11 Vr But 130 Cars?

[Neurophilic]

insanely high CARS cut off for UWO this yr!

I'm curious to see what will happen with the cutoffs next year as the old MCAT applicant pool should be shrinking each year assuming that some will be accepted each year.

[rmorelan]

I'm curious to see what will happen with the cutoffs next year as the old MCAT applicant pool should be shrinking each year assuming that some will be accepted each year.

 

accepted or just abandoned the attempt for some other career. At some point the pool would be too small to do as easily.

[ralk]

I'm a SWOMEN applicant, but I am really disappointed in the approach Schulich used this year. Lowering bio to 124 (for SWOMEN) is ridiculous, and so is raising CARS to 130 for (non-SWOMEN). Also, the inequality in percentiles between the old and new MCAT really damaged the integrity of the Schulich admissions system this cycle in my opinion. I have many friends and colleagues who have written the MCAT many times just to get the 11 VR, but ended up with 128/129 in CARS, etc. 

 

Does anyone have the link to the research or study correlating CARS/VR scores with bedside skills or whatever? I have had many interactions with medical students, and I honestly do not see the difference between those who do have a high VR/CARS score or a lower one, or at least notice a significant difference. I feel as if the whole CARS/VR study is being blown out of proportion. I would much rather work alongside a colleague who can score an 11/11/11 than a 10/13/10. I feel as if the system is focusing so much on the verbal score that they are losing sight of the science knowledge base required to learn medicine, before even applying it. 

 

I am aware that no system is perfect, but incorporating exams such as CASPer (ie. Ottawa, Mac) or raising CARS to 130 is almost insulting to the applicants. Most schools should adapt the application system that UofT has. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

It should be noted that the approach Schulich used this year hasn't really changed. The cutoffs reflect the applicant pool, no different than previous years.

[indefatigable]

I'm a SWOMEN applicant, but I am really disappointed in the approach Schulich used this year. Lowering bio to 124 (for SWOMEN) is ridiculous, and so is raising CARS to 130 for (non-SWOMEN). Also, the inequality in percentiles between the old and new MCAT really damaged the integrity of the Schulich admissions system this cycle in my opinion. I have many friends and colleagues who have written the MCAT many times just to get the 11 VR, but ended up with 128/129 in CARS, etc. 

 

Does anyone have the link to the research or study correlating CARS/VR scores with bedside skills or whatever? I have had many interactions with medical students, and I honestly do not see the difference between those who do have a high VR/CARS score or a lower one, or at least notice a significant difference. I feel as if the whole CARS/VR study is being blown out of proportion. I would much rather work alongside a colleague who can score an 11/11/11 than a 10/13/10. I feel as if the system is focusing so much on the verbal score that they are losing sight of the science knowledge base required to learn medicine, before even applying it. 

 

I am aware that no system is perfect, but incorporating exams such as CASPer (ie. Ottawa, Mac) or raising CARS to 130 is almost insulting to the applicants. Most schools should adapt the application system that UofT has. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

It's odd you criticize Western's leniency for SWOMEN's MCAT scores in favour UofT admission's criteria, when Western has a MCAT cut-off total of roughly 31-2 for all applications (SWOMEN or not).  On the other hand, UofT will accept MCATs of 125/125/125/125 (or roughly 8/8/8 for a total of 24 for those three sections) with no added advantage for higher MCATs.  Maybe you are suggesting MCAT isn't very relevant to medicine and GPA should be the main consideration, but in this case why concern yourself with SWOMEN MCAT scores?  There are numerous medical schools in Canada, and if you feel "insulted" by the process at some places, then only apply to school's that you approve of, like UofT.  Heck, if you have an interview at Western, then maybe turn it down in protest.  

[kalischa]

Evidently, if your friends are struggling to get an 11VR but easily get 128/129 in one write, the metrics aren't measuring the same things are they? I might also guess that the percentiles might have shifted up somewhat, as I'm now in the 100th percentile for my 14VR, the 98th for my 13BS, and the 95th for 12PS as reported by AAMC. These percentiles fall outside the ranges I was initially given a year ago, so potentially an 11VR is somewhat equivalent in the applicant pool to a 130 CARS - which anecdotally seems easier to attain.

 

In terms of your stated outrage towards the SWOMEN bio cutoffs, if an applicant is an idiot and can't grasp simple biological concepts (as opposed to a poor test taker, had one bad write, etc.) they will be easily sussed out in an interview. As a student in a lab that gets lots of undergrads, believe me, we can see who's smart and who's not from a mile away, regardless of test scores. Especially if you consider SWOMEN applicants may not have the funds to retake the test multiple times or take expensive prep courses to up their marks.

 

In short, as a student who hopes to attend Shulich in the future, I am neither outraged nor dismayed by the cutoffs and suggest considering a school which does not outrage or dismay you likewise - if that is UofT so be it.

[rmorelan]

Evidently, if your friends are struggling to get an 11VR but easily get 128/129 in one write, the metrics aren't measuring the same things are they? I might also guess that the percentiles might have shifted up somewhat, as I'm now in the 100th percentile for my 14VR, the 98th for my 13BS, and the 95th for 12PS as reported by AAMC. These percentiles fall outside the ranges I was initially given a year ago, so potentially an 11VR is somewhat equivalent in the applicant pool to a 130 CARS - which anecdotally seems easier to attain.

 

In terms of your stated outrage towards the SWOMEN bio cutoffs, if an applicant is an idiot and can't grasp simple biological concepts (as opposed to a poor test taker, had one bad write, etc.) they will be easily sussed out in an interview. As a student in a lab that gets lots of undergrads, believe me, we can see who's smart and who's not from a mile away, regardless of test scores. Especially if you consider SWOMEN applicants may not have the funds to retake the test multiple times or take expensive prep courses to up their marks.

 

In short, as a student who hopes to attend Shulich in the future, I am neither outraged nor dismayed by the cutoffs and suggest considering a school which does not outrage or dismay you likewise - if that is UofT so be it.

 

 

well you can be annoyed by a system that benefits you the OP isn't saying the school is terrible - just raising questions about some of the admission policies.

[indefatigable]

well you can be annoyed by a system that benefits you the OP isn't saying the school is terrible - just raising questions about some of the admission policies.

 

On top of the OPs argument being slightly logically incoherent - there is that old adage "never bite the hand that feeds you."  

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

Based on this, it seems like 127 in CARS won't meet the cut off for Queen's either! Damn it.

 

I was invited for an interview at Queen's with a 125 in CARS.

 

3.98 wGPA; 127/125/129/130 breakdown for the MCAT. And decent ECs, nothing stellar. So it's not even like the rest of my application anchored the CARS score. So thankfully a lower CARS score can get you an interview!

[rmorelan]

On top of the OPs argument being slightly logically incoherent - there is that old adage "never bite the hand that feeds you."

 

sure but then you never change anything. In medicine if you aren't willing to challenge important people around you then you actually put patients at risk. I have actually had interview questions at some places which basically boil down "please criticize our selection methods". Those are always interesting - particularly if the program director is the one asking the question.

 

The trouble with never "biting the hand that feeds you" is then you never criticize anything - you are either not in yet in which case anything you say sounds like whining (oh X is so unfair, that is why I cannot be a doctor. That school should do Y) or you are in and then well "don't bite......".

 

I mean we have to question admission policies; one of our publicly funded institutions adopts a policy that determines who will be also serving the public in an important role. It is logical to question that policy and examine whether it is appropriate and can be applied in a reasonable way. Particularly since there is often organizational inertia when it comes to whatever the rules are which isn't a great way to do things (we do X because we have done X in the past and it has worked out "pretty well so far". Probably do X in the future). It is actually kind of interesting that we have such widely different selection systems at each school and the history behind them (well I find that interesting, ha). Each school is pretty sure their system is very good.

 

NOT to imply it is easy to create or enforce these policies. That is a job that must be horribly challenging to do!

[indefatigable]

sure but then you never change anything. In medicine if you aren't willing to challenge important people around you then you actually put patients at risk. I have actually had interview questions at some places which basically boil down "please criticize our selection methods". Those are always interesting - particularly if the program director is the one asking the question.

 

The trouble with never "biting the hand that feeds you" is then you never criticize anything - you are either not in yet in which case anything you say sounds like whining (oh X is so unfair, that is why I cannot be a doctor. That school should do Y) or you are in and then well "don't bite......".

 

I mean we have to question admission policies; one of our publicly funded institutions adopts a policy that determines who will be also serving the public in an important role. It is logical to question that policy and examine whether it is appropriate and can be applied in a reasonable way. Particularly since there is often organizational inertia when it comes to whatever the rules are which isn't a great way to do things (we do X because we have done X in the past and it has worked out "pretty well so far". Probably do X in the future). It is actually kind of interesting that we have such widely different selection systems at each school and the history behind them (well I find that interesting, ha). Each school is pretty sure their system is very good.

 

NOT to imply it is easy to create or enforce these policies. That is a job that must be horribly challenging to do!

 

I had more of an issue with the incoherence of the argument - the "bite" part was meant a little lightly  But yeah, if skepticism is well-founded it makes sense to bring it up..

[Edict]

I'm a SWOMEN applicant, but I am really disappointed in the approach Schulich used this year. Lowering bio to 124 (for SWOMEN) is ridiculous, and so is raising CARS to 130 for (non-SWOMEN). Also, the inequality in percentiles between the old and new MCAT really damaged the integrity of the Schulich admissions system this cycle in my opinion. I have many friends and colleagues who have written the MCAT many times just to get the 11 VR, but ended up with 128/129 in CARS, etc. 

 

Does anyone have the link to the research or study correlating CARS/VR scores with bedside skills or whatever? I have had many interactions with medical students, and I honestly do not see the difference between those who do have a high VR/CARS score or a lower one, or at least notice a significant difference. I feel as if the whole CARS/VR study is being blown out of proportion. I would much rather work alongside a colleague who can score an 11/11/11 than a 10/13/10. I feel as if the system is focusing so much on the verbal score that they are losing sight of the science knowledge base required to learn medicine, before even applying it. 

 

I am aware that no system is perfect, but incorporating exams such as CASPer (ie. Ottawa, Mac) or raising CARS to 130 is almost insulting to the applicants. Most schools should adapt the application system that UofT has. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

If everyone school adopted what UofT had we would have a whole new set of complaints. For every example you give of an applicant who fell through with Western I can give you an applicant who fell through with every other school. In fact, Ontario's system is one of the better ones as it has pretty much a school or several schools for each "type" of applicant. 

 

UofT's system is not perfect either. It is not very transparent of an admissions system for one, but the validity of using essays to determine an applicant's potential is also a weak point.  

 

This is actually one of the reasons schools don't want to be transparent. Once they become transparent, a lot of complaints emerge. What we have is actually a pretty fair system, because you have a school for each type of applicant.  

 

What probably is really actually more important is that every school produces competent doctors which really goes to show you that all this debate over admissions really is just debating over nothing. 

[indefatigable]

Western puts a heavier emphases on MCAT scores, since it is half the battle to get an interview. Sure you can argue UofT has a 125 cut-off, but they have several other criteria they look at to ensure the applicant is still strong. I am not saying the MCAT is irrelevant, but I do believe that certain cut-offs should be met, and if they are low, then other criteria should be looked at to ensure that the student may be just a bad test-writer, and not someone lacking knowledge, etc. Moreover, setting high cut-offs is a bit counterproductive and mean to applicants, because it eliminates them from having a chance before even exploring the whole picture, since they could have other characteristics or skills that may make them excellent candidates. I am not insisting people with 130 CARS don't deserve a spot or trying to offend anybody, I am just suggesting a method that will allow students who do have the potential to be excellent physicians but may have a 129 in CARS to still stand a chance, or be looked at. For example, applying to UofT with 125s will not guarantee you an interview if you lack the big picture (ie. ECs, research, understanding of the profession, etc). But applying to Schulich with a 124 in bio (also meeting the overall) as a swomen applicant and getting an interview doesn't really tell us much about that student.

 

I apologize if I did not make my post very clear. I am not here to tell people they don't deserve a chance, or to tell people to avoid Schulich. I have been involved in the medical SWOMEN community for many years, specifically through Schulich. I have nothing but utter respect for the school and programs within it, and I'm sure any of my colleagues or Schulich admin or faculty members can tell you that. I was just let down by the new admission policy, even if it had not affected me directly. I, myself, am not insulted by the process, but I do feel it is unjust to students who could be great candidates that have, for example, a 129 in CARS instead of a 130.

I think it's worth slightly clarifying both admissions processes. UofT seems to put the majority of its weight on GPA, unofficially at least 60%. This is also backed up by rising GPA over the past 10 years. 10 years ago, a 3.85 GPA might have given someone a decent shot there, but not today (last cycle avg 3.96). UofT also has a somewhat arbitrary system of removing one course a year but only with 5 courses every semester. This will clearly impact someone who drops a course one semester for instance. A number of people wonder about the use of GPA to that extent (even Ottawa with CASPER now seems to put less emphasis on GPA). Additionally, they are thought to put a significant weight on reference letters meaning that the rest of the package (essays, etc..) really doesn't play much of a role in admissions. But on the whole, there is a lot of merit to high academic achievement over a long term, and for people who may have a bad test, or who have slightly different background, UofT's system is well suited to these individuals.

Western puts a minimal level on both GPA and MCAT, with MCAT being the challenge for most. Some may feel a standardized test is unfair, other may believe it is both fairer and a better measure of ability and preparedness for med school. It is worth noting, that Western's admission's standards haven't really changed that much over the past 10 years. On the whole, Western's system seems to be a little more forgiving, since someone can try to retake the MCAT to improve their scores, as many of your colleagues tried. On the other hand, UofT's emphasis on very high GPA cuts out a lot of people (and can never really be overcome).

Ideally, each candidate would be reviewed to greater extent, perhaps using a combination of these criteria, but since there will always be disagreements and limited resources to spend on evaluation, it's better to have variety in the system.

[_ _]

I see the value in using the MCAT extensively, as Western does, however when I see a 130 CARS cutoff the first thing that comes to my mind is, is that really the most important quality for a doctor to have?

 

I get the value of objectivity, standardization,etc etc. But I'm just curious as to why they feel a 130 CARS score will make a better doctor than someone with even, say, a 126. I'm curious as to why a 130 CARS is valued as more important than having ANY exposure to health care, a consistently strong GPA, or general life experience and work ethic.

 

I do understand the value of high cutoffs, but I think there is a limit to how well they can predict who a person is.

[Quark]

I see the value in using the MCAT extensively, as Western does, however when I see a 130 CARS cutoff the first thing that comes to my mind is, is that really the most important quality for a doctor to have?

 

I get the value of objectivity, standardization,etc etc. But I'm just curious as to why they feel a 130 CARS score will make a better doctor than someone with even, say, a 126. I'm curious as to why a 130 CARS is valued as more important than having ANY exposure to health care, a consistently strong GPA, or general life experience and work ethic.

 

I do understand the value of high cutoffs, but I think there is a limit to how well they can predict who a person is.

I think if you had to choose one *objective* measure of future competency, CARS is pretty up there. So many applicants have sky high GPAs now that it's difficult to distinguish between them; people can also find loopholes in course selection that make it easier for them to get high marks, choose certain majors over others, etc. The MCAT has value because it's standardized, giving everyone technically equal footing. If you then look at its sections, bio and psych pretty much rely on rote memorization. Even physical sciences can be overcome with strong memorization and regurgitation skills. While high scores on those sections certainly demonstrate academic capability, they don't really say much about someone's ability to perform as a physician-- someone who has to be able to communicate effectively with patients and colleagues to deliver the best possible treatment.

 

So what measures communication skills in med school applicants? Since most schools don't have essays (and grading of essays can be quite subjective based on style), CARS gives the best indicator of an applicant's grasp of English communication. While I do agree (as someone who actually benefits from the current cutoffs) that 130 is incredibly inflated, and I don't think that there's a big difference between say, a 129 and a 130, certainly a notably low score in verbal would lead me to question that person's language comprehension and communication skills.

[NewDirection]

I think if you had to choose one *objective* measure of future competency, CARS is pretty up there. So many applicants have sky high GPAs now that it's difficult to distinguish between them; people can also find loopholes in course selection that make it easier for them to get high marks, choose certain majors over others, etc. The MCAT has value because it's standardized, giving everyone technically equal footing. If you then look at its sections, bio and psych pretty much rely on rote memorization. Even physical sciences can be overcome with strong memorization and regurgitation skills. While high scores on those sections certainly demonstrate academic capability, they don't really say much about someone's ability to perform as a physician-- someone who has to be able to communicate effectively with patients and colleagues to deliver the best possible treatment.

 

So what measures communication skills in med school applicants? Since most schools don't have essays (and grading of essays can be quite subjective based on style), CARS gives the best indicator of an applicant's grasp of English communication. While I do agree (as someone who actually benefits from the current cutoffs) that 130 is incredibly inflated, and I don't think that there's a big difference between say, a 129 and a 130, certainly a notably low score in verbal would lead me to question that person's language comprehension and communication skills.

I agree with CARS being pretty up there in terms of a good or rather "less bad" way of assessing applicants (although I do wish to disclose my bias as a social sciences grad).

 

I would, however, argue that Bio and Psych (especially on the new MCAT) are not really about rote memorization, at least not if you are looking to score highly. The closest course I took to a pure memorization course was human anatomy, where I don't really think any critical thinking was required. The Bio and Psych sections, on the other hand, require you to think critically about the information presented. And most questions I think hinge on the ability to analyze the passage and understand research results, skills that are totally relevant to medical practice.

 

In other words I think memorization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for doing well on the MCAT.

 

A bit of a tangent but wanted to offer a different opinion for those reading this in the future.

[ralk]

I understand. I personally was not affected by this change, but I do feel like the drastic increase in CARS or decrease in BIO, was too much. Maybe they should have changed the numbers until the scores are more balanced? Maybe they already tried it. I'm not sure, I was just shocked that the numbers went that high.

 

The same basic concerns came up a few years ago when the Bio score shot up to 12 from 10. Strange as it may sound, this year may be more typical of Western's cutoffs than the past two years were - they've traditionally put a higher emphasis on the VR than on the science sections.

 

I'm not a huge fan of hard cutoffs in isolation either, especially not ones at the level we're seeing at most schools, whether it's GPA or MCAT. Back when I applied, the cutoff was a bit more balanced, 9/11/10 with a reasonably achievable writing section cutoff, though of course an 11 VR was more of a challenge than an 11 PS or BS. I'm hoping that as the old MCAT falls out of favour, Western will start to include the new section in its considerations, since an additional metric of evaluation should keep those other scores from needing to be so high.

[puma88]

I think if you had to choose one *objective* measure of future competency, CARS is pretty up there. So many applicants have sky high GPAs now that it's difficult to distinguish between them; people can also find loopholes in course selection that make it easier for them to get high marks, choose certain majors over others, etc. The MCAT has value because it's standardized, giving everyone technically equal footing. If you then look at its sections, bio and psych pretty much rely on rote memorization. Even physical sciences can be overcome with strong memorization and regurgitation skills. While high scores on those sections certainly demonstrate academic capability, they don't really say much about someone's ability to perform as a physician-- someone who has to be able to communicate effectively with patients and colleagues to deliver the best possible treatment.

 

So what measures communication skills in med school applicants? Since most schools don't have essays (and grading of essays can be quite subjective based on style), CARS gives the best indicator of an applicant's grasp of English communication. While I do agree (as someone who actually benefits from the current cutoffs) that 130 is incredibly inflated, and I don't think that there's a big difference between say, a 129 and a 130, certainly a notably low score in verbal would lead me to question that person's language comprehension and communication skills.

CARS, like any other section on the MCAT, at the end of the day was testing reasoning skills - do you understand the information presented in front of you? One must consider though that students, for whom English is not their first language, having to read CARS passages in a very short amount of time and then answer 5-8 questions based on each passage could be a quite a disadvantage. This does not mean these students lack comprehension skills/cannot understand or speak English. Or even that if they were in a scenario where they were interacting with patients, they wouldn't be able to communicate or get their point across.

 

Communication skills can be evident through one's EC or once you do make it to the interview stage, the interviewer can get quite a good idea about your ability to comprehend their questions and how well you communicate. I don't think having a high CARS score means that one is better able to understand a patient's perspective or any underlying factors (such as their economic status) which may be impeding a patient's treatment....just my two cents.

[rmorelan]

CARS, like any other section on the MCAT, at the end of the day was testing reasoning skills - do you understand the information presented in front of you? One must consider though that students, for whom English is not their first language, having to read CARS passages in a very short amount of time and then answer 5-8 questions based on each passage could be a quite a disadvantage. This does not mean these students lack comprehension skills/cannot understand or speak English. Or even that if they were in a scenario where they were interacting with patients, they wouldn't be able to communicate or get their point across.

 

Communication skills can be evident through one's EC or once you do make it to the interview stage, the interviewer can get quite a good idea about your ability to comprehend their questions and how well you communicate. I don't think having a high CARS score means that one is better able to understand a patient's perspective or any underlying factors (such as their economic status) which may be impeding a patient's treatment....just my two cents.

 

kind of exactly like an IQ test that way - I mean the VR section is often compared to being the most IQ part of the test.

 

In theory in makes sense that the VR/CARS section would be the most link to intelligence because it is the part that is least likely to be solved with some pre-learned algorithm. It isn't that you can solve the other sections my memorization - the MCAT is too complex for that - but can memorize an approach to various types of problems it has. Do enough of that and you know something you can use to get a much better score. 

 

You can learn to be better at CARS/VR as well but I don't think people are really created some form of external approach for answering most of those questions (at least beyond a point). Actually physics/chemistry/biology are actually rather limited fields compared to everything else that can be on the CARS section.

 

Anyway that sort of english as a first language and other systemic bias has been tied to every single standardized test the US has created with measured disadvantages based on culture, race, income and gender...... Not surprising when you try to create single testing system for all people that it is only going to be approximate. When acceptance into various programs etc, etc are based on it then it becomes a problem - at least in theory.

[JohnGrisham]

It doesn't make sense to me why 130 CARS is apparently equal to an 11 on verbal. Why does it feel like people that wrote the new mcat were punished?

There must have been a sufficient amount of people who got 130+ for them to get the right number of interviewees they need to fill their class.

 

Sorry

[indefatigable]

CARS, like any other section on the MCAT, at the end of the day was testing reasoning skills - do you understand the information presented in front of you? One must consider though that students, for whom English is not their first language, having to read CARS passages in a very short amount of time and then answer 5-8 questions based on each passage could be a quite a disadvantage. This does not mean these students lack comprehension skills/cannot understand or speak English. Or even that if they were in a scenario where they were interacting with patients, they wouldn't be able to communicate or get their point across.

 

Communication skills can be evident through one's EC or once you do make it to the interview stage, the interviewer can get quite a good idea about your ability to comprehend their questions and how well you communicate. I don't think having a high CARS score means that one is better able to understand a patient's perspective or any underlying factors (such as their economic status) which may be impeding a patient's treatment....just my two cents.

 

An ESL individual is in a difficult situation.  In a larger urban center, fluency in another well spoken language would surely be an asset, although lacking strong english language skills makes everything more difficult: learning, comprehension and expression.  Multiple years of of medical school will indubitably improve such an individual’s capacity in english however.  

Ironically, I am in a similar situation: although it looks like I would have cleared all the requisite MCAT cut-offs for Western for this year, I chose to accept an offer at a francophone institution last year for various reasons (no deferrals were possible for instance).  At a Pass/Fail institute, language issues would have less of an effect, but with letter grades, language skills are a distinct disadvantage - I hadn’t fully realized the language and associated grade hurdles when I began.  Although I prefer to have an optimistic outlook, I’m not sure what effect it will have on my future.   I can say that I wouldn't have been able to obtain the equivalent CARS grade in french, were there such a test.  As such, I can clearly see both sides of the issue.

[mia1234]

is the CARS requirement dropping a possibility once Psych/Soc becomes a factor in the upcoming years? 

[rmorelan]

is the CARS requirement dropping a possibility once Psych/Soc becomes a factor in the upcoming years? 

 

I would thinks so but we have no timeline and no idea exactly how that would work. Adding any new section would tend to lower the others in some fashion - just like removing one would cause them to rise (like the WS when it was dropped.)

[tacetate]

I think people need to stop bitching about the new cutoff and realize that they're not the smart/intelligent individuals that their mediocre GPA's at bird schools have led them to believe.

 

Med schools want SMART doctors. We are talking about future surgeons, radiologists, dermatologists, plastic surgeons, etc. We're not talking about being politically correct here. I'm not saying I'm not disappointed with this ridiculous cutoff (which means I have no shot at western), I'm just saying, you lost the genetic lottery of IQ/working memory/processing speed, stop bitching and get over yourself. I wouldn't want a retarded/mediocre doctor that worked his off in undergrad just to be "politically correct" if that means he's going to fuck shit up during my surgery. I don't think any of you would either.

[Harvestpro]

I think people need to stop bitching about the new cutoff and realize that they're not the smart/intelligent individuals that their mediocre GPA's at bird schools have led them to believe.

 

Med schools want SMART doctors. We are talking about future surgeons, radiologists, dermatologists, plastic surgeons, etc. We're not talking about being politically correct here. I'm not saying I'm not disappointed with this ridiculous cutoff (which means I have no shot at western), I'm just saying, you lost the genetic lottery of IQ/working memory/processing speed, stop bitching and get over yourself. I wouldn't want a retarded/mediocre doctor that worked his off in undergrad just to be "politically correct" if that means he's going to fuck shit up during my surgery. I don't think any of you would either.

 

I don't think that the people with a VR less than 11 or CARs less than 97th percentile that got into the other ontario/ canadian schools are any less competent and less likely to "fuck shit up during your surgery"

 

Truth of the matter is that many qualified students apply than there are spots available. Because they don't make these high cutoffs doesn't mean that they are less competent or would be capable.

[tacetate]

I don't think that the people with a VR less than 11 or CARs less than 97th percentile that got into the other ontario/ canadian schools are any less competent and less likely to "fuck shit up during your surgery"

 

Truth of the matter is that many qualified students apply than there are spots available. Because they don't make these high cutoffs doesn't mean that they are less competent or would be capable.

So you'd rather have an 11 VR as your surgeon vs. a 13 VR as your surgeon, all other things held equal?

 

I guess I get where you're getting at, since all other things AREN'T held equal, so I don't actually understand Western's logic in placing such heavy importance on the mcat. I think it has to do with western itself knowing it's somewhat of a bird school/program so they know about gpa inflation. But yeah, ridiculous cutoff anyhow