Countdown to interview decisions!

[jmatt1122]

I don't like your smugness. Take this: *picture removed*

 

Oops. Didn't mean for it to come across as smug. It's just a nice change from the seemingly impossible ~5% pre-interview statistic.

[Guest humhum]

Oops. Didn't mean for it to come across as smug. It's just a nice change from the seemingly impossible ~5% pre-interview statistic.

 

I don't like your apologeticness.

[bighopes100]

Well I hope it's more acceptance:)

 

On another note, it looks like AQ = 1.5234(GPA) - 104.68 lines up with the known rejections.

 

 

well, looks like we only need 101% to get that 50AQ

[cbfc]

IP

 

Regret (Had interview last year. AQ last year 42.50 NAQ 26.01)

 

AQ this year 29.00 NAQ 15.46. I am totally in shock right now as my NAQ is so low...

 

Kinda speechless atm

 

See it's cases like this where I really don't get how UBC does its evaluating of NAQ. Dropping that much when this person's application was probably better than last year is insane.

[amc]

Well, I am a little shocked to be posting this.

 

Invited, IP. Late deadline.

aGPA = ~80.5%

NAQ from last year on last year's scale- ~38?

 

My inbox is full so you can't message me, sorry.

 

Woot! This year's gonna be your year!

[med-dream]

Woot! This year's gonna be your year!

 

Yes, this year 90% GPA =32 AQ, 75% GPA can get about 10 AQ that is quite different with previous years.

[amichel]

Well, I am a little shocked to be posting this.

 

Invited, IP. Late deadline.

aGPA = ~80.5%

NAQ from last year on last year's scale- ~38?

 

My inbox is full so you can't message me, sorry.

 

 

Yay!! This is probably creepy, but I've been rooting for you! Hope to meet you at interviews, you are an inspiration to many!

[xspiked]

This is my first post on this forum! (I think...I made this account a year ago; went to the UBC interview but didn't get an offer. This is my 2nd time applying.)

 

IP, Regular Deadline

I got my interview invitation 4:24pm (PST). I think I'm one of the last groups to get their notification. I'm so relieved.

[srum]

I got rejected.

 

IP

AQ 90% (~32)

NAQ went down from last year below 20, last year I had 26.

 

I am confused, for the people that got invites, could you please list some of the things you accomplished for NAQ. I honestly don't know what to do.

 

I have experiences with volunteering as tutor, hospital, clubs, worked in a lab and with a biotech company. I honestly don't know what UBC is looking for in terms of NAQ and we are just suppose to accept it like the Vancouverites that we are where everything happens around us, e.g. the increase in properties taxes, and we just passively talk about it or ignore and continue to do nothing.

 

All the best to everyone.

 

I think it's less about the places you volunteered and the duration and more about what you accomplished during that time. It's important to include that in the wording. For example, "Worked at a research lab that studies ___" is a lot less impressive than "Independently designed an executed a novel molecular protocol and supervised 2 students."

[Guest humhum]

I think it's less about the places you volunteered and the duration and more about what you accomplished during that time. It's important to include that in the wording. For example, "Worked at a research lab that studies ___" is a lot less impressive than "Independently designed an executed a novel molecular protocol and supervised 2 students."

 

Being the contrarian that I am, I am willing to bet you that many people actually err on the side of inflating their accomplishments and making things sounds a lot more colorful than they really are (especially with buzzwords like "novel"), and this is going to hurt more than help.

 

“implemented enterprise synergies in order to create an immersive experience that will help execute in a nascent market to blah blah blah...”

 

------------------ the ad com is probably Yaaaawwwwwwwwning and rolling eyes after the fifth word.

 

The ad com people review over thousands of applications year after year. They can take a glance at an application and tell right away if there is more sizzle than actual steak. I know this because I have reviewed a lot of applications in my own field (basic sciences) in the past half-decade. You are writing for an audience of doctors and scientists, not marketers and wall street suits.

 

For example, if I see a 3rd biochem major write: "Independently designed an executed a novel molecular protocol", but all they had to show for it was a term report, or a poster for the department with them as the fourth author, what I translate this to is: "Some PhDs and scientists who are a lot smarter wrote a grant 5 years ago and have 10 other people doing the real work, but they did have some money left over to hire an undergrad automaton over the summer to keep pressing a button. I was that undergrad. What I contributed was that I independently designed a new button color."

 

I bet you that CV gets tossed aside, in favor someone with a more humble description of the same experience written in this way instead: "Conducted experiments to detect XYZ folding mechanism, as a team-member of Dr. Mendely's Group over a summer term".

 

Another example, from another thread, saw someone write "directed policies" somewhere in the ECs... the reviewers are not stupid. Given that even our nation's MPs barely have the power to direct any sort of policy, that kind of vague self-adornment is a tough sell in 250 characters or less on your application.

 

You may think this doesn't do much to "sell" yourself, but the power of letting the actions speak for themselves is tremendous. For e.g. do a google search for blogs of Olympians, and national level athletes, and check out the biography they write about themselves. Majority of them are inspiring because they come across so humble. They don't write "As the fastest track cyclist in Canada's history, the ferocity of my power-to-weight ratio is observed in only 1 out 40,000,000 people.". Instead they write something like: "I have had the privilege to represent our nation in 2013 World Championships, and with the help of a very talented and supportive team, we were able to bring home the Bronze".

 

The facts speak for themselves.

[qszwdxefc]

Being the contrarian that I am, I am willing to bet you that many people actually err on the side of inflating their accomplishments and making things sounds a lot more colorful than they really are (especially with buzzwords like "novel"), and this is going to hurt more than help.

 

“implemented enterprise synergies in order to create an immersive experience that will help execute in a nascent market to blah blah blah...”

 

------------------ the ad com is probably Yaaaawwwwwwwwning and rolling eyes after the fifth word.

 

The ad com people review over thousands of applications year after year. They can take a glance at an application and tell right away if there is more sizzle than actual steak. I know this because I have reviewed a lot of applications in my own field (basic sciences) in the past half-decade. You are writing for an audience of doctors and scientists, not marketers and wall street suits.

 

For example, if I see a 3rd biochem major write: "Independently designed an executed a novel molecular protocol", but all they had to show for it was a term report, or a poster for the department with them as the fourth author, what I translate this to is: "Some PhDs and scientists who are a lot smarter wrote a grant 5 years ago and have 10 other people doing the real work, but they did have some money left over to hire an undergrad automaton over the summer to keep pressing a button. I was that undergrad. What I contributed was that I independently designed a new button color."

 

I bet you that CV gets tossed aside, in favor someone with a more humble description of the same experience written in this way instead: "Conducted experiments to detect XYZ folding mechanism, as a team-member of Dr. Mendely's Group over a summer term".

 

Another example, from another thread, saw someone write "directed policies" somewhere in the ECs... the reviewers are not stupid. Given that even our nation's MPs barely have the power to direct any sort of policy, that kind of vague self-adornment is a tough sell in 250 characters or less on your application.

 

You may think this doesn't do much to "sell" yourself, but the power of letting the actions speak for themselves is tremendous. For e.g. do a google search for blogs of Olympians, and national level athletes, and check out the biography they write about themselves. Majority of them are inspiring because they come across so humble. They don't write "As the fastest track cyclist in Canada's history, the ferocity of my power-to-weight ratio is observed in only 1 out 40,000,000 people.". Instead they write something like: "I have had the privilege to represent our nation in 2013 World Championships, and with the help of a very talented and supportive team, we were able to bring home the Bronze".

 

The facts speak for themselves.

 

Could not have said it better myself.

[herewego]

Being the contrarian that I am, I am willing to bet you that many people actually err on the side of inflating their accomplishments and making things sounds a lot more colorful than they really are (especially with buzzwords like "novel"), and this is going to hurt more than help.

 

“implemented enterprise synergies in order to create an immersive experience that will help execute in a nascent market to blah blah blah...”

 

------------------ the ad com is probably Yaaaawwwwwwwwning and rolling eyes after the fifth word.

 

The ad com people review over thousands of applications year after year. They can take a glance at an application and tell right away if there is more sizzle than actual steak. I know this because I have reviewed a lot of applications in my own field (basic sciences) in the past half-decade. You are writing for an audience of doctors and scientists, not marketers and wall street suits.

 

For example, if I see a 3rd biochem major write: "Independently designed an executed a novel molecular protocol", but all they had to show for it was a term report, or a poster for the department with them as the fourth author, what I translate this to is: "Some PhDs and scientists who are a lot smarter wrote a grant 5 years ago and have 10 other people doing the real work, but they did have some money left over to hire an undergrad automaton over the summer to keep pressing a button. I was that undergrad. What I contributed was that I independently designed a new button color."

 

I bet you that CV gets tossed aside, in favor someone with a more humble description of the same experience written in this way instead: "Conducted experiments to detect XYZ folding mechanism, as a team-member of Dr. Mendely's Group over a summer term".

 

Another example, from another thread, saw someone write "directed policies" somewhere in the ECs... the reviewers are not stupid. Given that even our nation's MPs barely have the power to direct any sort of policy, that kind of vague self-adornment is a tough sell in 250 characters or less on your application.

 

You may think this doesn't do much to "sell" yourself, but the power of letting the actions speak for themselves is tremendous. For e.g. do a google search for blogs of Olympians, and national level athletes, and check out the biography they write about themselves. Majority of them are inspiring because they come across so humble. They don't write "As the fastest track cyclist in Canada's history, the ferocity of my power-to-weight ratio is observed in only 1 out 40,000,000 people.". Instead they write something like: "I have had the privilege to represent our nation in 2013 World Championships, and with the help of a very talented and supportive team, we were able to bring home the Bronze".

 

The facts speak for themselves.

 

Perfectly stated. Honesty and modesty are key to the NAQ for all aforementioned reasons.

[advair250]

While I agree with humhum to an extent, that some people do over-word their entries..

 

There are lot of people who truly have done great things and warrant their wording. So that is a bit of a broad statement.

[MedicalStateOfMind]

I do agree with humhum to an extent as well. And ad-coms are experienced in pinpointing certain fluff and color in the applications. But you have to recognize that the sheer amount of applications that are submitted every year and the tight deadline that these committees have in preparing a final interview list hinders their ability to actually analyze every little detail. With such a large amount of applications the only plausible way of evaluating them is through a standardized way and many med schools have certain standardized criteria to eliminate some subjectivity. It is for this reason many times quantity over quality in your application wins.

 

And that's where simple human psychology comes into play. Even if you have "average" volunteering/work/etc. experiences, you can add color to your application by using sophisticated words and easily get away with it. It's because those words jump out to you. That's the harsh reality. It's a logistics problem and I can imagine it getting worse over the years, given the rise in the number of applicants each year.

 

Many people who received regrets yesterday are probably confused as to how others with similar experiences and background can get higher NAQs. In my opinion it really does boil down to how you word your application. That's the only way to market yourself pre-interview.

[qszwdxefc]

Also want to point out that since UBC had a specific entry for how many hours you put into each activity, that may play a factor too. Sure you may have developed some new protocol (I apologize in advance if someone did actually do this, I randomly chose this example as it was discussed 2-3 posts above), but if you only spent 10-20 hours on it it won't be as impressive as someone who's done something else for 500-600 hours.

[srum]

Wow, I had no idea my past post would be so contentious! Absolutely, it is important to be humble and honest - realistic self appraisal is specifically mentioned as an evaluation criterion on the UBC website. I only meant this as an extreme hypothetical example to illustrate how two individuals with the same hours in the same activity may have wildly different NAQ scores.

[are we ther yet]

I completely agree with humhum on this one. I believe adcoms are looking for down to earth over anything that might possibly be construed as egotistical or straight bs.

Also, in reference to the time consumed reviewing applications, I don't think it is that much of a burden for UBC. If you look at Georgetown there is 1 lady reviewing all 12,000+ application, and hand picking the 1000 interviewers. I believe George Washington has 2 people doing the 14,000ish applications. UBC has enough time to take a good look at their 2000 applications.

[qszwdxefc]

I completely agree with humhum on this one. I believe adcoms are looking for down to earth over anything that might possibly be construed as egotistical or straight bs.

Also, in reference to the time consumed reviewing applications, I don't think it is that much of a burden for UBC. If you look at Georgetown there is 1 lady reviewing all 12,000+ application, and hand picking the 1000 interviewers. I believe George Washington has 2 people doing the 14,000ish applications. UBC has enough time to take a good look at their 2000 applications.

 

Wow is this for real...

[herewego]

I completely agree with humhum on this one. I believe adcoms are looking for down to earth over anything that might possibly be construed as egotistical or straight bs.

Also, in reference to the time consumed reviewing applications, I don't think it is that much of a burden for UBC. If you look at Georgetown there is 1 lady reviewing all 12,000+ application, and hand picking the 1000 interviewers. I believe George Washington has 2 people doing the 14,000ish applications. UBC has enough time to take a good look at their 2000 applications.

 

Pretty easy to look at the applications when GPA and MCAT are screened right out. UBC only has GPA they could potentially screen (which they don't) so they take a 'holistic' view. That is why people with 36+ MCAT and 4.0 GPAs get interviewed at Harvard and not UBC, and people with <30 MCAT and 3.5 GPAs get interviewed at UBC and not Harvard. Just a numbers/screening game.

[TheBoss]

Pretty easy to look at the applications when GPA and MCAT are screened right out. UBC only has GPA they could potentially screen (which they don't) so they take a 'holistic' view. That is why people with 36+ MCAT and 4.0 GPAs get interviewed at Harvard and not UBC, and people with <30 MCAT and 3.5 GPAs get interviewed at UBC and not Harvard. Just a numbers/screening game.

 

Canadian schools screen way harder based on numbers (GPA in particular) than just about any US school. US school screens are usually very low and somewhat flexible. Your situation is reversed; getting an interview at UBC is much, much more based on stats than Harvard.

 

The main difference is that Canadian school use published hard cutoffs, so people who don't meet the cutoffs simply don't apply. People can, and have, gotten into US schools (i.e. Harvard, Hopkins) with stats that don't even meet most canadian med school cutoffs.

[herewego]

Canadian schools screen way harder based on numbers (GPA in particular) than just about any US school. US school screens are usually very low and somewhat flexible. Your situation is reversed; getting an interview at UBC is much, much more based on stats than Harvard.

 

The main difference is that Canadian school use published hard cutoffs, so people who don't meet the cutoffs simply don't apply. People can, and have, gotten into US schools (i.e. Harvard, Hopkins) with stats that don't even meet most canadian med school cutoffs.

 

Maybe we can agree to disagree, but all I was saying is it's harder for UBC to screen with only one factor (GPA) when the states has two (GPA & MCAT). Thus, it takes more time for the adcoms to make a decision.

[TheBoss]

Maybe we can agree to disagree, but all I was saying is it's harder for UBC to screen with only one factor (GPA) when the states has two (GPA & MCAT). Thus, it takes more time for the adcoms to make a decision.

 

UBC does screen MCAT though. What I'm saying is that even accounting for any numbers screening, they'll still end up at least skimming most of the applications. That's why you still see people with (relatively) low stats getting in; it's because someone read their applications despite their low stats and liked the rest. Even if they tossed the majority through numbers, they still have far more than 2000 applications to go through.

 

I doubt that any school has only one or a couple people reading them though, it's essentially impossible.

[KYajt]

On a random note...

 

 

I wonder if they're actually taking these votes into consideration, but the likes for the pink picture is pretty terrifying.

Let's all vote for turquoise to counter the amount of likes for the pink one.

[srum]

I voted for turquoise out of sympathy for the guys, but I myself would be pretty pleased with a bright pink backpack

[are we ther yet]

UBC does screen MCAT though. What I'm saying is that even accounting for any numbers screening, they'll still end up at least skimming most of the applications. That's why you still see people with (relatively) low stats getting in; it's because someone read their applications despite their low stats and liked the rest. Even if they tossed the majority through numbers, they still have far more than 2000 applications to go through.

 

I doubt that any school has only one or a couple people reading them though, it's essentially impossible.

 

its true. i interviewed at Georgetown, and the lady who reads them all told us. She also knew our application front to back. She was very intimidating.