Woman sues U of Manitoba for denying her entry into medical school

[johndoe88]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/08/08/mb-medical-school-admission-lawsuit-winnipeg.html

[markov79]

Olfman also accused the university of giving preference to rural applicants, further impairing his daughter's chances of being admitted.

 

I guess they've never heard of the people who move north/rural/to another province to get the advantage. sounds like she's just not trying hard enough

[Real Beef]

lol ... before even clicking on the news article I guessed that she was either a daughter of a high power physician or a lawyer.

 

Sorry sister the world says 'no' ... go to the States, Ireland or Caribbean like everyone else.

 

Talk about entitled rich daddy's girl .... poor people like me choose to improve our applications after we get rejected instead of whining about it and suing. It took me 5 tries to get in, at no time did I think of suing the school ... too funny.

 

Beef

[penguin92]

If her application was as good as she feels it was, couldn't she just have reapplied rather than just given up after applying in 2009? I mean, I know many stellar candidates with 3.8+ gpa and 30+ mcat that didn't get in on their first try, it happens.

 

"The person is to be judged on their merit, but a person's thoughts, political beliefs, opinions, religion are irrelevant to whether a person should be advanced or denied advancement."

 

Now its a little bit vague in how the lawyer is arguing his side. Did the university ask her about what her political and religious beliefs were and deny her admission based on this? (which I highly doubt the university would)

 

I'm not sure how the UManitoba interview is like but apparently the woman felt her opinions are what got her rejected. Don't really know details but tbh, if I was an interviewer, I'd use the interviewees opinion as a way to judge whether or not they would make appropriate decisions if they were a practicing physician. I mean in an MMI, when you're discussing the scenario or case you're given and giving your opinion, what you suggest may not exactly be appropriate given the circumstances. In that case, absolutely you should be docked against and not given a good score for that station.

 

"As well, he said the interviews violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the school's own policies because they are based too much on the personal opinions of the applicants and not their abilities."

 

If this womans personal opinions, whether political or religious or whatever, were somehow involved in her answers, than i think its fair to evaluate those opinions and see if they stack up to what the university looks for in their MD candidates. Afterall, how else would you evaluate the individuals abilities? Everyone knows that good marks and good mcat aren't exactly indicative of being a good physician. Thats the point of the interview, to evaluate the candidate beyond what they are on paper and see how they would solve problems when confronted with them. You are allowed to be against pre marital sex (usually this is associated with religious belief), however denying your patients the bcp because of what you believe certainly wouldn't be appropriate and this would definitely raise red flags with me if an interviewee ever had this stance

 

Anyways, thats my take on the article

[nosuperman]

Ha. What a precedent this would set.

 

The problem is the skill set they're looking for isn't something you can objectively measure with a standardized test let alone a non-standardized GPA. It isn't even really a skill-set. At some point a medical student ventures into the subjective realm of working with people and this is where all of the important stuff happens.

 

As for the Charter argument (assuming its section 15?), one's opinions and political or philosophical beliefs could have huge implications from the level of individual patient care to the level of managing the system politically and economically. That said, interviewers try to steer clear of the Charter-landmine-topics and interviewees should have enough social sense to know how to navigate them as well.

 

I really hope there's more to this story than the article portrays because it seems like a waste of everyone's time.

[future_doc]

What nonsense. Presumably, she got into another med school otherwise the school is validated.

[BlurstOfTimes]

"The person is to be judged on their merit, but a person's thoughts, political beliefs, opinions, religion are irrelevant to whether a person should be advanced or denied advancement."

 

Um... if your thoughts and opinions aren't being judged at least to some degree in the interview, then what is the point? Just seeing if you can communicate in coherent sentences? By that logic, someone who walks into a med school interview and says "I think we should euthanize everyone who has a disability, I hate women, and I'm only in it for the money!" shouldn't be denied admission based on those opinions, which is insane.

[jock2doc]

"I think we should euthanize everyone who has a disability, I hate women, and I'm only in it for the money!" shouldn't be denied admission based on those opinions, which is insane.

 

Hahaha well put. Seriously though that article made me laugh. The fact that her father is her lawyer in the matter is even better. She must be an entitled princess because if either one of my parents ever did something like that (they're not lawyers but regardless) I'd be mortified. She needs to give her head a shake.

[rmorelan]

Ha. What a precedent this would set.

 

The problem is the skill set they're looking for isn't something you can objectively measure with a standardized test let alone a non-standardized GPA. It isn't even really a skill-set. At some point a medical student ventures into the subjective realm of working with people and this is where all of the important stuff happens.

 

As for the Charter argument (assuming its section 15?), one's opinions and political or philosophical beliefs could have huge implications from the level of individual patient care to the level of managing the system politically and economically. That said, interviewers try to steer clear of the Charter-landmine-topics and interviewees should have enough social sense to know how to navigate them as well.

 

I really hope there's more to this story than the article portrays because it seems like a waste of everyone's time.

 

separating out someone's merit and their thoughts in general always sounded like a very difficult thing to do. I mean you hire people because they have a particular approach to things, a particular way of thinking - that is important.

[rmorelan]

What nonsense. Presumably, she got into another med school otherwise the school is validated.

 

I would suspect she didn't and that is why they are now suing 4 years after she first applied (?)

[future_doc]

I would suspect she didn't and that is why they are now suing 4 years after she first applied (?)

 

My thoughts exactly and all this will come out in discoveries. Plaintiff has a fool for a lawyer as he should know better than to take fees for a case like this that not only can he not possibly win, but plaintiff will end up paying considerable costs of both defendants. Plaintiff must have money to burn as there is not a hope of winning this ridiculous lawsuit.

 

Just like physicians, competent lawyers have an ethical duty to advise clients as to the merits of their claim and as to the exposure in legal fees and costs of the other side. Futile or frivolous lawsuits are exactly that. Some lawyers are lacking in good judgment and common sense and this is such an example.

[jock2doc]

Plaintiff has a fool for a lawyer as he should know better than to take fees for a case like this that not only can he not possibly win, but plaintiff will end up paying considerable costs of both defendants.

 

The lawyer is her father!

[future_doc]

The lawyer is her father!

 

He who represents himself has a fool for a client.

 

Her father is a fool and the legal fees of defendants will be paid by plaintiff in the end. It is a loser and he will have egg all over his face for taking such stupid proceedings. And with all the publicity, he is also making his daughter look like a fool, unworthy of medicine.

[shady]

I have to say one thing in the article stood out: they claim the university discriminates in favour of students from rural areas. I don't know if UManitoba does that or not, but it certainly happens in many med schools around the country and should be stopped. I would love for a court to set the precedence that such geographic discrimination is not allowed.

 

Other than that, the case is without merit in my opinion.

[wpggal]

It's not that UMan prefers rural applicants, but if you have rural experience it adds to your app. Which is to encourage more people from rural areas to apply, people who may not have done so otherwise. People from rural areas are more likely to go back to them once they're finished training.

[shady]

It's not that UMan prefers rural applicants, but if you have rural experience it adds to your app. Which is to encourage more people from rural areas to apply, people who may not have done so otherwise. People from rural areas are more likely to go back to them once they're finished training.

 

Western prefers students who have done their high school in a rural area around London (SWOMEN). Not that you promise to practice in a rural area once you finish med school, but that you actually have done high school there. NOSM has its own way of selecting for rural applicants. UBC has its ways. If UMan doesn't so this, then power to them. But other schools do, and I don't think that's right.

 

I get the shortage in rural areas, but there are other ways to solve it that don't involve discrimination.

 

Anyway, the thread isn't about this topic, so I'll stop here.

[ralk]

I have to say one thing in the article stood out: they claim the university discriminates in favour of students from rural areas. I don't know if UManitoba does that or not, but it certainly happens in many med schools around the country and should be stopped. I would love for a court to set the precedence that such geographic discrimination is not allowed.

 

Other than that, the case is without merit in my opinion.

 

Remove geographical considerations and the current problem of physician distribution gets much worse. Toronto, Vancouver become even more oversaturated, other areas become even less serviced.

 

Med schools have a mandate to provide service for their region, and geographical considerations for applicants are the most cost effective way to achieve that mandate.

[johndoe88]

I have to say one thing in the article stood out: they claim the university discriminates in favour of students from rural areas. I don't know if UManitoba does that or not, but it certainly happens in many med schools around the country and should be stopped. I would love for a court to set the precedence that such geographic discrimination is not allowed.

 

Other than that, the case is without merit in my opinion.

 

You get a bit of a bonus in your application if you have rural attributes. It's because Manitoba struggles significantly with rural physician retention. The purpose is that the rural students will go back (I don't know if the stats agree but I do know that the majority of rural students in my class are planning on going back).

 

On one hand it is "unfair" that they get leapfrog someone potentially but do you think it's more unfair that tens of thousands of rural Manitoban's will not have access to healthcare. It's a tough call when you have to balance the needs of the province/country against the equality of each applicant. In the end it is the taxpayer that pays and votes for the leaders in place. Here the Minister of Health has worked with the school to try and remedy rural physician shortage and this is their plan.

 

Anyways this quotation is ridiculous, "The person is to be judged on their merit, but a person's thoughts, political beliefs, opinions, religion are irrelevant to whether a person should be advanced or denied advancement."

 

Of course a physicians thoughts and opinions are important. Name me one occupation where you do not have to do an interview and that your thoughts are not counted towards the job. Wonder what would happen if Daddy had to choose between 3 Law candidates and one had a terrible interview. Obviously he would take that person...

[sprinkles]

hahahaaa!

 

If the girl is as 'good of a student' or would have been as good as as a doctor as her father is a lawyer....well its a good thing she didnt get in! I'm baffled that a half educated lawyer would even MAKE such accusations knowing no court would uphold them, not only for their sillyness, but because they are legally incorrect!

 

1) But Shawn Olfman said the university breached a contract it had with students who applied to the medical school by changing its interview criteria without notice.

 

a contract is only a contract when there is a 'transaction' or 'benefit' to both sides. I agree to pay you if you agree to tutor me. I agree to provide you with a product if you agree to provide me with money. I agree to lend you my car if you agree to water my plants. etc etc... it has to be a give and take.

 

You being 'willing to participate in an interview' doesnt MEAN its a contract. It would be a contract if, say, the university said PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN MY INTERVIEW, if you participate in my interview and answer the following question x, y, and z, then I will give you a seat at my school. This is clearly never the case--> therefore no contract.

 

2) As well, he said the interviews violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the school's own policies because they are based too much on the personal opinions of the applicants and not their abilities.

 

This is just so wrong on so many levels... Unless the school asked her specifically Ex. "what is your religion?" she replies "Jewish" school says no sorry. no Jews accepted here. THAT violates the charter. But the fact that your ideas do not match the main stream is NOT a violation. The Charter only grants you the right to HAVE opinions and to EXPRESS them, not making others agree with you.

 

3) Olfman also accused the university of giving preference to rural applicants, further impairing his daughter's chances of being admitted.

 

Discrimination is always allowed and even encouraged when it is about giving disadvantaged people an advantage so that they are equal to other more advantaged members of society. Its a PRETTY BASIC Concept and widely accepted called Reasonable Accommodation. (GOOGLE IT! )

 

WHAM! All that and I did not even go to Law School. If the daughter takes after her father in the 'knowledge' department....thats probably why she didnt get in ;p

 

CASE CLOSED! lol

[aurora08]

hahahaaa!

 

If the girl is as 'good of a student' or would have been as good as as a doctor as her father is a lawyer....well its a good thing she didnt get in! I'm baffled that a half educated lawyer would even MAKE such accusations knowing no court would uphold them, not only for their sillyness, but because they are legally incorrect!

 

1) But Shawn Olfman said the university breached a contract it had with students who applied to the medical school by changing its interview criteria without notice.

 

a contract is only a contract when there is a 'transaction' or 'benefit' to both sides. I agree to pay you if you agree to tutor me. I agree to provide you with a product if you agree to provide me with money. I agree to lend you my car if you agree to water my plants. etc etc... it has to be a give and take.

 

You being 'willing to participate in an interview' doesnt MEAN its a contract. It would be a contract if, say, the university said PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN MY INTERVIEW, if you participate in my interview and answer the following question x, y, and z, then I will give you a seat at my school. This is clearly never the case--> therefore no contract.

 

2) As well, he said the interviews violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the school's own policies because they are based too much on the personal opinions of the applicants and not their abilities.

 

This is just so wrong on so many levels... Unless the school asked her specifically Ex. "what is your religion?" she replies "Jewish" school says no sorry. no Jews accepted here. THAT violates the charter. But the fact that your ideas do not match the main stream is NOT a violation. The Charter only grants you the right to HAVE opinions and to EXPRESS them, not making others agree with you.

 

3) Olfman also accused the university of giving preference to rural applicants, further impairing his daughter's chances of being admitted.

 

Discrimination is always allowed and even encouraged when it is about giving disadvantaged people an advantage so that they are equal to other more advantaged members of society. Its a PRETTY BASIC Concept and widely accepted called Reasonable Accommodation. (GOOGLE IT! )

 

WHAM! All that and I did not even go to Law School. If the daughter takes after her father in the 'knowledge' department....thats probably why she didnt get in ;p

 

CASE CLOSED! lol

 

+1 This is great!!

 

The line about U of M giving preference to rural students which further impaired her chances of being admitted is kind of ridiculous. It's a small bonus in the formula used to rank you. If you were a strong enough student in terms of GPA, MCAT, and interview, someone else having that rural bonus over you likely wouldn't make a difference in whether or not you were accepted.

 

Besides, thousands of people don't get accepted to med school every year. Most will try to improve AND THEN RE-APPLY and will eventually get in somewhere...they don't try to sue the school!

[dazzle]

1) But Shawn Olfman said the university breached a contract it had with students who applied to the medical school by changing its interview criteria without notice.

 

a contract is only a contract when there is a 'transaction' or 'benefit' to both sides. I agree to pay you if you agree to tutor me. I agree to provide you with a product if you agree to provide me with money. I agree to lend you my car if you agree to water my plants. etc etc... it has to be a give and take.

 

You being 'willing to participate in an interview' doesnt MEAN its a contract. It would be a contract if, say, the university said PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN MY INTERVIEW, if you participate in my interview and answer the following question x, y, and z, then I will give you a seat at my school. This is clearly never the case--> therefore no contract.

 

sending an application for interview costs money from the get-go

[ralk]

sending an application for interview costs money from the get-go

 

So does applying for a driver's license - that doesn't mean you get one automatically.

[shady]

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really know for sure how the contract thing works. I would assume that yea it is kind of a contract since you pay money with the expectation that you will be ranked according to a selection method as described on the admissions website.

 

But the thing is universities always say the rules are subject to change without notice. We all apply knowing that until the interview invites get sent out, anything can happen. Remember how Queens changed their criteria for interviews and started using the ABS a few years ago? No body expected that until invites were sent out. What about the seat cuts at Calgary in the last cycle? These were only announced after people went to interviews.

 

Universities usually state the rules can change any time and that obtaining the minimum requirements is not a guarantee to acceptance or interviews. This is enough to throw out that claim in the girl's case.

[penguin92]

No body expected that until invites were sent out. What about the seat cuts at Calgary in the last cycle? These were only announced after people went to interviews.

 

This also happened at UofA this past year

 

Anyways, in my opinion, it just seems like she has some entitlement issues. Blaming the world instead of re-evaluating herself and improving her application to med school. I'm not a lawyer but this lawsuits seems pretty baseless to me and wouldnt be surprised if it was dismissed

[shady]

^ agreed. I agree with what other posters mentioned earlier: if she really was competitive, she would have had plenty of chances to try again between 2009 and now.