thegame11 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 So, where did yall match and what specialty? Are you happy? How competitive was it this year? Any advice for the match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burrb Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 How did mac do? Heard a ton of people went unmatched (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igeorgex Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 How did mac do? Heard a ton of people went unmatched (again) False. Only a few - around 4 from what I hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burrb Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Ah. False rumours then haha. Congrats to your class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ER scrub Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 10 at u of alberta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 10 at u of alberta ouch - any particular reason? Sometimes I notice patterns, where one really successful year sets up the following year to think things are "easy" and since they then take bigger risks they get into trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancity88 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Also heard this rumour about Mac from a number of people at Queen's. Not sure why they feel the need to engage in that crap; from what I hear Mac actually had an excellent match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igeorgex Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Also heard this rumour about Mac from a number of people at Queen's. Not sure why they feel the need to engage in that crap; from what I hear Mac actually had an excellent match People talk s**t all the time haha. Mac actually had an excellent year - 3 vascular, 2 plastics, 4 ophtho, 1 derm, tons of rads and anesthesia, and it seems most of my friends got their top choice program + location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebox Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Also heard this rumour about Mac from a number of people at Queen's. Not sure why they feel the need to engage in that crap; from what I hear Mac actually had an excellent match Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. No harm in waiting for the stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famdream Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 How did mac do? Heard a ton of people went unmatched (again) People talk s**t all the time haha. Mac actually had an excellent year - 3 vascular, 2 plastics, 4 ophtho, 1 derm, tons of rads and anesthesia, and it seems most of my friends got their top choice program + location. That's amazing! Fact: Mac has been rated among the top three universities for clinical medicine in Canada for the past 3 years according to Times Higher Education. Many other universities with med schools in Canada are not even on the top 200 list. We do great on the match every year (every university has years where things don't go well, but overall, we do great). I find a lot of the hate directed towards Mac comes from people who were rejected when they applied to med school. I know it sucks to not get into one of the best med schools in the world, but that doesn't mean we start attacking it because of our bitterness. It's like people are watching our match rates like hawks and ignoring everyone else. It's quite comical really. That even on one of the most exciting days of your life, you're on premed101 wondering about the match rate at Mac. Inferiority complex much? Congrats to everyone who matched! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Actually Mac did very poorly in the match in 2012 and had 20 odd go unmatched. Historically it had some of the worst results on the LMCC. Mac grads aren't otherwise known as exceptionally talented or knowledgeable. Those I've worked with were fine, but again nothing distinguished. Anyway, Canadian medical schools offer fairly uniform levels of training quality, and while talking about Mac as one of the "best medical schools in the world" helps inflate egos but doesn't help basic science or clinical knowledge that one can lack at a PBL-oriented 3 year program. (As a further aside, I know one Mac grad in another program at my centre who probably let that "best in the world" ego get to her head, and very undeservedly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famdream Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Actually Mac did very poorly in the match in 2012 and had 20 odd go unmatched. Historically it had some of the worst results on the LMCC. Mac grads aren't otherwise known as exceptionally talented or knowledgeable. Those I've worked with were fine, but again nothing distinguished. Anyway, Canadian medical schools offer fairly uniform levels of training quality, and while talking about Mac as one of the "best medical schools in the world" helps inflate egos but doesn't help basic science or clinical knowledge that one can lack at a PBL-oriented 3 year program. (As a further aside, I know one Mac grad in another program at my centre who probably let that "best in the world" ego get to her head, and very undeservedly.) Typed up a reply to this, but now that I think of it, nevermind. This is not worth arguing over. Doubt it would make a difference anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uwopremed Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Actually Mac did very poorly in the match in 2012 and had 20 odd go unmatched. Historically it had some of the worst results on the LMCC. Mac grads aren't otherwise known as exceptionally talented or knowledgeable. Those I've worked with were fine, but again nothing distinguished. Anyway, Canadian medical schools offer fairly uniform levels of training quality, and while talking about Mac as one of the "best medical schools in the world" helps inflate egos but doesn't help basic science or clinical knowledge that one can lack at a PBL-oriented 3 year program. (As a further aside, I know one Mac grad in another program at my centre who probably let that "best in the world" ego get to her head, and very undeservedly.) MAC seems appealing to me because it's only 3 years. It's crazy that after getting into meds (I haven't even got in yet), there's a whole other layer in competition. Most MAC med students I met are nice (a few from my program got in last year), though aren't necessarily exceptional. Maybe the MAC grad you know that has a huge ego is in the type of specialty that atracts people with big egos. Opthalmology, plastics or some other type of surgery?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 MAC seems appealing to me because it's only 3 years. It's crazy that after getting into meds (I haven't even got in yet), there's a whole other layer in competition. Most MAC med students I met are nice (a few from my program got in last year), though aren't necessarily exceptional. Maybe the MAC grad you know that has a huge ego is in the type of specialty that atracts people with big egos. Opthalmology, plastics or some other type of surgery?? Oh you have much to learn, young padiwann, much to learn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burrb Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Honestly my original question was innocent as I was just curious and there was a rumour floating around. Great to hear mac did well! I'm actually very pleased to be headed to mac myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 MAC seems appealing to me because it's only 3 years. It's crazy that after getting into meds (I haven't even got in yet), there's a whole other layer in competition. Most MAC med students I met are nice (a few from my program got in last year), though aren't necessarily exceptional. Maybe the MAC grad you know that has a huge ego is in the type of specialty that atracts people with big egos. Opthalmology, plastics or some other type of surgery?? The competition isn't as severe as some people make it out to be. There's not a whole lot that's been said in this thread that's truly contradictory - Mac largely produces good graduates, many of whom match to competitive specialties. It does have a good reputation internationally (though the fickle Times rankings are not the greatest measure of that). On the flip side, Mac has recently had a few years of below-average match rates overall, and also has a reputation among some physicians - justified or not - of not providing the same level of pre-clinical knowledge as other schools. The stats this year will give us another data point to indicate if Mac's previous match rates were flukes or part of a trend. Every school has their pros and cons - Mac's unique approach makes both stand out a little bit more, but it's a quality school that produces quality grads and by the sounds of it, they've done well this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famdream Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Honestly my original question was innocent as I was just curious and there was a rumour floating around. Great to hear mac did well! I'm actually very pleased to be headed to mac myself Well in that case, welcome! The competition isn't as severe as some people make it out to be. There's not a whole lot that's been said in this thread that's truly contradictory - Mac largely produces good graduates, many of whom match to competitive specialties. It does have a good reputation internationally (though the fickle Times rankings are not the greatest measure of that). On the flip side, Mac has recently had a few years of below-average match rates overall, and also has a reputation among some physicians - justified or not - of not providing the same level of pre-clinical knowledge as other schools. The stats this year will give us another data point to indicate if Mac's previous match rates were flukes or part of a trend. Every school has their pros and cons - Mac's unique approach makes both stand out a little bit more, but it's a quality school that produces quality grads and by the sounds of it, they've done well this year! Thanks for your well balanced post. As someone who goes to Mac, I have looked into this in a lot of detail, which is why I find it upsetting that such a false rumour is being spread. It is totally incorrect that Mac has a *trend* of poor match rates. I will post for you, and everyone else here, links for the CaRMS data from 2002-2013 so you can see for yourself: 2002: 1% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports---2002#table11a 2003: 0.9% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports---2003#table16 2004: 3.1% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports-2004#table114 2005: 6.0% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports---2005#table114 2006: 2.1% Unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports-2006#table18 2007: 2.9% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2007MatchResults/Distribution_of_Unmatched_Applicants_and_Vacant_Positions_en.pdf 2008: 4.0% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2008R1_MatchResults/29Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions%20by%20Medical%20School_en.pdf 2009: 3.4% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2009R1_MatchResults/31MatchReport_E.pdf 2010: 3.1% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2010R1_MatchResults/Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions_en.pdf 2011: 3.3% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2011R1_MatchResults/34_Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions_en.pdf 2012: 9.5% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2012R1_MatchResults/34_Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions_en.pdf 2013: 3.8% unmatched (8/206) https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2013R1_MatchResults/Table_45_En.pdf So I hope this shows that it is wrong to say that Mac "recently had a few years of below-average match rates overall", when in fact we've had great match rates since 2002, but 2012 was just an outlier. One year =/= a trend. That one year could be explained by many reasons. It would all be speculation on our part. It is unfair though, to ignore all the other data that indicates Mac students do great on the match every year, and to focus on that one year which was an exception, and to hold that up as some sort of evidence that Mac is failing as a school. A 9.5% unmatched rate is by no means the worst match rate in the history of Canada. If you look through the tables I posted above you will find many med schools with match rates in one year that were way more catastrophic. In fact McGill has historically had high rates of unmatched students (2012 was the first year where they had an improvement actually), and we all agree that McGill is one of the best med schools in the country and the world. So lets stop using match rates alone as an indicator of the success of a med school. Even in 2012, Mac did not have the worst results; yet no-one bashed the other schools that did worse and started spreading rumours about them based on individual datapoints. So lets not do that to Mac either. This years results, and the years to come will give not us (i.e. current med students and residents posting on internet forums), but the relevant administrative authorities information about how Mac is performing. Also, I wouldn't call the Times rankings 'fickle'. They, along with the QS rankings and academic ranking of world universities, are considered among the top 3 world university ranking systems. International authorities base their perceptions of universities on those rankings, along with other factors. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. But hey if that's your personal opinion for whatever reason, you're totally entitled to it. I don't think the rankings alone say we're doing great, but it's one other indicator and I think it deserves mention. I won't comment on what you said about many doctors having a bad impression of Mac students. It's all anecdotal evidence. I've met Mac students who I wonder how they got in, but I can say the same from having met people from other med schools too. I've also met the most amazing and wonderful people from Mac who amaze me everyday. Of course you hear bad stories way more often, that's how the world operates, but it's stereotyping, which I don't need to tell you, is really silly. That's why we depend on stats to make statements, and the stats indicate we are doing great. Hopefully now we can stop spreading rumours about Mac and agree to all get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebouque Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 A- Stark is right about mac. I'd also add that while being top whatever in the times magazine helps inflate egos, it doesn't make up for the sad lack of basic science knowledge that is inevitable in a 3 years mostly pbl school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famdream Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 A- Stark is right about mac. I'd also add that while being top whatever in the times magazine helps inflate egos, it doesn't make up for the sad lack of basic science knowledge that is inevitable in a 3 years mostly pbl school Well sadly no one really cares about your opinion or A-Stark's. You can both stay on your high horses and keep thinking you're better. It's quite comical that you think you and someone else on some internet forums are better than world university ranking systems/thousands of people who unanimously agree Mac is a great school. Lol. Also it's the Times Higher Education rankings, not Time Magazine, look up the difference. And it's easy to dismiss someone as being egoistic when they are simply standing up to bullies. I'm sure you'd like to keep talking cr*p and have no one to tell you that actually we go to a great med school, but get used to having people who talk back when you talk sh*t. I'm sure you'd defend your med school as well if someone spoke badly about it. Your jealousy is just blatantly obvious when you have no regard for professionalism and respect for your colleagues or for the data which is staring you in your face. Our of curiosity, how many times were you rejected by Mac? Good day. PS: Yeah we're a 3 year PBL school with deficiencies in our curriculum and we STILL do better than most other med schools when it comes to the match, and to the world rankings. That's how good we are. In your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 So I hope this shows that it is wrong to say that Mac "recently had a few years of below-average match rates overall", when in fact we've had great match rates since 2002, but 2012 was just an outlier. One year =/= a trend. So, who said that exactly? Essentially the match has been getting tighter overall every year for the last 10 years. There are year-to-year variations but the trend isn't great (and certainly not just for Mac!). In fact McGill has historically had high rates of unmatched students (2012 was the first year where they had an improvement actually), and we all agree that McGill is one of the best med schools in the country and the world. I don't agree with that. McGill has coasted on a historical reputation; that's about it. I can't think of anything they're doing that's especially innovative in either undergrad or postgrad medical education. Also, I wouldn't call the Times rankings 'fickle'. They, along with the QS rankings and academic ranking of world universities, are considered among the top 3 world university ranking systems. International authorities base their perceptions of universities on those rankings, along with other factors. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. But hey if that's your personal opinion for whatever reason, you're totally entitled to it. I don't think the rankings alone say we're doing great, but it's one other indicator and I think it deserves mention. International rankings and "authorities" are entirely irrelevant. I would be quick to dismiss them because they have absolutely no bearing on anything. To take an example, I have no idea where UBC might figure in such rankings, but I *can* say that their internal medicine program is something of a disaster at the moment, and their general surgery program has a deserved reputation for poor morale and unremarkable clinical impact. On the other hand, Mac has one of the best (if not the best) IM programs in the country. That has nothing to do with PBL or the undergrad program, though. I won't comment on what you said about many doctors having a bad impression of Mac students. It's all anecdotal evidence. I've met Mac students who I wonder how they got in, but I can say the same from having met people from other med schools too. I've also met the most amazing and wonderful people from Mac who amaze me everyday. Of course you hear bad stories way more often, that's how the world operates, but it's stereotyping, which I don't need to tell you, is really silly. That's why we depend on stats to make statements, and the stats indicate we are doing great. The LMCC results are most certainly not anecdotal evidence, though of course you can debate how relevant that exam really is. Our opinions are not anecdotal evidence - they're based on experience with Mac grads who are less prepared for their PGY1 years and don't always seem to exhibit the depth of knowledge that we'd expect. Well sadly no one really cares about your opinion or A-Stark's. You can both stay on your high horses and keep thinking you're better. It's quite comical that you think you and someone else on some internet forums are better than world university ranking systems/thousands of people who unanimously agree Mac is a great school. Lol. Also it's the Times Higher Education rankings, not Time Magazine, look up the difference. And it's easy to dismiss someone as being egoistic when they are simply standing up to bullies. I'm sure you'd like to keep talking cr*p and have no one to tell you that actually we go to a great med school, but get used to having people who talk back when you talk sh*t. I'm sure you'd defend your med school as well if someone spoke badly about it. Your jealousy is just blatantly obvious when you have no regard for professionalism and respect for your colleagues or for the data which is staring you in your face. Our of curiosity, how many times were you rejected by Mac? Good day. I interviewed at Mac for both med school and for residency (at two programs!). I actually ranked those Mac programs pretty high because the quality of postgrad education is generally quite strong (though it must be admitted that Hamilton is something of a sketchburg). I opted to stay closer to home on both occasions. Maybe when you're more experienced you will recognize that the reputation of Mac is well earned - for both positive and negative - and that attacking the messenger as "jealous" makes you seem petty and needlessly defensive. PS: Yeah we're a 3 year PBL school with deficiencies in our curriculum and we STILL do better than most other med schools when it comes to the match, and to the world rankings. That's how good we are. In your face. My med school is a hundred years older than Mac, and even uses PBLish formats in pre-clerkship (well, called "CBL" or case-based learning now, replacing the previous "COPS" or case-oriented problem-stimulated curriculum). I don't think an emphasis on PBL to the exclusion of formal didactic instruction as the centre of delivery of curriculum makes a lot of sense. At schools like MUN which I'm also familiar with, students write NBME exams for all clerkship subjects, and the clerks are generally very independent, knowledgeable, and efficient, performing above the level of many other schools (including my own I think) and certainly better than the Mac clerks I met. I don't expect you to know who some of us are, but as a resident I am involved in the evaluation and (very involved) in the teaching of clerks. At a certain point, there is no substitute for an extra year for added maturity and knowledge base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrouchoMarx Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 So, who said that exactly? Essentially the match has been getting tighter overall every year for the last 10 years. There are year-to-year variations but the trend isn't great (and certainly not just for Mac!). I don't agree with that. McGill has coasted on a historical reputation; that's about it. I can't think of anything they're doing that's especially innovative in either undergrad or postgrad medical education. International rankings and "authorities" are entirely irrelevant. I would be quick to dismiss them because they have absolutely no bearing on anything. To take an example, I have no idea where UBC might figure in such rankings, but I *can* say that their internal medicine program is something of a disaster at the moment, and their general surgery program has a deserved reputation for poor morale and unremarkable clinical impact. On the other hand, Mac has one of the best (if not the best) IM programs in the country. That has nothing to do with PBL or the undergrad program, though. The LMCC results are most certainly not anecdotal evidence, though of course you can debate how relevant that exam really is. Our opinions are not anecdotal evidence - they're based on experience with Mac grads who are less prepared for their PGY1 years and don't always seem to exhibit the depth of knowledge that we'd expect. I interviewed at Mac for both med school and for residency (at two programs!). I actually ranked those Mac programs pretty high because the quality of postgrad education is generally quite strong (though it must be admitted that Hamilton is something of a sketchburg). I opted to stay closer to home on both occasions. Maybe when you're more experienced you will recognize that the reputation of Mac is well earned - for both positive and negative - and that attacking the messenger as "jealous" makes you seem petty and needlessly defensive. My med school is a hundred years older than Mac, and even uses PBLish formats in pre-clerkship (well, called "CBL" or case-based learning now, replacing the previous "COPS" or case-oriented problem-stimulated curriculum). I don't think an emphasis on PBL to the exclusion of formal didactic instruction as the centre of delivery of curriculum makes a lot of sense. At schools like MUN which I'm also familiar with, students write NBME exams for all clerkship subjects, and the clerks are generally very independent, knowledgeable, and efficient, performing above the level of many other schools (including my own I think) and certainly better than the Mac clerks I met. I don't expect you to know who some of us are, but as a resident I am involved in the evaluation and (very involved) in the teaching of clerks. At a certain point, there is no substitute for an extra year for added maturity and knowledge base. Disclaimer: I did not attend Mac, McGill, or Dal. I have worked with students from each of these schools, and their knowledge bases varied from person-to-person, but not from school-to-school. To generalize that Mac students are more likely to be unprepared for residency is unfair. My school was four years long and I think that if I had to do it over again I would have gone to Mac because I feel the fourth year did not contribute very much to my overall medical acumen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Thanks for your well balanced post. As someone who goes to Mac, I have looked into this in a lot of detail, which is why I find it upsetting that such a false rumour is being spread. It is totally incorrect that Mac has a *trend* of poor match rates. I will post for you, and everyone else here, links for the CaRMS data from 2002-2013 so you can see for yourself: 2002: 1% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports---2002#table11a 2003: 0.9% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports---2003#table16 2004: 3.1% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports-2004#table114 2005: 6.0% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports---2005#table114 2006: 2.1% Unmatched https://www.carms.ca/en/r-1-match-reports-2006#table18 2007: 2.9% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2007MatchResults/Distribution_of_Unmatched_Applicants_and_Vacant_Positions_en.pdf 2008: 4.0% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2008R1_MatchResults/29Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions%20by%20Medical%20School_en.pdf 2009: 3.4% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2009R1_MatchResults/31MatchReport_E.pdf 2010: 3.1% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2010R1_MatchResults/Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions_en.pdf 2011: 3.3% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2011R1_MatchResults/34_Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions_en.pdf 2012: 9.5% unmatched https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2012R1_MatchResults/34_Distribution%20of%20Unmatched%20Applicants%20and%20Vacant%20Positions_en.pdf 2013: 3.8% unmatched (8/206) https://www.carms.ca/assets/upload/pdfs/2013R1_MatchResults/Table_45_En.pdf So I hope this shows that it is wrong to say that Mac "recently had a few years of below-average match rates overall", when in fact we've had great match rates since 2002, but 2012 was just an outlier. One year =/= a trend. Being fully unmatched is a relevant statistic, but the one I find more useful for individual students (and more telling overall), is the % getting their first choice discipline. Going fully unmatched usually means someone didn't plan their application well more than that they were a bad applicant. Here's how Mac did recently, with the Canada-wide average in brackets: 2013: 87.9% (90.7%) 2012: 88.3% (90.8%) 2011: 94.8% (91.7%) 2010: 94.8% (90.9%) 2009: 96.5% (90.8%) 2008: 91.0% (91.0%) 2007: 96.2% (90.1%) 2006: 92.9% (91.1%) 2005: 92.2% (90.1%) 2004: 89.9% (89.3%) I fully agree that there isn't a low trend - in fact Mac historically does better-than-average in the match, as the stats above show - but I never said there was a trend. The last two years have been down years, and a continuation of that this year would help indicate that there's a trend, but I stated that as a possible conclusion based on future results, not a definite conclusion based on past results. Also, I wouldn't call the Times rankings 'fickle'. They, along with the QS rankings and academic ranking of world universities, are considered among the top 3 world university ranking systems. International authorities base their perceptions of universities on those rankings, along with other factors. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. But hey if that's your personal opinion for whatever reason, you're totally entitled to it. I don't think the rankings alone say we're doing great, but it's one other indicator and I think it deserves mention. Like the infamous Maclean's rankings of universities in Canada, Times and the other rankings use certain stats as proxies for quality, proxies that are oftentimes easy to manipulate and aren't necessarily good proxies. I won't belabor the point, but any "International Authority" who chooses to work with a university based on those rankings rather than an assessment of what the school can actually DO for them probably isn't worth their paycheque. I won't comment on what you said about many doctors having a bad impression of Mac students. It's all anecdotal evidence. I've met Mac students who I wonder how they got in, but I can say the same from having met people from other med schools too. I've also met the most amazing and wonderful people from Mac who amaze me everyday. Of course you hear bad stories way more often, that's how the world operates, but it's stereotyping, which I don't need to tell you, is really silly. That's why we depend on stats to make statements, and the stats indicate we are doing great. Hopefully now we can stop spreading rumours about Mac and agree to all get along Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that the reputation is valid, or even that I believe in that reputation, just that it exists. Several physicians have expressed their opinion to me of Mac clerks lacking pre-clinical knowledge (as have a few in this very thread!) Saying the reputation is unjustified is a very different thing that denying the reputation's existence altogether. Like you, I believe in my school and the education I'm receiving. But I don't let that blind me to the flaws my school has and the possible means by which it could improve. Shortly after I got into Western, a physician I worked with gave me a very long speech about how Western grads were absolute #$*% in their opinion (not the most tactful person ). My goal from that point was the break that opinion, to not be that physician's view of an average Western grad - regardless of whether that opinion was justified. You identified fairly early on that your words wouldn't change people's opinion of the school, so why bother? Focus on your deeds instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spontaneouscombustion Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Not many Ontario FM spots left over this year. Just a few scattered rural ones. I think all of the CMG spots filled. Apply broadly, people. Nothing is guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Not many Ontario FM spots left over this year. Just a few scattered rural ones. I think all of the CMG spots filled. Apply broadly, people. Nothing is guaranteed. nothing ever is Family has become really popular for the past few years - there is a lot going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashmetoo Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Not many Ontario FM spots left over this year. Just a few scattered rural ones. I think all of the CMG spots filled. Apply broadly, people. Nothing is guaranteed. Do you have a link/ source for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.