Interview Invites/Regrets 2011-2012

[benge88]

Finally got mine, as expected at this point, really not that upset considering the stats of some of the others who have posted, and toronto was def not my first choice!

 

GPA: 3.73/ 3.87 weighted

MCAT: 9/11/12/S

Finishing up my MSc this year

 

Time stamp 3:34

 

 

Good luck to all those who got invites!

[kookooli]

Regrets 3:34 pm

 

GPA: 3.99

MCAT: 13/7/13 Q

EC: not stellar but good overall

Essay: thought it's good

 

 

I didn't expect any interviews at first but I got more and more hopeful as I wasn't rejected during the first rounds. It just hurts that we have waited this long to hear the news! Anyway back to practicing for Ottawa...

[lekarza]

Rejection

cGPA 3.85 wGPA 3.93ish

MCAT (PS/VR/BS/W) 9/9/10/R

Year of applicant and UG/Grad ? 4th year undergrad in bio

ECs: mainly research, 2 nserc grants, poster presentation at an international conference, extracurriculars (recruiter for school, school clubs, student union, etc.), volunteering (retirement home), international exchange in university

May have been my reference as one of them was more of a personal friend. It's so hard to say though as their process is soooooo subjective!

 

Pretty upset about how long I had to wait but I guess someone had to be rejected during the last weeks! Good luck to everyone else who got an interview and if you were rejected, don't give up. Keep on trying if this is what you really want to do. Don't let 1, 2 or numerous rejections hold you back from your dream.

[lost__in__space]

Was rejected from the MD/PhD program. Not sure whether or not I'm still in the running for the normal MD program (haven't heard back from them yet). If anyone could clarify this, i would appreciate it

 

Stats:9B,9P,8V (really should have rewritten it this summer)

GPA ~3.75 undergrad ~3.9 M.Sc.

Finished M.Sc. (Immuno)

Thought I had some pretty good EC (won some awards for them in undergrad). Lots of UG research,as well as 2 journals and 1 book chapter during my M.Sc.

Essay was ok i think.

 

time:3:28pm

 

Again, if anyone can clarify the whether this means i was rejected from the normal MD program as well i would appreciate it!

 

Sorry to hear it! When did you interview? They still have interviews believe it or not this upcoming weekend for MD/PhD. But just so you know you are still in the MD pool!!

[Old_man]

March 28th @ 13:39

 

Completing PhD.

Pleasantly surprised, as I figured this late in the game it wasn't too hopeful...

[spiritedaway]

1:39

invited!!! Feel so blessed!!

 

3rd year

OMSAS GPA 3.97

Reference: Strong and diverse ~ all positive for sure

Essay: Felt this was my strong point!! Honest and direct!

ECs: Lots of leadership experience since high school and continued similar activities to university level and broader community level, diverse research experience, worked part-time research during school year, no pubs but had conference posters

[Guest Fresh_Underwear]

Time stamp: March, 28 @ 10:35 AM

 

Invite

GPA (weighted or cGPA?): 3.7ish (around 3.85 I didn't bother calculating)

MCAT: VR flagged

Year of applicant: Grad, PhD

ECs: Above average

Interview date: April weekend.

[mikejones]

13:39

made my day!

 

4th year

OMSAS GPA 3.94

MCAT:above cutoffs

Reference: two very strong from research sup + community member, one okay one from prof

Essay: Worked for a looong time on it. Nothing phenomenal, but certainly well written

ECs: research since 1st year (no pubs), some hospital vol, varsity athlete for the past 2 yrs, part of founding exec member of a school charity group for 3 years

[distortion]

invite (timestamp 13:51 EST)

cGPA 3.63, wGPA 3.7, grad GPA 4.0

MCAT 32S: 10/11/11 (PS/VR/BS)

Year: MSc

ECs: fairly well-rounded (as we all like to think ), music & art, athletics, volunteering, 3rd world relief; although quite research heavy, national CIHR scholarship, several other research awards/scholarships, numerous presentations (oral mostly) at local and international conferences, and several publications (1 first authored).

essay: had fun writing it at least!

 

can't wait to meet the other interviewees, some of the med students, and see the campus! my heart rate still feels like its going >200..! super excited and still very shocked!

[invincible110]

Time stamp: 10:35 am

 

Invite

MCAT: above cutoffs

Year of applicant: PhD candidate

ECs: lots of research, few publications, many conferences and awards

Essay: Very simple and straightforward

 

Excited! PM me if you want more details!

[domo]

Invite : 13:51pm

GPA: 3.95+

MCAT: no flags

Year of applicant: 4th year UG

ECs: nothing great, just stuff I like to do.

Essay: my mom reviewed it and said it was doodoo. Guess it was ok.

[IamIDP]

Nice trolling.

 

Looking through your past posts, your GPA seems to be different each time. And at one point you were a Calgary resident, and now suddenly an Ontario resident?

 

That person is trolling as they just removed all their posts as I was looking through them...

[1337]

LOL who does that? Brings trolling/sadness to an entirely new level.

Wasting time to troll people that you got an invite by posting fake stats? LOL makes my day!

[w_robin]

LOL who does that? Brings trolling/sadness to an entirely new level.

Wasting time to troll people that you got an invite by posting fake stats? LOL makes my day!

 

The fact that you caught him/her totally made my day. I LOLed quite hard at your post.

 

You should definitely mention, in your interview, your attention to detail as one of your strengths.

[lawschool]

Regrets

 

Time stamp: March 28 ~11am

 

gpa: 3.9

mcat (p/v/b/w): 13/11/14/s

MSc

ECs: research heavy (5 pubs, 1st author), 3 NSERC undergrad awards + NSERC for MSc, volunteering, coop jobs, strong refs

Essay: honest and simple, many revisions

 

I had to post this as part of the cathartic process. I think it's absolute bs that I wasn't offered an interview.

[YaMed]

Perhaps it was that attitude that came through your essay and ABS :S try giving that one a thought

[fuzzybunny]

Perhaps it was that attitude that came through your essay and ABS :S try giving that one a thought

 

+1

 

Maybe you should look at the other amazing applicants that got rejected before you post something like this. There were close to 600 interviews this year as per Deborah's blog comment, stellar field this year.

[nikki dale]

Perhaps it was that attitude that came through your essay and ABS :S try giving that one a thought

 

The person was being very honest about their feelings on a public forum.

I think your response was rude.

 

2400 people feel the same way

agreed

[amino_acid]

+1

 

Maybe you should look at the other amazing applicants that got rejected before you post something like this. There were close to 600 interviews this year as per Deborah's blog comment, stellar field this year.

 

Where did she say the number of invites?

[Sfire]

It was in blog comments. Sad I still read it.

[1234]

+1

 

Maybe you should look at the other amazing applicants that got rejected before you post something like this. There were close to 600 interviews this year as per Deborah's blog comment, stellar field this year.

 

What does the number of interviewees have to do with it. That number is no different to years past, proportions are the same - seats just went up with the satellite.

[lawschool]

Agreed, many very good applicants were not selected.

 

Which leads me to the question...

 

Should publicly funded medical schools be required to disclose their selection process? Even further, how do we ensure that the selection process is fair and equitable if it is more or less a black box (at least for some schools)?

 

Would be interested if anyone had any links related to this issue.

[Dr.Henderson]

Agreed, many very good applicants were not selected.

 

Which leads me to the question...

 

Should publicly funded medical schools be required to disclose their selection process? Even further, how do we ensure that the selection process is fair and equitable if it is more or less a black box (at least for some schools)?

 

Would be interested if anyone had any links related to this issue.

 

Let's say that they did disclose their selection process more clearly than they already do. U of T is what? 60% non-academic pre-interview? The interpretation of extra-curricular activities and the essay are obviously going to be subjective, but let's say that they did say precisely what they were looking for in terms of types of activities, time commitments, and the qualities learned/exemplified through those activities. You would essentially give a formula for entrance and thereby devalue the non-academic component of the application since you would have a homogenous applicant pool with only GPA and MCAT to distinguish applicants by.

 

That may be fine for certain professions, but in medicine how you interact with your patients is pivotal in the quality of care you provide. Without a working relationship with the patient, you can't do your job. Hence, schools are looking for more than just the numbers and a check-list of extra-curriculars. It sucks when you don't land the spot you want but that's the nature of competing against thousands of other well-qualified candidates.

 

In my opinion a more clearly defined admissions process would only remove agency from medical schools in selecting future colleagues and emphasize statistics rather than characteristics. You could argue that an applicants character can be determined at interview, but you'd need to recognize that you would potentially alienate many candidates who were more suitable to be doctors based on a minor (in the grande scheme of things) statistical difference. You're always going to have people who feel unfairly treated with or without a transparent process, because you CAN'T make subjectivity transparent and you CAN'T remove the subjective component of what you want in a physician.

 

I'm sure schools would love to know how to pick the perfect doctor while still using a totally transparent process. I just don't think that's realistic. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas though:D

[lawschool]

Lots of difficult and though provoking points, I will have to mull them over…but for now...

 

No question subjectivity will enter into the equation at one point or another, and I'm not suggesting that a list of activities/time commitments will solve the problem. I do believe subjectivity should enter into the determination at a later point in the process and should be minimized. This doesn't necessarily mean ruling out candidates with lower stats, for instance you could have a policy that x% of your class will be comprised of candidates who fall into a lower stats pool.

 

Leaving aside the issue of whether disclosure of substantive criteria is detrimental or even possible, I think a good start would be disclosure of their decision making process. Perhaps some might argue that med schools know what they're doing and have no interest in treating candidates unfairly. However, I think there are many arguments to the contrary. What's the harm in disclosing the process if it is indeed fair and equitable? As a publicly funded institution shouldn't the public have a right to know how their future doctors are being selected and also determine if that process seems fair and equitable?

 

U of T is the prefect example. How do they ensure equality when applicants are judged in separate batches. This question often comes up in the U of T admissions blog and is answered by saying that all qualified candidates will get an interview. Seems like a copout to me. Second, how do they select the pool of applicants to be evaluated by a particular panel and how many individuals compose that panel? I'm sure at least some of this info is available, but why not make it public?

 

Yes, the process can never be entirely fair, but that's not a reason for keeping it hidden.

[Guest Transparent]

----------------