Leon Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I just read through that entire thread. time to get a life. Lol all 500+ posts? O.o" I'm not going to read that thing- it looks horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzah Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 All it takes is someone to give a quick "nah" to an application and there it goes. Apply stateside, your BP will thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 well i skimmed it. now i'm skimming a government policy on listeria control. equally redundant and boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dassy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 How in the bloody hell does this guy not get an invite.... maybe one of the unwritten requirement for guys is that you need to have a 12 inch penis or something, that would explain some of the ludicrous rejections ive seen It's not just about the stats. I had a friend last year with like a 4.0 GPA and 37 MCAT, research/publications, great ECs, etc and got rejected pre-interview. Your essay is really important, I read over his this year to see how mine should look and honestly, I didn't find it all too compelling. Honestly, I think the only people on this thread that really complain about the holistic system are those that have the 4.0 GPA and MCAT that passes cutoffs. I personally am a fan of how UofT does it because it gives the read of us that are human (and had a horrible first year) a chance. It allows people with decent GPAs, but great ECs to also get to med school. For example, Calgary does their first cut based purely on GPAxVerbal...some people got in with a 4.0, but 7/8 on verbal...personally I would rather a doctor who has a 3.6 but 13+ on verbal (something that is actually correlated to being a great doctor later on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 lol careful you're gonna tread on people's toes with that comment about high VRs (even though it is proven by AMCAS) also we all all know the MCAT is useless beyond the 9/9/9/N cutoff for UofT so the high MCAT won't help. also, are you sure you're not a litttttle bit biased with the 3.6/13+ comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBoss Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 The stupid thing about premeds, or even med students, trying to assess med admissions systems is that most people argue in favour of the things that they excelled at, whether it be gpa, mcat/specific sections, ec's, essays, references, interview. It's why i'm not surprised that dassy happened to be the one to bring up MCAT VR specifically, since dassy did great on VR. The silly part is when med students do this even though it doesn't even affect them anymore (eg sfinch for those of you who remember him). I guess everyone just wants to convince themselves that they'll be "great doctors", however it is they want to define them. I mentioned earlier that I'm opposed to personal essay, and for the record I've never had a personal essay assessed in med admissions, but admittedly it would be most likely to be the weakest part of my application if i didn't have it edited by someone else. BTW holiday, sure you don't mean the AAMC? AMCAS just refers to the online application system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 heh. aamc. i was looking at amcas earlier today. too many abbreviations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dassy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Only slightly biased:p But the verbal was just an example for Calgary, since uoft doesnt care. I was more pointing to the fact that people with 4.0s think it's their right to always get an interview or something's wrong with the system. I know a lot of people with 4.0 who I would never want to be my doctor because they have no people skills and can't communicate. Although this doesn't apply to everyone because again lots of those are amazing applicants. I was just trying to get across that to some admission committees it's more than just stats. They want to see that you do things outside the cookie cutter premed applicant (as well as research or hospital volunteering). Not trying to offend anyone I was just getting annoyed with some posters on these threads. (honestly I think I like uoft and western best because both have hard cutoffs that you need to pass and uoft also has a huge percentage based on non-academics which are also really important) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mm88 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 If you say UofT has a "hard cut-off" then so does ever school in Ontario...or Canada, in fact. Every school pretty much has a minimum GPA requirement. I'm really not sure how you can call UTs systems likeable because of the hard cut off. At least not in the same sense that one would like Western, that's for sure. @ western: meet cut-offs = interview. That is a TRUE hard cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dassy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I meant more like it's a published high cutoff that you know you need to pass. Mcmaster is very low to consider everyone/let Casper play an influence...and no one else really posts the cutoffs they take into consideration (ie to weed out applicants, not just to apply) I was just trying to say that grades aren't the only thing that should land you an interview, sorry to snowball so off-topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mm88 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I meant more like it's a published high cutoff that you know you need to pass. Mcmaster is very low to consider everyone/let Casper play an influence...and no one else really posts the cutoffs they take into consideration (ie to weed out applicants, not just to apply) I was just trying to say that grades aren't the only thing that should land you an interview, sorry to snowball so off-topic Don't know that I would call it "low" per se. Their min gpa ins 3.0, just like how ut publishes their 3.6 as "min". Both schools also post their stats for matriculants. I don't see casper has being anything more than an online mmi, and really...how is that SO fundamentally different from the essay at uoft? I'm not a mac fan, but I'm sick of people ragging on one school's admission system while praising another. Especially when the mechanics boil down to essentially the same thing: "contains some factor of subjectivity". No system is perfect. No school attracts the exact same type of applicants for a reason. Sorry to derail this post further. Really need to say it after seeing how discouraged some people are over the rejections. If you really are bent on med school and have the aptitude, some school will most certainly see it. It might not be on your first try, but if you persevere...you won't miss your chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristoria Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not sure that the correlation between marks and success as a medical student/physician is a linear one. It might be linear until you reach a threshold, but once you get past that threshold of academic performance why should more = a better physician? I understand the logic, if GPA is a criterion than a higher GPA=a more meriting candidate. That assumption is the right answer to the wrong question. I don't see why a person with a GPA of 4.0 would be a better physician than someone with a GPA of 3.7. Once you pass the minimum competency requirement more does not correlate with better. Intelligence (if GPA is even a measure thereof) is not the only quality that we desire in a physician. I'd rather be treated by someone nice than someone who scored perfect on the MCAT. So why should selection be based predominantly on intelligence? As long as one is smart enough to get the job done that ought to be enough. (But I do agree, the numbers are shocking. Hang in there guys. And respect to all you guys with stellar stats.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
future_doc Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 II don't see why a person with a GPA of 4.0 would be a better physician this an someone with a GPA of 3.7. Once you pass the minimum competency requirement more does not correlate with better. Intelligence (if GPA is even a measure thereof) is not the only quality that we desire in a physician. I'd rather be treated by someone nice than someone who scored perfect on the MCAT. So why should selection be based predominantly on intelligence? As long as one is smart enough to get the job done that ought to be enough. It is not just a numbers game. The essay it is very important. Each school has its own recipe, so there is a med school for us all. That is why one must apply broadly and for those rejected in any given cycle to adapt. I know one applicant who was refused interviews across Canada one cycle, who then changed her approach and the bext cycle, was interviewed across Canada and received many acceptances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackster Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 As someone who was rejected without interview one year and interviewed and accepted the following year, I implore those of you with strong applications and no interview to not take it personally, and instead to persevere and try again. It sucks, I know, I've been there. I almost didn't apply second time around, but did at the urging of others and now here I am in medical school. There is a certain amount of luck involved. If you're a strong candidate, luck, with enough time will turn in your favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yugerry Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I completely agree with the above poster and I will further add that luck/chance plays a role in the admission system for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Do people trust others that have one post and post up stats and result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lekarza Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Do people trust others that have one post and post up stats and result? I think for a lot of people they have read the forum for a while but don't actually get an account until they get an interview. I personally know people who have done this. I think there probably are the odd trolls but I would like to think that most people are just excited to get an interview and want to share it with others. Here's hoping at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Would you prefer a "not nice" but competent doctor, or a nice, not so competent doctor? for me the answer is clear... I'm not sure that the correlation between marks and success as a medical student/physician is a linear one. It might be linear until you reach a threshold, but once you get past that threshold of academic performance why should more = a better physician? I understand the logic, if GPA is a criterion than a higher GPA=a more meriting candidate. That assumption is the right answer to the wrong question. I don't see why a person with a GPA of 4.0 would be a better physician than someone with a GPA of 3.7. Once you pass the minimum competency requirement more does not correlate with better. Intelligence (if GPA is even a measure thereof) is not the only quality that we desire in a physician. I'd rather be treated by someone nice than someone who scored perfect on the MCAT. So why should selection be based predominantly on intelligence? As long as one is smart enough to get the job done that ought to be enough. (But I do agree, the numbers are shocking. Hang in there guys. And respect to all you guys with stellar stats.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mm88 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Would you prefer a "not nice" but competent doctor, or a nice, not so competent doctor? for me the answer is clear... That really depends on what kind of doctor you want to be. If you're a family doc and you're an ass, it doesn't really matter how smart you are: you are a HORRIBLE/incompetent doctor. Anecdotal experience: a certain doctor (in the CF) I have encountered is believed by his colleagues to be God's gift to the clinic. They love him and praise him for how smart he is. Nearly all of his patients despise him because he has no social skills and no compassion, the same patients complain they never take any of their opinions/wishes into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I was careful not to word it to the extreme. just leaning towards 'nice' or leaning towards 'competent.' There's a balance between the two. Obviously if you're an ass or your plain incompetent at your job, you will suck. I suppose it can really depend on what field it is- especially if it's a specialist That really depends on what kind of doctor you want to be. If you're a family doc and you're an ass, it doesn't really matter how smart you are: you are a HORRIBLE/incompetent doctor. Anecdotal experience: a certain doctor (in the CF) I have encountered is believed by his colleagues to be God's gift to the clinic. They love him and praise him for how smart he is. Nearly all of his patients despise him because he has no social skills and no compassion, the same patients complain they never take any of their opinions/wishes into consideration. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Do people trust others that have one post and post up stats and result? I think that a lot of these "new" users are people like myself - those who have always watched the forums closely but never needed to post since we weren't involved in the applications process. Now that we are in the circle so to speak after applying, there is the option to contribute and ask questions, as we now have something that we feel relevant to say. If some new users are trolls, it's really irrelevant. Their imaginary stats will in no way affect your chances of an interview or acceptance. At least there is satisfaction in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Henderson Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I was careful not to word it to the extreme. just leaning towards 'nice' or leaning towards 'competent.' There's a balance between the two. Obviously if you're an ass or your plain incompetent at your job, you will suck. I suppose it can really depend on what field it is- especially if it's a specialist . Just to add another wrinkle to this discussion- Medicine is a profession where your success at treating a patient critically depends upon your ability to communicate with them. Obviously the extent of this varies with your specialty but it remains a large component regardless. When a patient needs to share intimate details pertaining to their health a competent but 'not nice' doctor may be completely ineffectual because the patient is hesitant to share information that would be crucial to treatment. Obviously a nice but incompetent doctor will be as ineffectual, but I would argue that the odds of coming across an incompetent doctor in Canada are slim considering even the minimum requirements of Canadian medical schools should produce physicians that are competent in the grand scheme of things- if not, the minimums would be set higher, wouldn't you agree? Ultimately the schools have very few ways to assess your ability to interact with people based on your application (pre-interview)- your ABS, reference letters, and essay in the case of U of T. The GPA and MCAT provide a means to assess your ability to learn the material, but in a people oriented profession someone with qualities like empathy, social responsibility, and the ability to communicate are absolutely crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futurepediatric Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 It's not just about the stats. I had a friend last year with like a 4.0 GPA and 37 MCAT, research/publications, great ECs, etc and got rejected pre-interview. Your essay is really important, I read over his this year to see how mine should look and honestly, I didn't find it all too compelling. Honestly, I think the only people on this thread that really complain about the holistic system are those that have the 4.0 GPA and MCAT that passes cutoffs. I personally am a fan of how UofT does it because it gives the read of us that are human (and had a horrible first year) a chance. It allows people with decent GPAs, but great ECs to also get to med school. For example, Calgary does their first cut based purely on GPAxVerbal...some people got in with a 4.0, but 7/8 on verbal...personally I would rather a doctor who has a 3.6 but 13+ on verbal (something that is actually correlated to being a great doctor later on). I agree with the last of your post The stupid thing about premeds, or even med students, trying to assess med admissions systems is that most people argue in favour of the things that they excelled at, whether it be gpa, mcat/specific sections, ec's, essays, references, interview. It's why i'm not surprised that dassy happened to be the one to bring up MCAT VR specifically, since dassy did great on VR. The silly part is when med students do this even though it doesn't even affect them anymore (eg sfinch for those of you who remember him). I guess everyone just wants to convince themselves that they'll be "great doctors", however it is they want to define them. I mentioned earlier that I'm opposed to personal essay, and for the record I've never had a personal essay assessed in med admissions, but admittedly it would be most likely to be the weakest part of my application if i didn't have it edited by someone else. BTW holiday, sure you don't mean the AAMC? AMCAS just refers to the online application system I can't say if dassy was being biased or not, but everyone I know who is not premed or med student would agree with the GPA vs. MCAT part of her post I'm not sure that the correlation between marks and success as a medical student/physician is a linear one. It might be linear until you reach a threshold, but once you get past that threshold of academic performance why should more = a better physician? I understand the logic, if GPA is a criterion than a higher GPA=a more meriting candidate. That assumption is the right answer to the wrong question. I don't see why a person with a GPA of 4.0 would be a better physician than someone with a GPA of 3.7. Once you pass the minimum competency requirement more does not correlate with better. Intelligence (if GPA is even a measure thereof) is not the only quality that we desire in a physician. I'd rather be treated by someone nice than someone who scored perfect on the MCAT. So why should selection be based predominantly on intelligence? As long as one is smart enough to get the job done that ought to be enough. (But I do agree, the numbers are shocking. Hang in there guys. And respect to all you guys with stellar stats.) I think you read my mind... especially the threshold concept lol, plus 3.7 is still a pretty respectable GPA in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedLily Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 ... And then there were 2400. Not as comforting as I had originally intended. Maybe, but it made me laugh and distracted me from the waiting game for 3.2 seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1428 Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://twitter.com/UTMedAdmissions Most recent tweet seems to suggest rejections/invites are still going out... as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.