Any PhD applicants?

[Non-trad hopeful]

I'm new on this forum and planning to apply to MD program at Mac in the next application cycle. I'm hoping to have my PhD finished by the time I apply so that I can get the 4% bonus. I'm just wondering if anyone can comment on applying as a PhD student for the MD program - does the 4% bonus give you much of an advantage and can it compensate for a less than stellar cGPA (3.59 i think)? I'm assuming my best bets are just to try to do well on the verbal and finish my PhD but just wondered if anyone else had any advice/experiences they could share!

[julieUBC]

Hey - I am not a PhD applicant, but I just wanted to offer my two cents. I think your best bet, especially with the 4% bonus, is to do well on CASPer and your Verbal Reasoning score.

 

The pre-interview formula is:

 

Formula 1 - 25% Undergraduate Grade Point Average, 25% MCAT Verbal Reasoning Score, 46% CASPer Score, up to 4% Graduate degree (1% Master's degree/4% PhD).

 

So GPA doesn't count for much, especially compared to CASPer!

[Der Kaiser]

According to my calculations each percentage point is equivalent to a 0.100-0.125 boost in your gpa, so a 4% boost is pretty sweet. As long as you do reasonably well on the MCAT (10+ for VR) I would say you have a good shot at getting an interview. However, you lose the bonus post interview so unless you have amazing MMI skills it may be harder to gain an acceptance.

[Non-trad hopeful]

Thanks for your advice! I wasn't quite sure how much of a difference the 1% or 4% would make, but 0.1 per percentage is pretty good. I guess Casper is still the wild card but it's good to know that I have a chance with a lower cgpa.

[Applemanv3]

Here's my 2 cents:

 

My cGPA for Mac was 3.36.

My VR was 11.

MSc/PhD bonus - 0%

 

Clearly, my CASPer score (whatever it was) was what saved me. And "saved me" is an understatement given my cGPA. So plough on, do your best, and good luck!

[Applemanv3]

I had perused Doing Right lightly previously (about 2 years ago). I would say the summary chapters (earlier on) are most useful.

 

As part of my MRS degree, I had courses on Clinical Behavioural Sciences (Ethics in a nutshell) and Canadian Health Care System (very useful to know how things are organized, governed, and delivered).

 

Apart from these courses, I approached each station with the following format.

 

1. Identify issue in prompt/video

2. State and explore dimensions (social, personal, medical, environmental, ethical, etc.) and sides (pros vs cons, yes vs no, one party vs. another)

3. Keep #2 short, and broad, but see if you can provide 1 or 2 specific examples

4. Reconcile the various perspectives as a neutral party.

5. IF ASKED WHAT YOU WOULD DO - be specific, don't remain neutral. Be clear about your response, but don't be on an extreme or too rigid with your position.

 

For Personal Questions: be short and concise, but use as many examples of things you've done (with specific numbers/dates/roles/details) as possible.

 

Don't leave anything unanswered. Don't OVERwrite a response for any section at the expense of another.

 

Add even more details AFTER you've at least put something down for all the boxes.

 

Oh, and START typing RIGHT away. Just get your thoughts down into the box. Don't try and organize things in your head. If you practice the above steps before CASPer, you should have no reason to pause.

 

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, don't doubt yourself. Be confident in your thinking, analysis, and opinions. Be yourself.

 

Best Wishes!

 

P.S. While watching the videos, quickly jot down 1-word notes about any details. THIS IS UBER-IMPORTANT! You need to pick out the more salient specifics of a video. Subtlety is the essence of ethics.

[davidq90]

I'm really against this CASPer thing. I mean I can see the point of it choosing valuable candidates for the profession, but giving it such an enormous amount of weight just seems far-fetched. I just seem to think that a system like this favours people with natural intellect and not years of effort put into a goal. Maybe I'm not seeing the point, but how do you justify a system like this?

 

Also, my mistake - I just realized I've interjected this thread. Feel free to ignore me if I came off rude.

[mb91]

I'm really against this CASPer thing. I mean I can see the point of it choosing valuable candidates for the profession, but giving it such an enormous amount of weight just seems far-fetched. I just seem to think that a system like this favours people with natural intellect and not years of effort put into a goal. Maybe I'm not seeing the point, but how do you justify a system like this?

 

Also, my mistake - I just realized I've interjected this thread. Feel free to ignore me if I came off rude.

 

It does favour those with natural intellect, and I think that's the exact reason why they use it. The beauty of CASPer is that you are able to show the admissions committee your intelligence and thought process without any indication of your GPA. Although people have worked their butts off to get great marks in University, that should only go so far. There are reasons why GPA doesn't tell the whole story, and CASPer is an excellent equalizer.

[oops_letstryagain]

I don't think it's "natural intellect" so much as it is empathy, critical thinking, analysis and interpretation. All of these things relate to your intellect, but they also relate significantly to your classes, training and life experiences.

 

Being incredibly intelligent or able to type quickly probably won't get you a good score on the CASPer by itself, but putting work into building your interpersonal and analytical skills will benefit you here the same way that putting work into homework assignments will benefit your GPA.

[DrWannabee]

I'm new on this forum and planning to apply to MD program at Mac in the next application cycle. I'm hoping to have my PhD finished by the time I apply so that I can get the 4% bonus. I'm just wondering if anyone can comment on applying as a PhD student for the MD program - does the 4% bonus give you much of an advantage and can it compensate for a less than stellar cGPA (3.59 i think)? I'm assuming my best bets are just to try to do well on the verbal and finish my PhD but just wondered if anyone else had any advice/experiences they could share!

 

First, you have a pretty good cGPA of 3.59 and when you think that you can get up to 25% total for your cGPA (formula 1, to get an interview) then you calculate that if 25% is given for 4.00 then, using a proportion, a cGPA of 3.59 will yield a 22.43% for your undergraduate cGPA + 4% for a Ph.D. and you have over 25% so you'll have max for your GPA calculation - now you just have to ace your VR. Hope this helps, Fellow PhD holder ;-)

[DrWannabee]

Keiser wrote "According to my calculations each percentage point is equivalent to a 0.100-0.125 boost in your gpa, so a 4% boost is pretty sweet. As long as you do reasonably well on the MCAT (10+ for VR) I would say you have a good shot at getting an interview. However, you lose the bonus post interview so unless you have amazing MMI skills it may be harder to gain an acceptance."

 

Well, MMI accounts for 70% of your score so even for those who have 4.0 and/or 13-15 MCATs I'd say they better have amazing MMI skills or they won't make the cut either. Obviously, it helps to have higher gpa and VR, but I'd say that 3.49 is still pretty darn respectable (actually out of possible 15% you'll get 13% for your GPA if you make it to the step two, so if you get let's say 60% for MMI and 12% for the VR then you're looking at 85% which sounds pretty good to me... again, this is a conservative estimate - with your PhD skills, who knows, maybe you get 65% or more on MMI - don't listen to these non-PhD haters, they're just jealous ;-)

[Non-trad hopeful]

Thanks for your words of encouragement, DrWanabee. I guess regardless of stats, a lot depends upon Casper and MMI but it's good to know that I can go in with a competitive score from my PhD boost. Will you be applying in this cycle as well?