Uoft Interview Discussion 2015

[Riverpeth]

I think the only legitimate reason people have to be upset about this situation is that many students with similar stats probably didn't even apply to UofT as they assumed the "hard cut-off" made them ineligible. Had they known it was this flexible they may have tried their luck. 

 

Either way, we should just be patient and understanding regarding both sides of the issue.

[med-dream]

So many Q&A:

 

https://utmedadmissions.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/interview-quick-facts-for-2015/#comments 

[MathToMed]

I think the only legitimate reason people have to be upset about this situation is that many students with similar stats probably didn't even apply to UofT as they assumed the "hard cut-off" made them ineligible. Had they known it was this flexible they may have tried their luck. 

 

Either way, we should just be patient and understanding regarding both sides of the issue.

(When I say "you" in this post, I don't mean you specifically)

 

Resenting another (the adcom or worse, the applicant) for what you (or a friend, family member, etc) decided not to do is the very definition of irrationality.

 

Try your luck or don't - you didn't apply and therefore you didn't get in. Being surprised or upset by this is quite frankly, stupid.

[Riverpeth]

(When I say "you" in this post, I don't mean you specifically)

 

Resenting another (the adcom or worse, the applicant) for what you (or a friend, family member, etc) decided not to do is the very definition of irrationality.

 

Try your luck or don't - you didn't apply and therefore you didn't get in. Being surprised or upset by this is quite frankly, stupid.

Can't say that I necessarily agree with this view and I get the feeling that you didn't really comprehend or understand what I wrote. There is no "trying of luck" if you are under the impression that there are hard cut-offs that would make you ineligible. In fact, you would be "stupid" (as you put it) to apply in the first place if your stats were below posted hard deadlines. It aligns with the definition of insanity to apply for something knowing full well that you will be rejected, and yet still hope that the outcome will be different. The issue some people have is that they personally didn't (or know people who didn't) apply because they were led to believe there were strict rules and cutoffs that would ultimately result in just throwing away money. 

 

It is quite ignorant to claim others are "stupid" for being upset, especially when some have good reason to be. It may all be an issue of misinformation, but this is an incredibly stressful time for everyone involved, and emotions are likely to get the best of people occasionally. It would behoove you to be understanding of both sides and show a little compassion. 

[Colonel]

Has anyone been invited in the past for having below cutoff scores?

[fightoffyourdemons]

Last year they had a hard cut-off (I think for the first time ever). Looking at the invites thread from last year, everyone that received an invite was above it, unless they lied. Anyone that was below it was rejected.

 

 

Has anyone been invited in the past for having below cutoff scores?

[MathToMed]

Can't say that I necessarily agree with this view and I get the feeling that you didn't really comprehend or understand what I wrote. There is no "trying of luck" if you are under the impression that there are hard cut-offs that would make you ineligible. In fact, you would be "stupid" (as you put it) to apply in the first place if your stats were below posted hard deadlines. It aligns with the definition of insanity to apply for something knowing full well that you will be rejected, and yet still hope that the outcome will be different. The issue some people have is that they personally didn't (or know people who didn't) apply because they were led to believe there were strict rules and cutoffs that would ultimately result in just throwing away money. 

 

It is quite ignorant to claim others are "stupid" for being upset, especially when some have good reason to be. It may all be an issue of misinformation, but this is an incredibly stressful time for everyone involved, and emotions are likely to get the best of people occasionally. It would behoove you to be understanding of both sides and show a little compassion. 

 

No trust me, I understood what you wrote...I doubt the feeling is mutual however. Perhaps the fault lies with me.

 

I never said people were stupid for being upset (on the contrary, when posting on a site like this I'm overwhelmed by the statistics of other applicants). I said being upset was a stupid thing to do given the circumstances, as the decision to apply or not apply rested solely with the individual applicants. And yes there is a world of difference between the two, as even the most brilliant of people act stupid now and again. If that was unclear then I'd like to apologize to anyone for any potential offense. I should have said something along the lines of "assess this logically, and don't be silly." It's certainly a valid reason to be upset, but it's not a valid reason to be upset with the adcom or applicant themselves.

 

I would agree with you if UofT actually published a hard cut-off, but you'll note they're acting like a politician here...being deliberately vague for the purposes of allowing exceptionally qualified applicants with sub-par MCAT scores (and if you had a chance to read about the poster...they claimed some truly exceptional things, were a doctoral student, and had exceptional accolades...it was also their second administration of the MCAT, the first being over 9/9/9). A single person being invited for interview speaks to the holistic nature of UofT's process (assuming the poster was telling the truth), and does not nullify what UofT's official stance on the issue is.

 

If you're below 9/9/9, you probably won't get an interview. And frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone else did. Last year UofT retroactively suggested that, since no one was considered last year with sub-9/9/9, this year it was recommended not to apply with those stats. This is true, and no deception has occurred.

 

tl;dr - I'm sorry if my prior post came across the wrong way, perhaps using the word "stupid" was in bad taste (and I'd edit it if it weren't quoted and referenced from here until tomorrow). However I stand by what I said, if you chose not to take the risk and apply, you calculated your odds given your personal stats and made that decision by yourself. Put the blame squarely where it belongs. Just because a stellar applicant (and I do mean stellar in all other facets) was offered a coveted spot regardless...ask yourself, do you honestly believe your application would merit the same miraculous outcome?

 

If so...why didn't you apply?

[Riverpeth]

 

tl;dr - I'm sorry if my prior post came across the wrong way, perhaps using the word "stupid" was in bad taste (and I'd edit it if it weren't quoted and referenced from here until tomorrow). However I stand by what I said, if you chose not to take the risk and apply, you calculated your odds given your personal stats and made that decision by yourself. Put the blame squarely where it belongs. Just because a stellar applicant (and I do mean stellar in all other facets) was offered a coveted spot regardless...ask yourself, do you honestly believe your application would merit the same miraculous outcome?

 

If so...why didn't you apply?

1) I did apply (just in case that wasn't clear), still haven't heard back

2) I still don't understand how you see it at all as "choosing not to take the risk and apply", when for all intents and purposes it was a hard cut-off (at least last year it appeared to be and the school did nothing to say otherwise). There was overwhelming evidence that it was a hard cut-off, so there was no calculating of odds. You can defend it all you want, but that sort of ambiguity is unfair in a process like this. Some people can't afford to apply to every school in existence and need to determine where their best chances are. If, as was likely the case with UofT, they believed the posted information gave them ZERO chance, then there was no risk/reward calculation to make...If MCAT <9, then P()=0. That would be like me asking you why you didn't apply to an American school that doesn't accept Canadians (assuming you're Canadian). So what if they say they don't take international students, maybe you still have a shot? (do you see how irrational that sounds?)

 

I agree that they have taken a politician's stance, but that doesn't make the blame fall any less on both parties. The process should be clear, in that there can be no argument. If they choose to have a soft cut-off, they can just make that clear, instead of burying it in ambiguity. If they don't want to commit, they should say "we make no guarantees, apply if you dare" essentially.

[MathToMed]

Once again... "You" doesn't mean you, Riverpeth. It's a placeholder for someone reading the post who is upset by the whole thing.

 

You can certainly be upset about a lack of transparency in the process, ambiguity with OMSAS or a multitude of other problems, including a barrier to education due to the financial costs of applying (just FYI I come from an extremely low socioeconomic household). However there is still nothing binding about the terms on their website, nor in their official stance. They have not wronged anybody and on the contrary, if you felt your application was not up to their standard and decided not to apply, that was probably a wise decision.

 

If on the other hand, you felt your application was so stellar that it was worth applying and you did, that's another matter entirely. "We make no guarantees, apply if you dare" is essentially what they're saying. Those who don't dare, don't apply. Don't then be upset that someone did dare, and it worked out for them.

[fightoffyourdemons]

So on their website where they post in bold font that 9s are required isn't binding?

 

http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/information/requirements/Academic/MCAT.htm

 

Once again... "You" doesn't mean you, Riverpeth. It's a placeholder for someone reading the post who is upset by the whole thing.

 

You can certainly be upset about a lack of transparency in the process, ambiguity with OMSAS or a multitude of other problems, including a barrier to education due to the financial costs of applying (just FYI I come from an extremely low socioeconomic household). However there is still nothing binding about the terms on their website, nor in their official stance. They have not wronged anybody and on the contrary, if you felt your application was not up to their standard and decided not to apply, that was probably a wise decision.

 

If on the other hand, you felt your application was so stellar that it was worth applying and you did, that's another matter entirely. "We make no guarantees, apply if you dare" is essentially what they're saying. Those who don't dare, don't apply. Don't then be upset that someone did dare, and it worked out for them.

[MathToMed]

So on their website where they post in bold font that 9s are required isn't binding? http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/information/requirements/Academic/MCAT.htm

I don't interpret it as such, and apparently it wasn't.

 

Besides, it doesn't even seem like they've violated that and instead have gone back on their "latest MCAT" policy.

[robclem21]

I don't interpret it as such, and apparently it wasn't.

 

Besides, it doesn't even seem like they've violated that and instead have gone back on their "latest MCAT" policy.

 

One of the few times I disagree with you MathtoMed. I think "are required" is not vague. If it was vague, then the fact that prerequisites "are required", or 3 years of undergrad "are required" could mean someone who wrote the MCAT and only completed one year could be accepted given good extra curriculars. But I think we know that these requirements must be met.

 

I think people have a right to be upset and are not acting stupid or irrationally for being mislead by what appears to be a very black and white statement. Yes, ultimately the responsibility lies with the applicant, but for those who don't have money and time to spend on an application when that chance is stated at 0%, I can understand how it would be aggrivating and unfair.

[Savac]

So on their website where they post in bold font that 9s are required isn't binding?

 

http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/information/requirements/Academic/MCAT.htm

 

 

Right below that it says "Scores below the minimum will jeopardise the success of the application." So really, the website doesn't take a firm stance on this issue.

 

The bottom line is that this application was exceptional, other than the 6 in VR. Clearly UofT reserves the right to take a student if they really want them. Everyone should be happy that they're not immediately throwing out applications that are below the cutoffs. This is a good thing.

 

Most people, myself included, wouldn't have a good enough application in light of the 6VR. So for pretty much everyone, it would not be advised to apply with the 6VR.

[MathToMed]

Ok, so essentially people are saying I don't have to right to tell people to be or not to be upset. That's fine. I'm done arguing that point as it's entirely counter productive and we all have better things to do than sit here piss and moaning about who has the right to piss and moan.

 

What I don't like is that we've alienated the poster to the point that they felt the need to remove their data...and someone has even gone so far as to post their data on the uoft admissions blog (which is just plain uncalled for, and makes me think twice about sharing my own information with PM101). No matter how you slice it, the applicant should not be feeling that alienated by this site.

 

-------------

 

I would like to mention something however... What people are neglecting to realize is also that this was the applicant's second MCAT sitting (the first was, IIRC, 12/9/12). What more likely than not occurred (again, we don't even know if the posted data is factual and are operating under the assumption that it is), is that UofT went back on its policy regarding the latest administration of the MCAT because of the rest of the applicant's profile:

 

 

http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/information/requirements/Academic/MCAT.htm

Only the most recent MCAT scores will be considered in the application process. Please note this policy is subject to change.

[Fleming]

Ok, so essentially people are saying I don't have to right to tell people to be or not to be upset. That's fine. I'm done arguing that point as it's entirely counter productive and we all have better things to do than sit here piss and moaning about who has the right to piss and moan.

 

What I don't like is that we've alienated the poster to the point that they felt the need to remove their data...and someone has even gone so far as to post their data on the uoft admissions blog (which is just plain uncalled for, and makes me think twice about sharing my own information with PM101). No matter how you slice it, the applicant should not be feeling that alienated by this site.

 

-------------

 

I would like to mention something however... What people are neglecting to realize is also that this was the applicant's second MCAT sitting (the first was, IIRC, 12/9/12). What more likely than not occurred (again, we don't even know if the posted data is factual and are operating under the assumption that it is), is that UofT went back on its policy regarding the latest administration of the MCAT because of the rest of the applicant's profile:

 

 

 

I truly believe that this is the most accurate theory. I would argue that the applicant would not have received an invite if everything was identical, but the MCAT containing a 6 was his/her only sitting. Given that the application was clearly stellar and the applicant did have one sitting that met the cutoffs, UofT likely opted to invite him/her.

 

In this way, UofT didn't actually break its own MCAT cutoffs (>9). Thus, all people who did not have an MCAT score of >9 in all sections likely still wouldn't have received an invite. 

 

Whether UofT was justified in making the decision to consider a previous MCAT score is a reasonable debate. My personal belief is that the decision was fair. It does appear that there was more flexibility in the wording of which MCAT sitting would be used than that of the cutoffs themselves.

 

Just my two cents.

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

Just thought I'd chime in:

I think the fact that the applicant is ESL was taken into considerarion. Although complicated, I think the decision, if true, is fair based on the arguments mentioned by others above.

[Riverpeth]

Just thought I'd chime in:

I think the fact that the applicant is ESL was taken into considerarion. Although complicated, I think the decision, if true, is fair based on the arguments mentioned by others above.

 

I definitely think it's fair that they considered the applicant holistically, and like most others don't have any issue with UofT's decision. The only thing I disagreed with was people having an issue with those upset about being unaware of the flexibility in cut-offs or guidelines. They have every right to express discontent with the lack of transparency in the evaluation process (as long as they don't attack the fortunate interviewee)

[Colonel]

Surely, one of the file reviewers cannot have the power to nullify MCAT requirements. Who did?

[med-dream]

 

This case could encourage those (who don't apply because their low MCAT in one section, but have high GPA & strong ECs) to apply, and not to disqualify themselves, and leave it to admin. office to decide.

 

 

I definitely think it's fair that they considered the applicant holistically, and like most others don't have any issue with UofT's decision. The only thing I disagreed with was people having an issue with those upset about being unaware of the flexibility in cut-offs or guidelines. They have every right to express discontent with the lack of transparency in the evaluation process (as long as they don't attack the fortunate interviewee)

[Riverpeth]

This case could encourage those (who don't apply because their low MCAT in one section, but have high GPA & strong ECs) to apply, and not to disqualify themselves, and leave it to admin. office to decide.

 

 

Exactly this! 

[0-0]

Thanks for the positive feedback.  However, I am amazed by the negative feelings that some have.  I really hope I don't become their colleague or patient.   Please refer to the UofT admission website before you accuse a school of non-transparency.  There is no indication of any "hard" deadlines or cut-offs.   
"Scores below the minimum will jeopardise the success of the application. We use the MCAT as a threshold only, and as such, marks higher than the minimums do not improve the chances of the application." 
If I as an ESL speaker was able to decipher that there is a chance around the "requirement", then you have no right to linguistically justify your confusion.       

 

I didn't want to be involved in such a childish debate.  However, just as the previous applicants were of help for me, I will push it forward.  Please remember that the required GPA and MCAT scores are employed to predict the academic success of an applicant.   If you have an additional methods to prove your potentiality then you should assume the risk of applying; for example I am a PhD Vanier Canada scholar.  In addition, if you are not aware, graduate students have an additional supplementary application to submit and are assessed by a separate graduate application review.  
"Graduate applicants may undergo a separate graduate application review."
To prove that no requirement is static, I never had a full-year course load during my undergraduate studies (was studying and working), and despite that I received an interview to McGill this year.  Also, I am not a native of any rural community (lived in a refugee camp though) but I still received an invitation to NOSM this year.   If you don't believe in yourself no-one will.  Even if you have 1/1000000 chance, just go for it.  I was once accepted to McMaster School of Medicine and there was only one seat allocated for international students (Unfortunately I couldn't pay the international tuition fees at the time).  Thus, my two cents is to take Med-School requirements with a grain of salt and don't look at the odds.  Show the reviewing committee that you are more than a set of numbers.   

[WHYNOT]

.....

[Riverpeth]

Thanks for the positive feedback.  However, I am amazed by the negative feelings that some have.  I really hope I don't become their colleague or patient.   Please refer to the UofT admission website before you accuse a school of non-transparency.  There is no indication of any "hard" deadlines or cut-offs.   

"Scores below the minimum will jeopardise the success of the application. We use the MCAT as a threshold only, and as such, marks higher than the minimums do not improve the chances of the application." 

If I as an ESL speaker was able to decipher that there is a chance around the "requirement", then you have no right to linguistically justify your confusion.       

 

 

I didn't want to be involved in such a childish debate.  However, just as the previous applicants were of help for me, I will push it forward.  Please remember that the required GPA and MCAT scores are employed to predict the academic success of an applicant.   If you have an additional methods to prove your potentiality then you should assume the risk of applying; for example I am a PhD Vanier Canada scholar.  In addition, if you are not aware, graduate students have an additional supplementary application to submit and are assessed by a separate graduate application review.  

"Graduate applicants may undergo a separate graduate application review."

Just to prove that no requirement is static, I never had a full-year course load during my undergraduate studies (was studying and working), and despite that I received an interview at McGill this year.  Also, I am not a native of any rural community (lived in a refugee camp though) but I still received an invitation to NOSM this year.   If you don't believe in yourself no-one will.  Even if you have 1/1000000 chance, just go for it.  I was once accepted to McMaster School of Medicine and there was only one seat allocated for international students (Unfortunately I couldn't pay the international tuition fees at the time).  Thus, my two cents is to take Med-School requirements with a grain of salt and don't look at the odds.  Show the reviewing committee that you are more than a set of numbers.   

 

Although I agree with much of what you have said, I cannot agree with your statement that "There is no indication of any "hard" deadlines or cut-offs." Regardless of confounding information, the website clearly states in *bold*  Minimum scores of 9 in each of the three sections are required. This is completely contradictory to the idea that it will only "jeopardize" one's application. It is either required, or it is not. Requirements are binary and this is not an argument of linguistics. Your comment is the equivalent of me saying that it is clearly required and there is no indication that it is flexible. Just as the passage supports one side of the issue, it simultaneously supports the other.

 

You claim that it is a childish debate but that only makes you come across as arrogant and unsympathetic, unwilling to maturely consider both sides equally (not good qualities in a future physician). Just as you stated that you could not afford to attend McMaster you should understand that not everyone has the financial stability to be able to apply to as many schools as you have, and as such they should have an unambiguous understanding of where they should "try their luck" and "believe" in themselves. Furthermore, to claim that one has "no right" to air their grievances with this issue is incredibly naive. As we live in a country that support freedom of speech, we have every right to make our feelings heard as long as they don't encroach upon the rights and freedoms of others. Now I know that some people have been aggressive, and gone about explaining their point in the wrong way, but that does not entitle you to shut down the concept in it's entirety.

[pablo_yike]

It's easy to get caught up in anger and debate over what people perceive was wrong about this situation.  Better to focus on an improved situation going forward.  I think the two statements on the application information are in fact contradictory in that it shouldn't say 'required' and then in the very next sentence say failing to meet the requirement will merely 'jeopardize'.  Hopefully they will change the wording from 'required' to 'necessary in most cases for an application to be considered competitive' or something along those lines.

 

Any other suggestions for improved wording that gets the point across without seemingly being internally contradictory?  With the number of current U of T students/grads/adcoms who come to this forum maybe we can make a positive difference going forward.

[MathToMed]

As we live in a country that support freedom of speech, we have every right to make our feelings heard as long as they don't encroach upon the rights and freedoms of others. Now I know that some people have been aggressive, and gone about explaining their point in the wrong way, but that does not entitle you to shut down the concept in it's entirety.

 

I'd just like to point out two things, one relevant and one unrelated food for thought:

 

1) Note that you're speaking to the very applicant who was alienated by the other premeds (which is completely disgraceful). People made their feelings heard and encroached upon the rights and freedoms of him/her...but when it's reciprocated (very loosely speaking) in any way, it's a problem? I can understand their frustration and declaration that it's better to simply ignore everyone and not put up with the bickering.

 

2) (Interesting tidbit of the day) Internet posts are not technically "in a country" and that's why legal issues with the internet and its content are so difficult to enforce. So technically speaking, we don't have freedom of speech (nor do we technically lack it) on this website. Nothing is to stop a moderator from swooping in and imposing their wrath just because they don't like you or agree with your point, and you'll be hard pressed to start any kind of discrimination / freedom of speech case.

 

The 'law' of this website is the Terms of Service you agreed to when you signed up, and that's only if the higher ups decide to enforce it... that's the price we pay to use this free service. Canadian law is technically irrelevant (although more likely than not, the ToS was drafted to line up with it).

 

If we wanted to play the Canadian Law card, then IMHO the person who posted 0-0's stats to the uoft med blog should get it for something along the lines of invasion of privacy (not pretending to be a legal expert here), as now their data can not be edited out of existence at their discretion. But here we are with an unenforceable idea and little to be done as this is the internet. Just food for thought!