end the admitted cohort will have excellent students since most applicants are highly qualified. Even if you pick the dumbest student from a class of geniuses, you'll still get a genius.

 

http://www.bcmj.org/editorials/so-you-want-be-doctor

 

FYI - interesting article to read

[3kgt48]

Interesting article. I don't understand one thing, Why is it that Canadian Medical Schools tend to change their admission policies at least once every year? That just doesn't make any sense? American, European, and heck even Caribbean medical schools generally tend to stick to their admission policies and only change minor parameters.

 

Given that it usually takes 3-4 years to complete the required courses and engage in meaningful non-academic activities it's very frustrating for applicants to play the admission game with Canadian Medical Schools.

 

Over the last 5-7 years UBC has changed the following admission policies :

 

- Interview format from panel to MMI

- MMI format: Last year they introduced writing stations

- No Autobiographical essay

- Interview cut-off grade. Used to be 70% and now it's 75%. Confusingly enough some students are admitted with a below 75% average. Very Strange!!!!

- Using the last 60 credits vs dropping one worst year!

- Change in number of seats allocated to out-of-provinces students

- They have, on several occasions, changed the method of NAQ calculation - which still remains a mystery.

- and last but not least let's not forget how many times the online application system has been changed - they have changed the maximum number of entries, the allotted number of characters used to describe activities, etc

 

Do they really need to change something every year???? Why don't they formally decide on an admission system and use it for 3-5 years, then conduct an objective study and determine whether or not it's working before changing it every D*%M$ cycle?

 

I personally think that with these constant changes getting accepted really depends on your luck and how the current application requirements suit your application.

 

I vote for hiring an admission dean who has proper experience in MD admission process in Canada. Someone who has gone through their undergraduate and MD education in Canada and knows what it takes to be a successful physician in Canada!!!!

 

Unfortunately, the current policies are hugely against us mature/graduate applicants. Ever since Finkler, the average age of admitted applicants has decreased, the number of accepted applicants with graduate degrees as decreased, and the AQ has increased. All of these changes, IMHO, are aimed to admit a higher number of younger applicants.

 

I have nothing against younger applicants but I seriously don't see how a 20 year old who has only completed 3 years of undergraduate studies and has "ACED" all of his 100-200 level courses is a better candidate than someone who has two-three degrees, has published peer-reviewed articles, and has way more life/volunteer experience. Of course the only quantifiable difference between the young and older applicants in their GPA! You ace two years of undergraduate courses you are pretty much guaranteed a place. You mess up one year of your undergraduate courses then you are pretty much screwed. Even if you go on to complete a masters degree or heck even a Phd!!!

 

The message is clear: Study your A*& off during your first two-three years or you won't be able to enter medical school in BC.

 

Cheers

[RiceWine]

The message is clear: Study your A*& off during your first two-three years or you won't be able to enter medical school in BC.

 

Cheers

 

you'd better know how to play with color blocks too at ubc...

 

"Colored blocks have their place in kindergarten. Pretending to be an animal has its place in preschool. Actors have their place on the stage and in the theatre. Drawing has a role in art classes. None, in my opinion, should be involved in the serious process of selecting suitable candidates for entry into our profession. "

[aaronjw]

you'd better know how to play with color blocks too at ubc...

 

"Colored blocks have their place in kindergarten. Pretending to be an animal has its place in preschool. Actors have their place on the stage and in the theatre. Drawing has a role in art classes. None, in my opinion, should be involved in the serious process of selecting suitable candidates for entry into our profession. "

 

what if someone is colour blind?

 

talk about discrimination lol

[keepontrying]

I have nothing against younger applicants but I seriously don't see how a 20 year old who has only completed 3 years of undergraduate studies and has "ACED" all of his 100-200 level courses is a better candidate than someone who has two-three degrees, has published peer-reviewed articles, and has way more life/volunteer experience. Of course the only quantifiable difference between the young and older applicants in their GPA! You ace two years of undergraduate courses you are pretty much guaranteed a place. You mess up one year of your undergraduate courses then you are pretty much screwed. Even if you go on to complete a masters degree or heck even a Phd!!!

 

The message is clear: Study your A*& off during your first two-three years or you won't be able to enter medical school in BC.

 

Cheers

 

Young applicants can have alot of experience too. I personally know some that are simply outstanding and have a resume that can score close to 20 NAQ. To me, the problem is not the age. If a 17 years old has sufficient life experience, a great GPA, and a great interview, there's nothing wrong with accepting him/her. But I agree that the current changes are favouring applicants with high GPA and few non-academics (including research, which should garner some academic points like UofT).

[backpacker]

Interestingly if you do the math, due to the increase in number of seats for the OOP students, the in-province GPA did not change that much.

 

85.4 is average this year (29 OOPs)

84.98 is average last year (12 OOPs)

 

assume OOP get in with 90% (reasonable assumption)

 

Then, IP GPA average this year is 84.88, and last year was 84.73, a difference of 0.15% (which is still big, but not significantly big)

 

This does surprise me how a change of 0.15 in average GPA reduced the number of older applicants by that much.

 

My two cents,

[TankMasterFlex]

Maybe there are more younger applicants applying than before? Of all the older / grad students I know that were applying, we generally faired pretty well in terms of acceptance. There may simply be less of us applying than in the past.

[ubcMDhopeful]

 

Unfortunately, the current policies are hugely against us mature/graduate applicants. Ever since Finkler, the average age of admitted applicants has decreased, the number of accepted applicants with graduate degrees as decreased, and the AQ has increased. All of these changes, IMHO, are aimed to admit a higher number of younger applicants.

 

I have nothing against younger applicants but I seriously don't see how a 20 year old who has only completed 3 years of undergraduate studies and has "ACED" all of his 100-200 level courses is a better candidate than someone who has two-three degrees, has published peer-reviewed articles, and has way more life/volunteer experience. Of course the only quantifiable difference between the young and older applicants in their GPA! You ace two years of undergraduate courses you are pretty much guaranteed a place. You mess up one year of your undergraduate courses then you are pretty much screwed. Even if you go on to complete a masters degree or heck even a Phd!!!

 

The message is clear: Study your A*& off during your first two-three years or you won't be able to enter medical school in BC.

 

Cheers

 

I agree with you that changing the application requirements is kind of unfair ; however, if someone is competitive in one application format it is very likely that they are in the new one too.

 

I however do not agree with you assesment of younger applicants. I actually welcome this change. Infact, I think younger applicants are at a disadvantage and they have to show much more potential to get accepted.

 

Also its not just grades, most 20 year olds that I know who got accepted, and many that have applied this year, have peer-reviewed publications, volunteering , leadership etc....

Also those courses that you call beginner are much harder to get good grades in according the the mark distributions of 2-3 year courses vs. grad and 4th year courses.

 

Regarding life experience, you are correct that mature applicants by definition have more. What is more valuable: life experience as a premed or life experience as a MD. If we push towards having life experiences for admissions, then we are going to get doctors who have less experience in medicine but more experience in research/health promotion non of which in my opinion are as valuable for a clinician.

I also dont get why everyone assumes that these 3rd years are very geeky and cant communicate. I think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

At the end of the day though, no matter how they make their selections they are going to get good students anyways due to competition that is present in Canada.

[keepontrying]

I agree with you that changing the application requirements is kind of unfair ; however, if someone is competitive in one application format it is very likely that they are in the new one too.

 

I however do not agree with you assesment of younger applicants. I actually welcome this change. Infact, I think younger applicants are at a disadvantage and they have to show much more potential to get accepted.

 

Also its not just grades, most 20 year olds that I know who got accepted, and many that have applied this year, have peer-reviewed publications, volunteering , leadership etc....

Also those courses that you call beginner are much harder to get good grades in according the the mark distributions of 2-3 year courses vs. grad and 4th year courses.

 

Regarding life experience, you are correct that mature applicants by definition have more. What is more valuable: life experience as a premed or life experience as a MD. If we push towards having life experiences for admissions, then we are going to get doctors who have less experience in medicine but more experience in research/health promotion non of which in my opinion are as valuable for a clinician.

I also dont get why everyone assumes that these 3rd years are very geeky and cant communicate. I think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

At the end of the day though, no matter how they make their selections they are going to get good students anyways due to competition that is present in Canada.

 

Experience in research/health promotion is VERY valuable for a clinician. You need research to advance the field and you need health promotion to improve disease prevention. As a clinician, you have the power to lead both and prior experience before matriculating will only be beneficial.

 

In your opinion, you believe age DOES matter, as in younger applicants can offer more years of practice compared to the older folks. That's basically the only "benefit" that you have pointed out. The key question is: how many more years? Just because applicant A began med school earlier than applicant B does not mean A will practice for more years than B: that's a logical fallacy. Perhaps B practice and does research until 70 yo, while A is a specialist that does clinical work only and retires by 60 yo?

 

I've been saying this again and again. Age shouldn't be a factor. A good combination of GPA and non-academics is.

[ubcMDhopeful]

 

I've been saying this again and again. Age shouldn't be a factor. A good combination of GPA and non-academics is.

 

I completely agree with the above view point, in my previous comments I did not mean to portray age by it self as a factor for selection. Everyone has the same equal opportunity to get the same score so I do not see why moving towards academics is descriminating against age.

 

 

UBC however by lets saying putting more emphasis on the academics, is able to get younger students. That is not because they are going for their age but younger students are admitted because they have less NAQ and rely on their grades more. Older students had the exact same opportunities to get the same scores.

[3kgt48]

I agree with both of you guys. What UBC and other medical school need to change are:

 

- have a double blinded system in which us applicants are only numbers (i.e. the assessors do not know our race, age, or gender).

 

- Obviously this is impossible for the MMI but for the rest of the application process I don't see a reason against it.

 

Additionally, what really bothers me is that during the MMI they ask us to bring a photograph and a copy of our passports which will be attached to our applications. I don't see how this is necessary? Now, obviously they need to double check our identity and what not but that could be done differently. They can check our IDs and heck even ask for a picture before the MMI without attaching them to our applications.

 

Seeing that they are trying to make the process more objective, it really does not make any sense to attach our pictures and passports to our applications.

 

Fruits for thought!!!!

[Larrivee]

 

I've been saying this again and again. Age shouldn't be a factor. A good combination of GPA and non-academics is.

 

You have solid proof that age IS a factor?

from UBC FAQ:

Are there age restrictions to apply?

 

There are no age limitations to apply or enter the program.

 

Maybe there were way more people in the lower age categories who applied this year that people on the older age group. This would make sense anyways, the vast majority of people coming out of undergrad (typical application time) are 22 y.o. so why should we be surprised that the numbers are what they are. Sure it's an increase, but I would be more shocked it if the increase occurred in older admitted applicants.

 

If UBC is indeed selecting with more emphasis on academics, maybe it's because they found that students with high GPAs were more successful in medical school than those with lower gpa's but higher NAQ. Maybe life experience isn't as helpful at passing exams and patient interaction as was previously thought. Who knows! This is speculation, but so is everything else in this thread.

 

UBC's selection process goes through a lot of screening from many educators and health care professionals before being put into use, so I doubt they are being "ageist".

[TheBoss]

In your opinion, you believe age DOES matter, as in younger applicants can offer more years of practice compared to the older folks. That's basically the only "benefit" that you have pointed out. The key question is: how many more years? Just because applicant A began med school earlier than applicant B does not mean A will practice for more years than B: that's a logical fallacy. Perhaps B practice and does research until 70 yo, while A is a specialist that does clinical work only and retires by 60 yo?

 

No, the onus is on you to demonstrate that older applicants will tend to practice into older age, not for others to disprove the possibility. Currently, I know of no studies that relate age of med school matriculation to age of retirement, therefore no inferences with regard to this relationship can be drawn yet. Considering the disparity in starting age is a given, until it can be established that older applicants compensate for the disparity, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the younger applicant will practice for a greater number of years. This is an inductive inference, aimed at reaching the most likely conclusion, not proving a fact.

[keepontrying]

You have solid proof that age IS a factor?

from UBC FAQ:

Are there age restrictions to apply?

 

There are no age limitations to apply or enter the program.

 

Maybe there were way more people in the lower age categories who applied this year that people on the older age group. This would make sense anyways, the vast majority of people coming out of undergrad (typical application time) are 22 y.o. so why should we be surprised that the numbers are what they are. Sure it's an increase, but I would be more shocked it if the increase occurred in older admitted applicants.

 

If UBC is indeed selecting with more emphasis on academics, maybe it's because they found that students with high GPAs were more successful in medical school than those with lower gpa's but higher NAQ. Maybe life experience isn't as helpful at passing exams and patient interaction as was previously thought. Who knows! This is speculation, but so is everything else in this thread.

 

UBC's selection process goes through a lot of screening from many educators and health care professionals before being put into use, so I doubt they are being "ageist".

 

I said shouldn't because some posters believe it was. I don't think it's a factor.

 

This is what I said before:

 

Young applicants can have alot of experience too. I personally know some that are simply outstanding and have a resume that can score close to 20 NAQ. To me, the problem is not the age. If a 17 years old has sufficient life experience, a great GPA, and a great interview, there's nothing wrong with accepting him/her.

[technicity]

Am I totally oblivious or did anybody else notice that NAQ and AQ are out of 50 each (total 100) this year?

 

This year the AQ (Academic) and the NAQ (Non-Academic) Qualities scores will each be out of 50, to give a combined score out of 100. This will mean the TFR (Total File Review) score to determine which applicants will be invited for interview will be very different from last year.

 

Not sure if the extra resolution is better or worse!

[keepontrying]

Maybe research will count towards AQ like UofT?

[msjq]

I agree with both of you guys. What UBC and other medical school need to change are:

 

- have a double blinded system in which us applicants are only numbers (i.e. the assessors do not know our race, age, or gender).

 

- Obviously this is impossible for the MMI but for the rest of the application process I don't see a reason against it.

 

...etc.

 

 

FYI, you are only a number to UBC until you have been invited to interview, unless you apply in the aboriginal stream - and in that case you are self-identifying. It would be illegal for UBC to bias admissions based on age, gender or race.

[3kgt48]

If you read my post I do mention that they ask for your picture/passport at the interview. It doesn't matter which part of the application process they ask for your personal information - they just do and it's unnecessary.

 

P.S. Thanks for pointing out that it's in fact "illegal" to discriminate.

[ubcMDhopeful]

Maybe research will count towards AQ like UofT?

 

If they do that then they have to change how marks are translated. I think someone pointed last time that if you get 92% + you are at a 25/25. Now for people in that situation it is very unfair to have research in the AQ section as there is a ceiling effect. On the other side, I have not seen/heard of people getting 25/25 on the NAQ so everyone can use a little boost in that section.