Rejected due to Professionalism Attributes

[medmanitoba]

I received a rejection notification from the U of M with this in the statement "I wish to advise you that your application was referred to the Faculty sub-committee regarding professional attributesidentified in the application process. The Admissions Committee considered the sub-committee's recommendationswhen deliberating on your application." After meeting with the dean of admissions, I was informed that I would have been offered admission, however the sub committee decided that there was sufficient concern regarding my professionalism. He said that it is a combination of my correspondence with the university together and/or letter of recommendation that was the cause. My Letters of reference were from people whom I've known for a long time and would have had nothing ill to say about me. When I asked what they meant by correspondence, I was told that some of my e-mails to the university had an aggressive tone to them. I'm really confused because I am not sure where they could have gotten this impression. I will be filing an appeal, and am wondering if anyone else has gone through this process, and what their result was. Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

[hamham]

He said that it is a combination of my correspondence with the university together and/or letter of recommendation that was the cause. My Letters of reference were from people whom I've known for a long time and would have had nothing ill to say about me. When I asked what they meant by correspondence, I was told that some of my e-mails to the university had an aggressive tone to them.

Thank you

 

Sorry to hear that. I don't go to manitoba, so I can only offer my 2-cents from an outsider's perspective.

 

Unless we see your emails or reference letters, there is no way we can tell whether there is a professionalism breach in them. Your best bet is to book an appointment (if possible) with someone from admissions, and talk to them directly, face-to-face. Find out what exactly went wrong as well as possible future repercussions. Some schools will not hold it against you in future applications. Others are less forgiving. From my experience, cases like yours are rare, but they do occur (happened at U of A, and UBC several years ago).

 

Personally, I find to difficult to believe that your emails alone would contain such malicious elements that rendered you unprofessional. But if that was the case, pls be careful in your future correspondence with the university.

 

Good luck!

[taboo]

Do they check Facebook?

[Head Squeeze]

Do they check Facebook?

 

I would say no or they shouldn't if they do it. Facebook is more of a personal thing. (considering no illegal conduct on facebook that Police is already aware about)

 

 

EDIT: Sorry to hear about your situation.

[chef1]

Yes the admission committee checks Facebook.

[PhoenixFlare500]

I would say no or they shouldn't if they do it. Facebook is more of a personal thing. (considering no illegal conduct on facebook that Police is already aware about)

 

 

EDIT: Sorry to hear about your situation.

 

Yes, they do check Facebook. Lots of employers do it too. You should be careful about your online profile as a whole from now on (including emails, social meda, forums like this one, etc.). I like hamham's idea of meeting with someone to discuss this in person. Obviously be as courteous and polite as possible throughout this meeting, your appeal, and future applications. Try to take a step back and look at your emails as if someone else wrote them and see what you think. Or you could also get a friend to read them and see what they think (I wouldn't publish them here).

[rmorelan]

Yes, they do check Facebook. Lots of employers do it too. You should be careful about your online profile as a whole from now on (including emails, social meda, forums like this one, etc.). I like hamham's idea of meeting with someone to discuss this in person. Obviously be as courteous and polite as possible throughout this meeting, your appeal, and future applications. Try to take a step back and look at your emails as if someone else wrote them and see what you think. Or you could also get a friend to read them and see what they think (I wouldn't publish them here).

 

The idea of what medical school considers professionalism (and the field at large) would surprise some people. You public image is important - and at various points people will look them up.

[medmanitoba]

Thank you all for your input. I do not have social media so this would not be the cause. I had met with the dean of admissions as well as his admissions administrator whom I had been corresponding with via email at the beginning of the application process. I was polite but also did not have much to say because I was a little stunned or confused when he said my email correspondence with the university was a deciding factor. I was trying to think where I could have came off as agressive or unprofessional but could not think of a cause on the spot. They would not go into specifics with me and were fairly vague. After our meeting I looked back on my emails and seen one I had sent that may be interpreted as maybe a little bit pushy for information regarding how to fill out one section of the aplpication. I had sent this email on the last day of the application deadline asking for a reply to a previous email I had sent several days earlier for which I had not received a response.

[taboo]

It sort of looks like you have a Facebook though.

[TheKingslayer]

I am at a loss for words. This thread has just rocked my whole worldview.

 

First off, googling your name or searching for your facebook account is absolutely ludicrous. If word got out that this was even a miniscule factor in admittance, people would be sabotaging eachother left and right. Excuse the hyperbole, but it blows my mind that anyone would even consider giving merit to something on the internet. The net is not even close to being policed effectively enough to warrant its use as a source of credible information. Viewing hard-working, intelligent, forward-thinking individuals as damaged goods because somebody someday may catch feelings about some detail in their personal lives is asinine.

 

Now, the email issue is a bit different. My main gripe is that, since you weren't waitlisted but would have been offered admission sans "pushy" email, your email was the deciding factor between your acceptance and rejection, as opposed to the deciding factor between admitting you or another student. This might mean that your fate was sealed when you sent that email. Assuming this to be the case and assuming your email was sent prior to your interview, I am curious why they would even bother having you interview? Surely, in all their years of experience, they'd have learned that interviewing people who they've basically ruled out is uneconomical for both them and those people. The only counter-argument I can see them pursuing is that had you performed exceptionally well on the interview, then your "pushy" email would become less of a factor, and maybe, just maybe, you could be offered admittance.

 

I'd also look into the chronology of events. I recall that you, not unlike myself, received the unprofessional attribute remark in previous application cycles. I know they keep flagged applicant records for something like 20 years, so if your email was from a previous cycle, then you can probably use that fact to make a stronger case in your appeal. My personal guess, however, is that you acted "unprofessionally" during this application cycle. I'd hope that if your "transgression" was from a previous cycle that they'd make an effort to let you know prior to your 2013 application.

 

The chronology of events is also important if you're considering legal action. For instance, had you known that your chances were markedly lower on account of pre-2013 application occurences, you may have chosen to forgo the stress, devotion, preparation time, clothing purchases, applications fees, etc. that come with applying. That said, I'd assume the U of M has sufficient legal safeguards in place, but I'm no lawyer.

 

This country is starting to give off an Orwellian vibe.

[rmorelan]

I am at a loss for words. This thread has just rocked my whole worldview.

 

First off, googling your name or searching for your facebook account is absolutely ludicrous. If word got out that this was even a miniscule factor in admittance, people would be sabotaging eachother left and right. Excuse the hyperbole, but it blows my mind that anyone would even consider giving merit to something on the internet. The net is not even close to being policed effectively enough to warrant its use as a source of credible information. Viewing hard-working, intelligent, forward-thinking individuals as damaged goods because somebody someday may catch feelings about some detail in their personal lives is asinine.

 

Now, the email issue is a bit different. My main gripe is that, since you weren't waitlisted but would have been offered admission sans "pushy" email, your email wasn't the deciding factor between admitting you or another student. Instead, your email was the deciding factor between your acceptance and rejection. This might mean that your fate was sealed when you sent that email. Assuming this to be the case and assuming your email was sent prior to your interview, I am curious why they would even bother having you interview? Surely, in all their years of experience, they'd have learned that interviewing people who they've basically ruled out is uneconomical for both them and those people. The only counter-argument I can see them pursuing is that had you performed exceptionally well on the interview, then your "pushy" email would become less of a factor, and maybe, just maybe, you could be offered admittance.

 

I'd also look into the chronology of events. I recall that you, not unlike myself, received the unprofessional attribute remark in previous application cycles. I know they keep flagged applicant records for something like 20 years, so if your email was from a previous cycle, then you can probably use that fact to make a stronger case in your appeal. My personal guess, however, is that you acted "unprofessioanly" during this application cycle. I'd hope that if it was from a previous cycle that they'd make an effort to let you know prior to your 2013 application.

 

The chronology of events is also important if your considering legal action. For instance, had you known that your chances were markedly lower on account of pre-2013 occurences, you may have chosen to forgo the stress, devotion, preparation time, clothing purchases, applications fees, etc. that come with applying. That said, I'd assume the U of M has sufficient legal safeguards in place, but I'm no lawyer.

 

This country is starting to give off an Orwellian vibe.

 

You have to understand where the CMA is coming from on this - they work very hard projecting a particular image from doctors. A professional image, and that is key to their success and protection of the field.

 

They are actually quite concerned with facebook and the likes. Very concerned - I have had lectures on it, and there is a professional code of conduct that extends to such media.

 

That was what I was trying to get across - something that isn't easy to convey initially to people. Medicine is a profession, and part of all professions are professional rules (like them or not). That means joining the field has implications on your personal freedom. You will be more restricted after going into medicine than before in effect.

 

Just as an example it is a running joke in my year that people with more outrageous facebook profiles actually changed their names during the entire process even to the point of creating fake professionalized secondary accounts. That is how concerned they were.

 

Of course in reality now a days that is not really effective - it is assumed people have a digital presence after all, and naturally it is looked for. If you don't have an account it is unusual and thus raises questions - just like 30 years ago not having a phone number was unusual, and 10 years ago not having an email address etc. It is not Orwellian really - you chose to make all that information public - that choice is important as that is where the freedom lies, and is your complete and utter right to post whatever BUT you cannot claim privacy concerns on information you made public. It is out there and you have to assume anyone can access it.

[TheKingslayer]

You have to understand where the CMA is coming from on this - they work very hard projecting a particular image from doctors. A professional image, and that is key to their success and protection of the field.

 

They are actually quite concerned with facebook and the likes. Very concerned - I have had lectures on it, and there is a professional code of conduct that extends to such media.

 

That was what I was trying to get across - something that isn't easy to convey initially to people. Medicine is a profession, and part of all professions are professional rules (like them or not). That means joining the field has implications on your personal freedom. You will be more restricted after going into medicine than before in effect.

 

Just as an example it is a running joke in my year that people with more outrageous facebook profiles actually changed their names during the entire process even to the point of creating fake professionalized secondary accounts. That is how concerned they were.

 

Of course in reality now a days that is not really effective - it is assumed people have a digital presence after all, and naturally it is looked for. If you don't have an account it is unusual and thus raises questions - just like 30 years ago not having a phone number was unusual, and 10 years ago not having an email address etc. It is not Orwellian really - you chose to make all that information public - that choice is important as that is where the freedom lies, and is your complete and utter right to post whatever BUT you cannot claim privacy concerns on information you made public. It is out there and you have to assume anyone can access it.

 

You failed to address my main concern: the fact that anybody can make anybody else look awful on the internet. What's stopping a motivated individual from impersonating someone else and making a mockery of their name? The internet is not policed well enough for its contents to have merit.

 

I know that the profession cares about projecting a particular image. However, I'm of the opinion that they are mistakenly prioritizing that image over potential. Instead of molding large slabs of clay into 10 inch figurines, they are buying pre-molded 5 inch figurines. It's lazy, short-sighted, and an impediment to the self-actualization of mankind.

 

I've shown this thread to a number of people. Almost all of them have responded with shock and revulsion. Now, does that look good on the medical profession?

[rmorelan]

You failed to address my main concern: the fact that anybody can make anybody else look awful on the internet. What's stopping a motivated individual from impersonating someone else and making a mockery of their name? The internet is not policed well enough for its contents to have merit.

 

I know that the profession cares about projecting a particular image. However, I'm of the opinion that they are mistakenly prioritizing that image over potential. Instead of molding large slabs of clay into 10 inch figurines, they are buying pre-molded 5 inch figurines. It's lazy, short-sighted, and an impediment to the self-actualization of mankind.

 

I've shown this thread to a number of people. Almost all of them have responded with shock and revulsion. Now, does that look good on the medical profession?

 

well I am not saying I agree with all of it first off or at least not completely- at my heart I am and will always be a software engineer, and like a lot of software people I have a fiercely independent streak etc. Think the matrix - I mean that was modeled after some core ideas after all. Anyway my point is they are doing it like it or not. It is a very, very conservative profession in many ways. You have to be ready for that fact. The goal of the medical field is not the self actualization of mankind (ha - unlike the matrix) but rather the protection of a system the benefits its members and the public. Individuals will place a distant third on the rank of priorities. So things are not always in line with personal growth the say the least.

 

It is absolutely true anyone can say anything about you on the internet. First off you have to as much as possible protect yourself online. Facebook of course is a bit more controlled than just the internet at large - you have a lot of control there - unless someone created an entire account to injury you which is actually a criminal act now as I understand it. If you put something up on facebook - and it is almost certain you did in fact do that or have control of it, then yeah that is fair game. It is used like it or not. Again not to agree or disagree with it if you are not at least aware then you are going to get into trouble.

[gojetsgo]

Almost all of them have responded with shock and revulsion.

 

The fact is, nobody here knows what that email(s) said. If it truly suggested an unprofessional character, then I would hope that that kind of thing would be taken into consideration for admissions -- especially with an admissions process like UofM that is otherwise particularly non-subjective and transparent.

[TheKingslayer]

The fact is, nobody here knows what that email(s) said. If it truly suggested an unprofessional character, then I would hope that that kind of thing would be taken into consideration for admissions -- especially with an admissions process like UofM that is otherwise particularly non-subjective and transparent.

 

You say that nobody here knows what the email(s) said, which is true. But, then you state, quite matter-of-factly, that the U of M is non-subjective and transparent. Nobody here knows, for a fact, that the U of M is non-subjective and transparent.

 

You may think that this incident was an isolated one, but I too was rejected for unprofessional attributes that were never expounded. It appears, at least to me, that this institution is subjective and opaque. Whoever was first to read the email had to interpret it as unprofessional. That is the height of subjectivity. And the fact that they refuse to delve into details? The height of opacity.

 

In labelling someone unprofessional, but refusing to tell them why, U of M med. appears to commit the ultimate act of hypocrisy. Need I remind you that we're discussing a medical program--openness in order to ease concerns and allow for informed future decisions should be promoted at all junctures, especially if you expect applicants to conform to a standard.

 

How can you expect positive public perception when you don't uphold your tenets? Perhaps someone ought to snatch your glorified Staff of Asclepius, wield it like Moses, and produce a New Decalogue of Medicine...any takers? Anyone planning on practicing psychiatry at Mt. Sinai Hospital?

[TheKingslayer]

well I am not saying I agree with all of it first off or at least not completely- at my heart I am and will always be a software engineer, and like a lot of software people I have a fiercely independent streak etc. Think the matrix - I mean that was modeled after some core ideas after all. Anyway my point is they are doing it like it or not. It is a very, very conservative profession in many ways. You have to be ready for that fact. The goal of the medical field is not the self actualization of mankind (ha - unlike the matrix) but rather the protection of a system the benefits its members and the public. Individuals will place a distant third on the rank of priorities. So things are not always in line with personal growth the say the least.

 

It is absolutely true anyone can say anything about you on the internet. First off you have to as much as possible protect yourself online. Facebook of course is a bit more controlled than just the internet at large - you have a lot of control there - unless someone created an entire account to injury you which is actually a criminal act now as I understand it. If you put something up on facebook - and it is almost certain you did in fact do that or have control of it, then yeah that is fair game. It is used like it or not. Again not to agree or disagree with it if you are not at least aware then you are going to get into trouble.

 

Sure, but how can medical schools be certain? By virtue of the fact that it's Facebook? Let's be real here; nobody enforces the internet. Sure, you can report being impersonated to FB and with sufficient proof of identity, they may delete the impersonator's account, but what if a school sees the account before it's deleted? They have no way of knowing that it was an impersonator.

 

And do you know, for a fact, that the rest of the internet is disregarded when considering applications? If it is, then I feel medical schools are making the right call, but if not...oh boy.

 

I understand that schools may prefer to play it safe, but in my estimation, this can be a very, very, very costly strategy in the long term. To miss out on a potentially great doctor due to a mildly salacious digital footprint is questionable long-term thinking to say the least. In addition, the extreme unreliability of the internet just compounds this risk.

 

But ultimately, I see what you're saying. The medical profession is exorbitantly conservative. My concern is that, by playing it too safe, schools are sacrificing the health and lives of future patients.

 

"There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction."

- John F. Kennedy

 

 

Here is the U of M's guide for social networking we were expected to read upon applying. There is no indication that applicants are scrutinized on the basis of their online presence. Learners? yes, but applicants? no. I should note that I have absolutely no issue with restricting online activities of individuals who are in the faculty, but that's a completely different matter.

 

http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/media/socialnetworkingguidelines.pdf

 

And if you read section 5, they don't actually seem to be too conservative...which is somewhat of a relief.

[TheKingslayer]

Reading back my last posts, I think I'm on the precipice of argument, so I'll leave it there.

 

umweger, I'm still interested in what comes of this--keep us updated.

[medmanitoba]

Will do. So thekingslayer, did you make an appeal when you were rejected for professionalism concerns? What happened with this or what was your reasoning if you did not appeal?

Thanks

[TheKingslayer]

Will do. So thekingslayer, did you make an appeal when you were rejected for professionalism concerns? What happened with this or what was your reasoning if you did not appeal?

Thanks

 

I'm more than happy to give you a rundown of my experience:

 

I've applied three times, been offered three interviews, and been rejected outright all three times. Moreover, I've received the same statement about professional attributes all three times.

 

- I met with the med. officials after my first rejection, and was given far less information with respect to unprofessional attributes than you were. Moreover, my MCAT wasn't great and my interview was very weak, so I wasn't even close to being accepted (unlike you). I didn't even consider appealing because I agreed that I shouldn't have been accepted. What's important to note, however, is that even if I had wanted to appeal on the basis of the unprofessional attribute remark, my lack of information would've precluded me from building a case.

 

- For personal reasons, I didn't meet with them after my second rejection. Again, my MCAT was not great and my interview was only slightly better. At the time, I assumed that the professionial attribute remark was just a holdover from my first cycle, and gave it no second thought.

 

- I am slated to meet with them at a future date to discuss this third rejection. My MCAT was a lot stronger for this cycle and I felt my interview was better. My other stats also went up. That's not to say that I deserved to be accepted.

 

Our cases are a lot different. You, for one, know that you would've been accepted barring your "transgression". In addition, you have some idea of why you were given the professional attributes remark.

 

Nevertheless, the appeals process is still stacked against you. It's extremely difficult to build a case when you don't know why you're on trial. My advice would be to get more information, but given everything that's been discussed, that doesn't seem too feasible.

 

You should still do your best to fight for what you feel is right, but it could all be a blessing in disguise. You never know.

[gojetsgo]

You say that nobody here knows what the email(s) said, which is true. But, then you state, quite matter-of-factly, that the U of M is non-subjective and transparent. Nobody here knows, for a fact, that the U of M is non-subjective and transparent.

 

You may think that this incident was an isolated one, but I too was rejected for unprofessional attributes that were never expounded. It appears, at least to me, that this institution is subjective and opaque. Whoever was first to read the email had to interpret it as unprofessional. That is the height of subjectivity. And the fact that they refuse to delve into details? The height of opacity.

 

In labelling someone unprofessional, but refusing to tell them why, U of M med. appears to commit the ultimate act of hypocrisy. Need I remind you that we're discussing a medical program--openness in order to ease concerns and allow for informed future decisions should be promoted at all junctures, especially if you expect applicants to conform to a standard.

 

How can you expect positive public perception when you don't uphold your tenets? Perhaps someone ought to snatch your glorified Staff of Asclepius, wield it like Moses, and produce a New Decalogue of Medicine...any takers? Anyone planning on practicing psychiatry at Mt. Sinai Hospital?

 

Point is that unlike most schools, UofM publishes a forumla [(15%AGPA + 40%MCAT® + 45%MMI) X (rural co-efficient if >0) X (academic co-efficient if >0)]. By contrast, consider Queen's. Nobody has any clue how different components are weighted there, but they fill their 100 seats and it's a good 100. The problem with not leaving a little subjectivity in admissions is that a candidate's suitability can't be neatly judged by a formula. If there is reason to doubt someone's professionalism, it should be flagged irrespective of how their MCAT or MMI went. The world is subjective for a reason.

[TheKingslayer]

Point is that unlike most schools, UofM publishes a forumla [(15%AGPA + 40%MCAT® + 45%MMI) X (rural co-efficient if >0) X (academic co-efficient if >0)]. By contrast, consider Queen's. Nobody has any clue how different components are weighted there, but they fill their 100 seats and it's a good 100. The problem with not leaving a little subjectivity in admissions is that a candidate's suitability can't be neatly judged by a formula. If there is reason to doubt someone's professionalism, it should be flagged irrespective of how their MCAT or MMI went. The world is subjective for a reason.

 

Right, but being more objective than other schools doesn't mean that you're not also subjective. When I provided my example demonstrating subjectivity, it wasn't to say that they aren't objective, it was to say that your assessment of their objectivity/subjectivity was incorrect. In truth, they appear both significantly objective and significantly subjective--these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms. My issue is that they are more subjective than they portray themselves to be. This is part of the reason I said that my worldview was rocked (a bit strong perhaps). I felt I had been deceived for the past 6 years. I felt that the school had been putting on a guise of pure objectivity (apart from the interview and reference letters, naturally). Therefore, my intention was to demonstrate that things aren't what they seem to be. Of course, I'm human and I may have made a misjudgment, but you providing evidence of their objectivity and not of their subjectivity actually reinforces my beliefs.

 

And don't get me wrong, it's entirely possible that the OP did say something truly unprofessional. However, my experiences have me in their corner. Even if the OP is ultimately at fault, I still feel the med. school can learn something from this ordeal.

 

Lastly, I recognize that you've addressed the subjectivity portion of the post, but what about the opacity? I know the school is not legally obligated to be transparent, but I feel I've outlined some valid moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies in this regard.

[gojetsgo]

This country is starting to give off an Orwellian vibe.

 

Instead of molding large slabs of clay into 10 inch figurines, they are buying pre-molded 5 inch figurines. It's lazy, short-sighted, and an impediment to the self-actualization of mankind.

 

Even if the OP is ultimately at fault, I still feel the med. school can learn something from this ordeal.

 

I think you're blowing this up. UofM admissions remains pretty straightforward and should hold on to its 'subjective' safety net. As for opacity, I can't really comment except by saying that I hope you pursue it with both thoroughness and respect. As for learning something from this ordeal? It's not much of an ordeal. Their job is to select a class of 110, not appease everyone considered.

[TheKingslayer]

I think you're blowing this up. UofM admissions remains pretty straightforward and should hold on to its 'subjective' safety net. As for opacity, I can't really comment except by saying that I hope you pursue it with both thoroughness and respect. As for learning something from this ordeal? It's not much of an ordeal. Their job is to select a class of 110, not appease everyone considered.

 

I don't know for sure but I suspect they do a reasonable job. Regardless, everyone can do better.

 

And "the world is subjective for a reason", remember? Maybe, just maybe, part of that reason is so that distraught individuals can voice their concerns about what they feel are inconsistencies that will eventually affect millions of lives.

 

By the way, ordeal is a pretty subjective term. However, if you're going to hang on every word, my advice would be to sharpen your verbal edge, lest you unwittingly forget to put your shaky stool in leg's reach. <---- now there's something you can selectively quote...

[gojetsgo]

Man, you'd make a really annoying colleague anyway.

[TheKingslayer]

Man, you'd make a really annoying colleague anyway.

 

Lmfao, fair enough.