Ontario method of admissions

[Guest mailboxstalker]

I wanted to start a new thread that we could all rant in a section separate from acceptances/rejections...

 

I've got to say, Dal's method of admissions just doesn't make sense...

 

From Dal's point-of-view in admitting a great med class, they're just going to lose out--anyone top-of-the-list across Canada will already have acceptances across the board, and with a delayed notice from Dal, they would just say screw it and go with another choice. Every school has deadlines for accepting admittance...and aren't going to let you say 'hold on, I'm waiting to hear from Dal!'

 

Same goes for other great applicants who are making big decisions/arrangements for the just-in-case scenario. There is a cut-off point where you have to say okay, Im going to have to accept that I won't get in this year, so I'll ____(ENTER BIG COMMITMENT HERE) (like do a Masters/PhD, work abroad, move to __ for a year, agree to work for ___ for a year). It would take a pretty incredible supervisor/boss to agree to hire you also without knowing whether you would even be around to take the job if you were to all-of-a-sudden find out you're in Dalmed.

 

Benefits of this process?...well perhaps one could argue that each application gets individual attention, however, some of you say you haven't heard a thing and your interview was in January--so how is the committee going to fairly present your application if they don't even remember who you were/how you discussed things?

 

What I think might work better would be to have a quick pow-wow amongst the interviewers after each interview to outline and categorize the definite yes's, the definite forget it's, and the to-be-decided-later's. That way in only a few sessions after the last set of interviews, they would know who they found suitable for the following year's class.

 

Am I missing out on some of the benefits of this process? I'm just an incessant planner, and not knowing what I'll be doing in September drives me absolutely crazy!

 

...Yah, I know, some of you are going to say it's only early and that I'll have plenty of time to pull my hair out later on in the summer...

 

...hmm...felt good to rant, though...

 

Thanks for listening!

[Guest Madz25]

The problem I find with the "pow-wow" method of selection is that you can't accurately assess an individual unless you compare them with the entire applicant pool. If you're the first interviewee, how will the med committee determine if you're a definite yes/no or maybe? Also, an applicant that may be a definite no one year can become a definite yes the following year due to changes in the overall applicant pool. If you use the pow-wow method, the standards set in order to categorize applicants may put too many or too few in the definite yes category since you wont be compared with ALL the applicants.

 

Med schools admit students based on the quality of the applicant pool. Yes, they apply their own standards when offering interviews. But when it comes to comparing interviewees, they want to choose the "best" of the lot. The only way to determine that would be to compare each applicant to the entire pool. Using the "pow-wow" method wouldn't be able to achieve that.

 

I do agree with your statement of the committee's ability (or inability for that matter) to fairly present applications since they wont be able to remember the interviewee accurately.

[Guest JewelLeigh]

The admissions committee is not always made up of those who interview you. The committee member presenting your file will be presenting the interview information from notes taken by your interviewers the day of. So, when your file is reviewed relative to your interview date is irrelevant.

 

Furthermore, Dal is one of the only schools that actually takes the time to discuss each applicant individually as opposed to using a mathematical game of numbers - I consider this a huge advantage. I don't really see how it would be possible to compare the entire applicant pool but still keep this more personal approach to admissions. Additionally - only the 'definite yes' and 'definite no' applicants are decided upon in the first round - anyone remaining is deferred until the end of the admissions cycle. At this time, the committee knows how many spots are left in the class and then can compare the remaining applicants all to each other before deciding who will get the final spots. I think this seems like a fair and efficient system that ensures that the best applicants are accepted from the applicant pool each year. What do you guys think?

 

However, I do understand that the wait stinks, and there are ways that this could be improved - maybe making decisions about all candidates in the same way they do now, but not sending any notices until a pre-decided date on which ALL letters will go out, like in Ontario? Perhaps these are the issues that should be raised, and again, I suggest you get to know the process as best you can, come up with viable solutions, and then take action by writing letters or meeting with someone at the Admissions office.

 

Anyway, just a few thoughts...and none of it will make the wait go any faster, so I sympathize

[Guest Madz25]

I think Dal does a good job with the "HOW" they select applicants. I just think the "WHEN" can I expect to hear back can be improved upon, and that's probably just because I've had to wait so long. Someone who has already heard from Dal may think the "WHEN" aspect is ok.