Uoft Interview Discussion 2015

[thiscomment]

 

?

Lol wait what does that mean

[StayHappy]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[thiscomment]

 

Congrats!

 

I think a lot of people felt good about UofT interviews though. People generally say that the interviewers are nice this year?

 

http://forums.premed101.com/index.php?/topic/81899-2015-post-interview-discussion/

[StayHappy]

 

[StayHappy]

                

[anonymous12]

I don't get why the 9 9 9 threshold matters so much to some of you. If the person with a 6 got an interview, it means they were absolutely outstanding in other ways. Do you think they should be barred from being a doctor just because of a test? This is so dumb.

[jlkhhylyiluh6]

I don't get why the 9 9 9 threshold matters so much to some of you. If the person with a 6 got an interview, it means they were absolutely outstanding in other ways. Do you think they should be barred from being a doctor just because of a test? This is so dumb.

 

 

You don't think that a poor performance on a test is at all an indication that they might not be able to handle the rigors of medical school?

[Organomegaly]

You don't think that a poor performance on a test is at all an indication that they might not be able to handle the rigors of medical school?

 

To be fair, Mac reported a study on this that found that it's only under a VR score of 6 that a student begins to experience serious difficulties in medical school due to his/her verbal limits. That's why their cutoff is a 6. 

[thiscomment]

You don't think that a poor performance on a test is at all an indication that they might not be able to handle the rigors of medical school?

I do think we are getting overly worked out about this. 

 

That post could have been a mistake. We don't even know if it actually occurred that a person had that score. I think we should move on

[Riverpeth]

I don't get why the 9 9 9 threshold matters so much to some of you. If the person with a 6 got an interview, it means they were absolutely outstanding in other ways. Do you think they should be barred from being a doctor just because of a test? This is so dumb.

That was never the issue. No one disagrees with them getting an interview and no one disagrees that they can't be an outstanding doctor. The issue was that the UofT site states "a minimum of 9 in each section is REQUIRED". The issue is that many people may not apply as they are led to believe it is a strict cutoff, and as this case proves that is not the case, the site should be updated to remove the ambiguity, that is all.

[thiscomment]

Changing topics..

Something I always wondered about was how they said (other than for MD/PhDs) that people were given "random" interview days, and the day of your interview has no effect. Is UofT's claim that they review all applications, and then (after review applications) they deem a certain application "good enough" for an interview, they slot it into a random interview date?

 

I think that "when" you get an interview might have reflect on your current ranking

 

• Generally, I observed (at least at my school) that the strongest applicants who got interviews at UofT got it in the first round.
• Also, it would make sense to slot the strongest in the first round as these applicants are the most likely who might need the date changed (due to other interviews) and thus they have two options to change to
• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

[Selstaar]

 

Changing topics..

Something I always wondered about was how they said (other than for MD/PhDs) that people were given "random" interview days, and the day of your interview has no effect. Is UofT's claim that they review all applications, and then (after review applications) they deem a certain application "good enough" for an interview, they slot it into a random interview date?

 

I think that "when" you get an interview might have reflect on your current ranking

 

• Generally, I observed (at least at my school) that the strongest applicants who got interviews at UofT got it in the first round.eAlso, it would make sense to slot the strongest in the first round as these applicants are the most likely who might need the date changed (due to other interviews) and thus they have two options to change to
• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

 

 

Uhh...Hasn't Toronto gone on record saying that geographic status is a major determinant of interview date? As in, you live close, it would take less time for you to figure out how to get here, so show up on March XX?

 

Also, I think anyone who gets an interview at Toronto (or any Ontario medical school) has to have a lot of amazing stuff going on with their app. I don't think someone sits down and says: he has a 63 summed score...let's invite him before Queens gets him.

[Organomegaly]

 

Changing topics..

Something I always wondered about was how they said (other than for MD/PhDs) that people were given "random" interview days, and the day of your interview has no effect. Is UofT's claim that they review all applications, and then (after review applications) they deem a certain application "good enough" for an interview, they slot it into a random interview date?

 

I think that "when" you get an interview might have reflect on your current ranking

 

• Generally, I observed (at least at my school) that the strongest applicants who got interviews at UofT got it in the first round.
• Also, it would make sense to slot the strongest in the first round as these applicants are the most likely who might need the date changed (due to other interviews) and thus they have two options to change to
• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

 

 

It's as files are reviewed. At the February invite time, not all files were reviewed yet, or even most of them. The March invites in general were sent out late compared to the February ones  (2-1.5 week notice as opposed to a solid 3+ week notice for February), allegedly because files were still being read. You can't decide who the strongest applicants are without having read all the files. 

 

The U of T admissions blog also makes it pretty clear that the order of interview invites has no bearing on your ranking. 

[Riverpeth]

It's as files are reviewed. At the February invite time, not all files were reviewed yet, or even most of them. The March invites in general were sent out late compared to the February ones  (2-1.5 week notice as opposed to a solid 3+ week notice for February), allegedly because files were still being read. You can't decide who the strongest applicants are without having read all the files. 

 

The U of T admissions blog also makes it pretty clear that the order of interview invites has no bearing on your ranking. 

"Thiscomment" raises a good point however regarding interview date flexibility. It does seem a little unfair that students with early interview dates have the option to move to a later one while students equally as qualified who were selected for the last date have no choice and are stuck with the date given. It would make sense if maybe they binned students based on academic stats and then reviewed those with higher scores first, and reviewed those with lower scores later in the cycle.

[med-dream]

That is possible. I guess those, with high GPA & ECs, may already get the invites. Only those, who have non-outstanding profiles & meet the cut off, are being reviewed for the rest spots at the last day.

 

 

"Thiscomment" raises a good point however regarding interview date flexibility. It does seem a little unfair that students with early interview dates have the option to move to a later one while students equally as qualified who were selected for the last date have no choice and are stuck with the date given. It would make sense if maybe they binned students based on academic stats and then reviewed those with higher scores first, and reviewed those with lower scores later in the cycle.

[Organomegaly]

"Thiscomment" raises a good point however regarding interview date flexibility. It does seem a little unfair that students with early interview dates have the option to move to a later one while students equally as qualified who were selected for the last date have no choice and are stuck with the date given. It would make sense if maybe they binned students based on academic stats and then reviewed those with higher scores first, and reviewed those with lower scores later in the cycle.

 

A complex process is rarely perfect. It doesn't mean there is an underlying "method" that makes it more ideal and ordered than it really is. 

[1919]

 

Changing topics..

Something I always wondered about was how they said (other than for MD/PhDs) that people were given "random" interview days, and the day of your interview has no effect. Is UofT's claim that they review all applications, and then (after review applications) they deem a certain application "good enough" for an interview, they slot it into a random interview date?

 

I think that "when" you get an interview might have reflect on your current ranking

 

• Generally, I observed (at least at my school) that the strongest applicants who got interviews at UofT got it in the first round.
• Also, it would make sense to slot the strongest in the first round as these applicants are the most likely who might need the date changed (due to other interviews) and thus they have two options to change to
• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

 

 

The big Issue I see here is that you would get a poor comparison to other applicants on your interview day. Strength of applicants you are being compared to by your interiewer (other applicants they are seeing that day) would be much different between those with early and late interviews. Since most school sit seems evaluate in comparison to others (and we would naturally have this tendency regardless) it would make no sense to group people based on strength of applicant. 

[WHYNOT]

"Thiscomment" raises a good point however regarding interview date flexibility. It does seem a little unfair that students with early interview dates have the option to move to a later one while students equally as qualified who were selected for the last date have no choice and are stuck with the date given. It would make sense if maybe they binned students based on academic stats and then reviewed those with higher scores first, and reviewed those with lower scores later in the cycle.

Mr. x, stop complaining.    

 

[anonymous12]

You don't think that a poor performance on a test is at all an indication that they might not be able to handle the rigors of medical school?

 

I actually do not. I know people who struggle with VR but are incredibly intelligent and have absolutely no trouble academically. I've also known other people who have done perfectly fine on VR practice exams but have had a flukey day on the actual MCAT. And lastly, I've actually scored a flukey 6 once on one of the AAMC practice tests when I usually average'd 38-39 on the MCAT as a whole (14-15/10/14-15).

If the person has proved to be capable academically (GPA) and outstanding in other ways, I don't see why this is an issue.

 

That was never the issue. No one disagrees with them getting an interview and no one disagrees that they can't be an outstanding doctor. The issue was that the UofT site states "a minimum of 9 in each section is REQUIRED". The issue is that many people may not apply as they are led to believe it is a strict cutoff, and as this case proves that is not the case, the site should be updated to remove the ambiguity, that is all.

 

I guess, I still think that people should just focus on themselves. I didn't apply to Western because I knew I didn't make the VR cutoff, but if someone did and managed to get in... I honestly wouldn't really care. 

[thiscomment]

Mr. x, stop complaining.    

 

I don't think anyone's complaining lol. 

 

And at the very least, this point still stands:

• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

I would say, definitely, if you are one of the "last minute" individuals asked to come on short notice for an interview, it implies that you are probably in the lower part of the standing.

[fightoffyourdemons]

This would make sense, actually. Given the old method of how Toronto scored (which is probably still accurate, just with weightings possibly switched around), if you were to get 80/100 you're probably guaranteed an interview spot. People with 70 - 79 might be borderline and be on the interview short list in case someone dropped that weekend. In the case that the interview is now worth more than before, this also makes sense because people with 70 could still possibly make it in given a strong interview. 

 

I don't think anyone's complaining lol. 

 

And at the very least, this point still stands:

• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

I would say, definitely, if you are one of the "last minute" individuals asked to come on short notice for an interview, it implies that you are probably in the lower part of the standing.

[robclem21]

This would make sense, actually. Given the old method of how Toronto scored (which is probably still accurate, just with weightings possibly switched around), if you were to get 80/100 you're probably guaranteed an interview spot. People with 70 - 79 might be borderline and be on the interview short list in case someone dropped that weekend. In the case that the interview is now worth more than before, this also makes sense because people with 70 could still possibly make it in given a strong interview. 

 

Since I am in this boat, I would prefer to look at it this way:

 

That my application was one that was already reviewed and placed in the "interview pile" for a later round (i.e. it was not reviewed in time for the initial round of invites for the earlier date). Then when someone cancelled last minute, they dipped into the pile of newly reviewed files as opposed to inviting someone who would not have made the cutoff previously. I would think with 3500+ applicants, the need to dip into lower pre-interview scores would not be entirely necessary. But then again, who knows.

[Riverpeth]

I don't think anyone's complaining lol. 

 

And at the very least, this point still stands:

• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

I would say, definitely, if you are one of the "last minute" individuals asked to come on short notice for an interview, it implies that you are probably in the lower part of the standing.

 

Lol, "WHYNOT" views every opinion that isn't sheeplike as a complaint. This is just a simple discussion between individuals with a vested interest in the process, that's all. 

 

I agree though, there does seem to be at least some form of underlying ranking system regarding last minute applicant interviews.

[Arztin]

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.   

cool story bro. making 2 accounts to make a point and to attack other people and revealing other people's ID online.

[Organomegaly]

I don't think anyone's complaining lol. 

 

And at the very least, this point still stands:

• At the very least, I would hypothesize that those who get their offers "extremely" close to an interview date are those who are lower in ranking. As these were the applicants (not originally in the interview invite) but who got slotted in after someone else declined their interview

I would say, definitely, if you are one of the "last minute" individuals asked to come on short notice for an interview, it implies that you are probably in the lower part of the standing.

 

I disagree for the reason robchem stated. Your invite timing is a matter of temporality. You'll see a distribution of file scores across all interview weekends; others have corroborated by noting that those from later weekends stand no less a chance of receiving an offer than those from earlier weekends come May. Observing "stronger" candidates invited earlier is most likely an issue of interpretation bias or sampling error. 

 

I think your best bet is to go through what the official mediums say about this and not hypothesize too much.