Rural Suitability

[amichel]

It's not pompous at all. "imperious, self-important"... weak CARS eh? I exaggerated the numbers to make a point, and I would be arrogant/pompous if I assigned myself a global rank in the top 288, rather than well off of the waitlist... "and were of course deemed even suitable" You sound very pompous yourself though, as if people who rank 350/2300 on the global list aren't suitable for med?

 

Yes, I can guarantee you that all of the NMP students had NMP as first choice as well, that fits with my reasoning. The point being, they go down the list till they find people who have NMP as first choice. It's unreasonable to think they would have to skip 54 people of course, I just used it to reach a round 300, but it's definitely reasonable to assume most people do not choose NMP as top pick, and a lot of people express no interest. The few people who I know that applied did not fill out this section. I'm sure the vast majority of premeds come from cities and are not interested in living rurally. It's a simple truth about most people in general. There's more opportunities to find a mate, more educational opportunities for you and your kids, etc. If you're a star applicant, you probably want to specialize. If you want to be a cardiologist or a neurosurgeon, then you probably can't practice rurally. You work at a high volume hospital where your skills are fully utilized. You'd want to go VFMP so you can do rotations with more specialists.

 

I haven't seen stats on this, but I assume there is a very, very small number of qualified candidates who come from rural areas. There's many convoluted reasons for this, but the easiest example is a lack of universities in small towns. Young people have to jump an initial hurdle of moving to a city to even begin their education -> increased financial constraints, decreased support network. This is why they have seats with lower requirements for students who are from rural areas. Not that the requirements are crazy-low, but I'm positive there are people getting in to NMP who would not normally rank in the top 288. That's the point of rural seats. They wouldn't need them if interested people in the top 288 were filling them and staying there.

 

You're making a whole ton of assumptions that aren't correct and don't make sense.

[JohnGrisham]

It's not pompous at all. "imperious, self-important"... weak CARS eh? I exaggerated the numbers to make a point, and I would be arrogant/pompous if I assigned myself a global rank in the top 288, rather than well off of the waitlist... "and were of course deemed even suitable" You sound very pompous yourself though, as if people who rank 350/2300 on the global list aren't suitable for med?

 

Yes, I can guarantee you that all of the NMP students had NMP as first choice as well, that fits with my reasoning. The point being, they go down the list till they find people who have NMP as first choice. It's unreasonable to think they would have to skip 54 people of course, I just used it to reach a round 300, but it's definitely reasonable to assume most people do not choose NMP as top pick, and a lot of people express no interest. The few people who I know that applied did not fill out this section. I'm sure the vast majority of premeds come from cities and are not interested in living rurally. It's a simple truth about most people in general. There's more opportunities to find a mate, more educational opportunities for you and your kids, etc. If you're a star applicant, you probably want to specialize. If you want to be a cardiologist or a neurosurgeon, then you probably can't practice rurally. You work at a high volume hospital where your skills are fully utilized. You'd want to go VFMP so you can do rotations with more specialists.

 

I haven't seen stats on this, but I assume there is a very, very small number of qualified candidates who come from rural areas. There's many convoluted reasons for this, but the easiest example is a lack of universities in small towns. Young people have to jump an initial hurdle of moving to a city to even begin their education -> increased financial constraints, decreased support network. This is why they have seats with lower requirements for students who are from rural areas. Not that the requirements are crazy-low, but I'm positive there are people getting in to NMP who would not normally rank in the top 288. That's the point of rural seats. They wouldn't need them if interested people in the top 288 were filling them and staying there.

 

That was not my intent for the bold, I apologize for the word choices.  And of course, majority of the applicants would be suitable to be physicians. I specifically meant for whatever requirements UBC has in mind.

 

As for the rest of the post, there are a lot of misinformed assumptions being made - but we can agree to disagree to an extent.

 

Again, your assumption that NMP students are not amongst the top 288 is a very big assumption. I'm fairly sure many of the NMP students ranked significantly higher than myself. They got their first choice, by virtue of being up higher on the rank list, and as did I- by virtue of there still being seats left in at my site of choice when it got to my turn.

 

p.s. as for the "weak CARS" comment...it was actually my highest score - and enough to get me in I guess?  MCAT scores are such a pre-med thing to refer to.

 

[arcturus]

You're making a whole ton of assumptions that aren't correct and don't make sense.

Which assumptions are incorrect and how do you know that they are incorrect? My reasoning makes perfect sense to me haha though this discussion has really devolved. I was asking for ways to improve rural suitability to adcom. If you guys don't believe rural suitability makes you more likely to get admitted to NMP.... then you're welcome to have your opinion, but I disagree.

[JohnGrisham]

Which assumptions are incorrect and how do you know that they are incorrect? My reasoning makes perfect sense to me haha though this discussion has really devolved. I was asking for ways to improve rural suitability to adcom. If you guys don't believe rural suitability makes you more likely to get admitted to NMP.... then you're welcome to have your opinion, but I disagree.

I don't think any of us were disagreeing that rural suitability makes you more likely to get admitted to NMP. It is a strict requirement to even be considered.

 

What we I am disagreeing with is the assumptions that those being admitted to NMP are not in the top 288 and are somehow all outside of the initial top rank range and getting in because people with higher ranks then them are being passed up because they don't have rural suitability.

 

Also many city dweller applicants, those who typically end up at VFMP(by virtue of being the largest site) - likely have the same rural experiences as yourself. So it would stand reason that some of those could also put up the same types of info into their rural suitability portion, if they wanted to fully maximize odds of securing a seat at UBC. 

 

 

[arcturus]

That was not my intent for the bold, I apologize for the word choices.  And of course, majority of the applicants would be suitable to be physicians. I specifically meant for whatever requirements UBC has in mind.

 

As for the rest of the post, there are a lot of misinformed assumptions being made - but we can agree to disagree to an extent.

 

Again, your assumption that NMP students are not amongst the top 288 is a very big assumption. I'm fairly sure many of the NMP students ranked significantly higher than myself. They got their first choice, by virtue of being up higher on the rank list, and as did I- by virtue of there still being seats left in at my site of choice when it got to my turn.

 

p.s. as for the "weak CARS" comment...it was actually my highest score - and enough to get me in I guess?  MCAT scores are such a pre-med thing to refer to.

 

CARS is a great abbreviation for reading comprehension skills, especially on a premed forum. I accept your apology.

 

You do still seem to misunderstand me though. It seems like people always have a hard time with generalizations and thought experiments. I didn't say that I believe no one in the top 288 chooses NMP, I said that was a hypothetical scenario to make a point, and that in general, most top premeds do not choose NMP. This doesn't mean that all NMP students are dregs dragged from the 2000's (though even then they'd probably be competent, premeds are a competitive bunch), but rather that there are some people who get into the NMP who would not rank in the top 288. I'm 100% certain of this fact, as "rural seats" would not exist otherwise. The point of those seats is to allow some people who would not normally make the cut-off to get in. Therefore: you have an increased chance of being admitted if you are willing to go NMP.

[arcturus]

What we I am disagreeing with is the assumptions that those being admitted to NMP are not in the top 288 and are somehow all outside of the initial top rank range and getting in because people with higher ranks then them are being passed up because they don't have rural suitability.

 

Also many city dweller applicants, those who typically end up at VFMP(by virtue of being the largest site) - likely have the same rural experiences as yourself. So it would stand reason that some of those could also put up the same types of info into their rural suitability portion, if they wanted to fully maximize odds of securing a seat at UBC. 

 

 

I've just addressed this in my last comment, but yes, I believe some of those at NMP are not in the top 288, and therefore some people with higher ranks are being passed up. No, not all of them are outside the 288, just some.

 

Yes, some city dwellers will be interested and competitive, but from personal experience and general demographics, a large chunk (maybe even a majority) of applicants from cities do not fill out the rural suitability section. Therefore you are probably competing against a top-light, reduced pool of applicants. 

 

Please refer to my earlier comments where I said "maybe lots of top students want NMP", and "hypothetically..."

[JohnGrisham]

CARS is a great abbreviation for reading comprehension skills, especially on a premed forum. I accept your apology.

 

You do still seem to misunderstand me though. It seems like people always have a hard time with generalizations and thought experiments. I didn't say that I believe no one in the top 288 chooses NMP, I said that was a hypothetical scenario to make a point, and that in general, most top premeds do not choose NMP. This doesn't mean that all NMP students are dregs dragged from the 2000's (though even then they'd probably be competent, premeds are a competitive bunch), but rather that there are some people who get into the NMP who would not rank in the top 288. I'm 100% certain of this fact, as "rural seats" would not exist otherwise. The point of those seats is to allow some people who would not normally make the cut-off to get in. Therefore: you have an increased chance of being admitted if you are willing to go NMP.

I will agree with this clearer iteration.  

[46dr]

Yes, I can guarantee you that all of the NMP students had NMP as first choice as well, that fits with my reasoning. The point being, they go down the list till they find people who have NMP as first choice.

 

The few people who I know that applied did not fill out this section. I'm sure the vast majority of premeds come from cities and are not interested in living rurally. 

 

I haven't seen stats on this, but I assume there is a very, very small number of qualified candidates who come from rural areas. There's many convoluted reasons for this, but the easiest example is a lack of universities in small towns.

 

This is why they have seats with lower requirements for students who are from rural areas. Not that the requirements are crazy-low, but I'm positive there are people getting in to NMP who would not normally rank in the top 288. That's the point of rural seats. They wouldn't need them if interested people in the top 288 were filling them and staying there.

 

Wow. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but some of these statements are downright offensive to those applying from rural communities. Some of your examples especially, such as not having universities in small towns, make me regret offering you my opinion on how to improve your rural suitability. You're coming across like a privileged person who really doesn't have a clue. I'm not saying you are, but it's how you're coming across.

 

You ask someone to prove which assumptions are incorrect. How about you prove your "assumptions"?  

 

You "haven't seen the stats", and "assume" there's very few qualified applicants from rural settings. So you don't know, at all, so why say you think it's true? I haven't seen the stats yet either, but your assumption is pretty ridiculous.

 

"They go down the list till they find people who have NMP as first choice" This isn't true. It's why you rank your choices. Someone might have NMP for their second choice and not get into their first and still get offered NMP before an applicant with lower score and NMP as first choice (source is multiple people in med now that this was the case, and from an information session I attended). 

 

"This is why they have seats with lower requirements for students who are from rural areas" - Where did you get this info? What are the lower requirements?

 

"but rather that there are some people who get into the NMP who would not rank in the top 288. I'm 100% certain of this fact, otherwise "rural seats" would not exist otherwise" - Share with us how you're 100% certain of it this. And what does this statement prove? That the only reason why "rural seats" exist is to accept weaker applicants? 

 

 

If you guys don't believe rural suitability makes you more likely to get admitted to NMP.... then you're welcome to have your opinion, but I disagree.

 

 

 

Of course rural suitability makes you more likely to get admitted to NMP, it's a requirement. Whether or not it makes a difference in getting accepted overall is something you don't know, and can't prove. 

 

After writing all this out, I kind of regret it because you'll just argue your side for the point of arguing. Which is fine, it's your own opinion. But I honestly couldn't just let this go without saying anything. 

[arcturus]

Wow. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but some of these statements are downright offensive to those applying from rural communities. Some of your examples especially, such as not having universities in small towns, make me regret offering you my opinion on how to improve your rural suitability. You're coming across like a privileged person who really doesn't have a clue. I'm not saying you are, but it's how you're coming across.

 

You ask someone to prove which assumptions are incorrect. How about you prove your "assumptions"?  

 

You "haven't seen the stats", and "assume" there's very few qualified applicants from rural settings. So you don't know, at all, so why say you think it's true? I haven't seen the stats yet either, but your assumption is pretty ridiculous.

 

"They go down the list till they find people who have NMP as first choice" This isn't true. It's why you rank your choices. Someone might have NMP for their second choice and not get into their first and still get offered NMP before an applicant with lower score and NMP as first choice (source is multiple people in med now that this was the case, and from an information session I attended). 

 

"This is why they have seats with lower requirements for students who are from rural areas" - Where did you get this info? What are the lower requirements?

 

"but rather that there are some people who get into the NMP who would not rank in the top 288. I'm 100% certain of this fact, otherwise "rural seats" would not exist otherwise" - Share with us how you're 100% certain of it this. And what does this statement prove? That the only reason why "rural seats" exist is to accept weaker applicants? 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course rural suitability makes you more likely to get admitted to NMP, it's a requirement. Whether or not it makes a difference in getting accepted overall is something you don't know, and can't prove. 

 

After writing all this out, I kind of regret it because you'll just argue your side for the point of arguing. Which is fine, it's your own opinion. But I honestly couldn't just let this go without saying anything. 

Wow. That was a lot of hot air man. "I couldn't let this go without saying anything". So you're what, a glorious defender of rural towns? Please step off your high horse and address the facts, you sound delusional. If nothing else, there is simply a massive population difference to draw qualified applicants from rural vs. metropolitan areas. But my statement about universities not existing in small towns is obviously true... it's pretty much a requirement of the "rural" designation. I don't know how you can argue that people from rural communities are not at a disadvantage. I didn't say people from rural communities are idiots (if anything, your statements imply it), just that they have to overcome significant hurdles which people from cities do not. I find your statements equally offensive. Also, though I said I wasn't certain initially that they pass people up who didn't express rural interest, Amichel and Commons confirmed this. If that is the case, then by definition, some people got into NMP with lower requirements than the top 288, as they are not in the top 288, and I hope to be one of them!

 

You are clearly incapable of being objective, btw. I recommend you choose a less evidence-based profession.

[46dr]

Wow. That was a lot of hot air man. "I couldn't let this go without saying anything". So you're what, a glorious defender of rural towns? Please step off your high horse and address the facts, you sound delusional. If nothing else, there is simply a massive population difference to draw qualified applicants from rural vs. metropolitan areas. But my statement about universities not existing in small towns is obviously true... it's pretty much a requirement of the "rural" designation. I don't know how you can argue that people from rural communities are not at a disadvantage. I didn't say people from rural communities are idiots (if anything, your statements imply it), just that they have to overcome significant hurdles which people from cities do not. I find your statements equally offensive. Also, though I said I wasn't certain initially that they pass people up who didn't express rural interest, Amichel and Commons confirmed this. If that is the case, then by definition, some people got into NMP with lower requirements than the top 288, as they are not in the top 288.

 

You are clearly incapable of being objective, btw. I recommend you choose a less evidence-based profession.

 

Have you addressed any facts? It's often been my experience that those who like to dabble in "thought experiments" get a bit upset when confronted with someone asking for proof. 

 

Bottom line is, you have no verifiable evidence for any of your claims or assumptions. So much for "evidence-based", right? Good luck with your application. 

[arcturus]

Have you addressed any facts? It's often been my experience that those who like to dabble in "thought experiments" get a bit upset when confronted with someone asking for proof. 

 

Bottom line is, you have no verifiable evidence for any of your claims or assumptions. So much for "evidence-based", right? Good luck with your application. 

lol, you never asked for proof, you just spewed a bunch of bullshit vitriol and personal attacks. However, I didn't expect to have to prove a lack of qualified rural candidates, it's a well publicized issue. There is a mountain of information on the topic of poor recruitment from rural areas, and medical schools plainly state the purpose of rural seats is for rural students. I don't know why you're having trouble with this, or why you're being a self-righteous prick about it.

 

https://www.srpc.ca/PDF/cjrm/vol16n1/pg13.pdf Here's the first example I googled though, enjoy.

 

"Although beyond the scope of this paper, the issue of a smaller pool of rural applicants relative to the needs of the rural population suggests the potential for research into factors related to educational opportunity and career counselling that may be at play in the rural setting. A simple, early intervention such as educating rural high school students about a career in medicine may be a helpful strategy. 3,25 Furthermore, the notion that barriers play a substantial role in limiting educational opportunities in students from rural backgrounds is likely not limited to their premedical education. 26 Medical students from rural backgrounds tend to report higher amounts of debt, have greater concern about financing their medical education and have higher levels of financial stress compared with their urban counterparts. 26 This is particularly relevant in the face of rising tuition for medical education in Canada. 27 A recent study out of Can J Rural Med 2011;16(1) 15 med-kapadia_Layout 1 20/12/10 10:42 AM Page 15 16 Can J Rural Med 2011;16(1) the University of Calgary looked at this mechanism and found students from rural backgrounds to have higher levels of debt at entry to medical school, higher projected levels of debt at the end of medical school and lower mean parental incomes compared with their metropolitan counterparts. 28 The authors of this study postulated that with rising tuition costs, the diversity of medical school classes may be affected, and this may increasingly become a barrier for certain groups of students. 28"

[46dr]

"This is why they have seats with lower requirements for students who are from rural areas" - Where did you get this info? What are the lower requirements?

 

"but rather that there are some people who get into the NMP who would not rank in the top 288. I'm 100% certain of this fact, otherwise "rural seats" would not exist otherwise" - Share with us how you're 100% certain of it this.

 

Two instances of me asking for proof. I know you can't prove these points because you're not on the admissions committee (well, I guess I can't prove that ). The point was to say "hey look, a lot of these assumptions have no grounds, so your conclusions really don't have any grounds". 

 

As for personal attacks and vitriol, all I said is that you're coming across as privileged but tempered that by saying that you're probably not. It's easy for people to come across a certain way through text without meaning to. In response, you've told me I'm on a high horse and called me a delusional, non-objective, self-righteous prick. Think about that. I'm the guy that tried come up with suggestions to help you out, remember?

 

Look, you're clearly a clever chap. Nobody scores 100th percentile on the MCAT without being intelligent, so good luck. I'm not being facetious, honestly. We need people in rural areas more than ever, my hometown just shut down a walk-in clinic that was very much needed due to a lack of physicians in the area. Your passion for it is a good thing. Just because we disagree about something as ambiguous as how those seats are filled is no reason to start calling me names, right? 

 

Anyway, I'm done here. 

[arcturus]

Two instances of me asking for proof. I know you can't prove these points because you're not on the admissions committee (well, I guess I can't prove that ). The point was to say "hey look, a lot of these assumptions have no grounds, so your conclusions really don't have any grounds". 

 

As for personal attacks and vitriol, all I said is that you're coming across as privileged but tempered that by saying that you're probably not. It's easy for people to come across a certain way through text without meaning to. In response, you've told me I'm on a high horse and called me a delusional, non-objective, self-righteous prick . Think about that. I'm the guy that tried come up with suggestions to help you out, remember?

 

Look, you're clearly a clever chap. Nobody scores 100th percentile on the MCAT without being intelligent, so good luck. I'm not being facetious, honestly. We need people in rural areas more than ever, my hometown just shut down a walk-in clinic that was very much needed due to a lack of physicians in the area. Your passion for it is a good thing. Just because we disagree about something as ambiguous as how those seats are filled is no reason to start calling me names, right? 

 

Anyway, I'm done here. 

Fair, I did actually use more personal attacks haha my bad. I did find the tone of your comments insulting, even if indirectly so (and I don't think "tempering" an insult works ). You did ask for proof, I just found your tone more rhetorical than inquisitive. As you said though, it's very easy to misinterpret people through text, and I probably should have taken the high road either way. I'll take it as a lesson in diplomacy. Good luck to you too.

[amichel]

Wow. That was a lot of hot air man. "I couldn't let this go without saying anything". So you're what, a glorious defender of rural towns? Please step off your high horse and address the facts, you sound delusional. If nothing else, there is simply a massive population difference to draw qualified applicants from rural vs. metropolitan areas. But my statement about universities not existing in small towns is obviously true... it's pretty much a requirement of the "rural" designation. I don't know how you can argue that people from rural communities are not at a disadvantage. I didn't say people from rural communities are idiots (if anything, your statements imply it), just that they have to overcome significant hurdles which people from cities do not. I find your statements equally offensive. Also, though I said I wasn't certain initially that they pass people up who didn't express rural interest, Amichel and Commons confirmed this. If that is the case, then by definition, some people got into NMP with lower requirements than the top 288, as they are not in the top 288, and I hope to be one of them!

 

You are clearly incapable of being objective, btw. I recommend you choose a less evidence-based profession.

No. Not by definition. There could easily be 42 people in the top 288 who are rurally suitable enough to go to the NMP, and, it's equally possible that, whether or not it was their first choice, they could end up there.

 

Please be careful with your words. You're coming across as quite rude to people who try to explain things too you, and to rural applicants.

[arcturus]

No. Not by definition. There could easily be 42 people in the top 288 who are rurally suitable enough to go to the NMP, and, it's equally possible that, whether or not it was their first choice, they could end up there.

 

Please be careful with your words. You're coming across as quite rude to people who try to explain things too you, and to rural applicants.

Sigh. Thank you for the advice, sincerely, but I thought it was the other way around. I've been trying to explain a concept to you and 46dr, and for whatever reason, it's not working out. There could definitely be 42 people in the top 288 who are rurally suitable. I would probably bet my life that that is true. Strictly logically though, that doesn't invalidate anything I've said previously. You can get into the trends of why city people choose not to go rural, or why there is a lack of rural applicants, (or why some rural applicants won't go rural), or how people have 2nd and 3rd site choices, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the explanation is, because the smoking gun is the existence of "rural seats" at many Canadian universities. They exist because out of the top 288 ppl, there are not enough people who are both suitable and willing to go NMP and practice rural medicine. I'm not being rude to rural applicants. My hypothetical scenario where none of the top 288 ppl are interested in NMP was just a best case scenario for me being accepted to NMP despite having an insufficient global score. If you're upset that the standards are lowered to favor rural applicants (I'm not, and I don't think it's very significant, who cares if you're 288 or 312?), please don't shoot the messenger. Inevitably, if you stress a new criterion heavily, the admission standards of the other criteria will go down on average. This is stated in that paper I linked but is also a direct corollary. It also doesn't even mean that people who grew up rural have lower stats - the paper says they have equal stats, but are under-represented. An alternate possibility/factor is that people from rural areas decline to apply to NMP, and some people like myself get into NMP. Either way, there aren't enough rural-bred-and-willing applicants in the top 288  and if you pass over higher scoring candidates in favor of rural desire, the other criteria go down. 

 

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. I've procrastinated enough today. Best of luck to you too Amichel.

[Torntoiletpaper]

Okay, so what I think the bottom line is that we don't know exactly how UBC does it's admissions. It could be that rural applicants are given an advantage, and it could be that they're treated like everybody else. 

 

Either way, it seems like you have ties and genuinely interested in rural communities (good for you!). So apply, do the best you can and UBC will judge if you get in or not. 

[amichel]

Sigh. Thank you for the advice, sincerely, but I thought it was the other way around. I've been trying to explain a concept to you and 46dr, and for whatever reason, it's not working out. There could definitely be 42 people in the top 288 who are rurally suitable. I would probably bet my life that that is true. Strictly logically though, that doesn't invalidate anything I've said previously. You can get into the trends of why city people choose not to go rural, or why there is a lack of rural applicants, (or why some rural applicants won't go rural), or how people have 2nd and 3rd site choices, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the explanation is, because the smoking gun is the existence of "rural seats" at many Canadian universities. They exist because out of the top 288 ppl, there are not enough people who are both suitable and willing to go NMP and practice rural medicine. I'm not being rude to rural applicants. My hypothetical scenario where none of the top 288 ppl are interested in NMP was just a best case scenario for me being accepted to NMP despite having an insufficient global score. If you're upset that the standards are lowered to favor rural applicants (I'm not, and I don't think it's very significant, who cares if you're 288 or 312?), please don't shoot the messenger. Inevitably, if you stress a new criterion heavily, the admission standards of the other criteria will go down on average. This is stated in that paper I linked but is also a direct corollary. It also doesn't even mean that people who grew up rural have lower stats - the paper says they have equal stats, but are under-represented. An alternate possibility/factor is that people from rural areas decline to apply to NMP, and some people like myself get into NMP. Either way, there aren't enough rural-bred-and-willing applicants in the top 288 and if you pass over higher scoring candidates in favor of rural desire, the other criteria go down.

 

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. I've procrastinated enough today. Best of luck to you too Amichel.

Ha, you're trying to explain it to me but I just can't grasp it? Must be the extra 1 percentile you've got on me for the MCAT. Or was it 1/2 a percentile? No idea because as somebody has mentioned, people tend to stop bragging about that stuff once they're in med school.

 

Please tone down the condescension when you get into med.

 

Best of luck to you as well.

[dk355]

Well...that escalated quickly

[amichel]

Well...that escalated quickly

You're right, I probably shouldn't have responded. But using your CARS score to make fun of people and making silly, offensive generalizations deserves a bit of pushback.

 

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, that was why I made the MCAT comment, not to brag, but to point out how ridiculous it was.

[nWo-NMP-4Lyfe]

This topic got pretty heated but as an NMPer here is the reality

 

a lot(majority) of the NMP could have easily gotten into the VFMP/other sites. There are actually a few (brilliant) guys that went to UNBC and raised in the north that have decided to stay in the VFMP. If they ranked the NMP first, maybe a few NMP people would not have gotten in and some other lucky souls could have gotten into the VFMP.

On the flip side of that, there are definitely people that in the rural program that likely would not have been admitted if the NMP wasn't a thing. Low GPAs/other slight lacks in their applications ARE forgiven if they have a strong rural score. Here is a surprise for you guys, many people get "Rural only" interviews (I did not) that make it so they are not even eligible to rank the other sites. Many of these people are accepted into the program

 

I don't disagree with their process. You have to be a special kind of person to want to practice rural medicine.  I look at myself for example who will be studying in the NMP but not likely staying in a rural place after I practice. Perhaps I shouldn't have ranked the NMP high. Perhaps selecting me was a failure on UBCs part. Anyone who has spent time in a rural area knows how bad the doctor situation is (prince george is NOT rural. Try the surrounding communities.)

While everyone in the NMP may not be the 100% GPA 35+ MCAT applicants,  In my opinion they are in general a lot more socially developed. I am on the lower end but most of these people are amazing at connecting with others/not stressing about every little thing. This is not an insult to the other sites it is just something a lot of my classmates have commented on

[amichel]

This topic got pretty heated but as an NMPer here is the reality

 

a lot(majority) of the NMP could have easily gotten into the VFMP/other sites. There are actually a few (brilliant) guys that went to UNBC and raised in the north that have decided to stay in the VFMP. If they ranked the NMP first, maybe a few NMP people would not have gotten in and some other lucky souls could have gotten into the VFMP.

 

On the flip side of that, there are definitely people that in the rural program that likely would not have been admitted if the NMP wasn't a thing. Low GPAs/other slight lacks in their applications ARE forgiven if they have a strong rural score. Here is a surprise for you guys, many people get "Rural only" interviews (I did not) that make it so they are not even eligible to rank the other sites. Many of these people are accepted into the program

 

I don't disagree with their process. You have to be a special kind of person to want to practice rural medicine. I look at myself for example who will be studying in the NMP but not likely staying in a rural place after I practice. Perhaps I shouldn't have ranked the NMP high. Perhaps selecting me was a failure on UBCs part. Anyone who has spent time in a rural area knows how bad the doctor situation is (prince george is NOT rural. Try the surrounding communities.)

 

While everyone in the NMP may not be the 100% GPA 35+ MCAT applicants, In my opinion they are in general a lot more socially developed. I am on the lower end but most of these people are amazing at connecting with others/not stressing about every little thing. This is not an insult to the other sites it is just something a lot of my classmates have commented on

Interesting. Thanks for the perspective!

[Torntoiletpaper]

This topic got pretty heated but as an NMPer here is the reality

 

a lot(majority) of the NMP could have easily gotten into the VFMP/other sites. There are actually a few (brilliant) guys that went to UNBC and raised in the north that have decided to stay in the VFMP. If they ranked the NMP first, maybe a few NMP people would not have gotten in and some other lucky souls could have gotten into the VFMP.

 

On the flip side of that, there are definitely people that in the rural program that likely would not have been admitted if the NMP wasn't a thing. Low GPAs/other slight lacks in their applications ARE forgiven if they have a strong rural score. Here is a surprise for you guys, many people get "Rural only" interviews (I did not) that make it so they are not even eligible to rank the other sites. Many of these people are accepted into the program

 

I don't disagree with their process. You have to be a special kind of person to want to practice rural medicine.  I look at myself for example who will be studying in the NMP but not likely staying in a rural place after I practice. Perhaps I shouldn't have ranked the NMP high. Perhaps selecting me was a failure on UBCs part. Anyone who has spent time in a rural area knows how bad the doctor situation is (prince george is NOT rural. Try the surrounding communities.)

 

While everyone in the NMP may not be the 100% GPA 35+ MCAT applicants,  In my opinion they are in general a lot more socially developed. I am on the lower end but most of these people are amazing at connecting with others/not stressing about every little thing. This is not an insult to the other sites it is just something a lot of my classmates have commented on

 

It's refreshing to see a frank, honestly and realistic perspective. I know many people who try and increase their odds of getting in by applying for NMP, all the while feigning an interest in staying in rural areas. That being said, I would like to go into the NMP for the rural school experience, but I wouldn't stay there. But then again, I don't have a strong enough rural background to apply anyhow.