How Difficult Is It Actually To Get Into Med?

[crossbean]

Just looking for a realistic answer.

 

I see that yes it is competitve, for example, Mac and Western both had thousands of applicants and only around ~100 seats. But realistically, how many people of those 2000+ applicants are actually competitive, aka gpa of 3.9+, decent extra curriculars, mcat score above 514, etc.

 

Anyone can look at the raw numbers and think "wow med has a ton of applicants, it must be really difficult to get in". What I want to know is how many of those thousands of applicants are realistically competitive?

[peace2014]

Just looking for a realistic answer.

 

I see that yes it is competitve, for example, Mac and Western both had thousands of applicants and only around ~100 seats. But realistically, how many people of those 2000+ applicants are actually competitive, aka gpa of 3.9+, decent extra curriculars, mcat score above 514, etc.

 

Anyone can look at the raw numbers and think "wow med has a ton of applicants, it must be really difficult to get in". What I want to know is how many of those thousands of applicants are realistically competitive?

Well, for UWO, the people who are competitive are 15% since thats how many approximately meet cutoffs. 

[Mithril]

I don't think anyone can really tell you how many of those applying are competitive as apart from grades and MCAT scores there are a variety of subjective markers, like interview performance and how well your ECs are rated. If we're just looking at from purely a grades and MCAT point of view, many schools publish those stats, and you can see that the environment is very competitive. Not a whole lot separates unsuccessful from successful candidates. That environment is becoming increasingly competitive year after year.

 

For example, looking at UBC stats for the last application: http://mdprogram.med.ubc.ca/files/2016/12/Interim-Statistics-2016-2017.pdf

 

Average grade for 600 interview invites is 88.3%. Average grade for 2000 applications is 86.6%. Average grade for 1400 rejections must've been around mid 85% then. That's basically what the average grade for admission was in my year. Grade inflation goes up every year, and more and more people apply every year. It's easy to try to make one's self feel better by trying to think many people who apply aren't competitive, but statistics seem to point to the opposite. Lots of very accomplished and smart people are rejected every year and those who have managed to be accepted should be extremely grateful.

[Bambi]

Assume that the vast majority of the applicants are competitive and are applying to multiple medical schools.

 

How difficult is it to get into medical school? Extremely difficult and getting harder every year. Many do receive acceptance as first time applicants, however, on average it takes 3 tries for applicants, some apply for many more years before acceptance. Persistence is the most important attribute to have if you really want to get in. Luck also plays a critical factor in the process.

 

Excellent candidates are routinely rejected every year. Although GPA is king, those having a 4.0 are regularly refused interview or rejected post interview. You are looked at holistically and having a highly competitive GPA alone is insufficient. You need to have demonstrated active citizenship, CanMEDS competencies, be a quick thinking ethical thinker and problem solver able to handle situations that are uncertain and ambiguous.

 

Being competitive without persistence and without luck won't get you too far, Competitive applicants give up and go into other fields. You need the entire package and then, to be lucky. Seats are at a premium, far more applicants than seats. Then, once you finally made it, and you are applying for residency, there may be 80 competitive applicants for 3 spots at a given school, they will interview 40 of you and select only 3. Your entire career may be decided in just 10 minutes. This happened to me, I applied to 3 fields, my shortest interview was 10 minutes and I was accepted to be a surgical resident in a specialty I had never seriously considered until a few days before the deadline for applications.    

[Edict]

Just looking for a realistic answer.

 

I see that yes it is competitve, for example, Mac and Western both had thousands of applicants and only around ~100 seats. But realistically, how many people of those 2000+ applicants are actually competitive, aka gpa of 3.9+, decent extra curriculars, mcat score above 514, etc.

 

Anyone can look at the raw numbers and think "wow med has a ton of applicants, it must be really difficult to get in". What I want to know is how many of those thousands of applicants are realistically competitive?

 

Prolly around the number that apply to schools that are more picky. I'd say in Ontario around 2000 applicants are competitive. Also Mac and Western have more than just 100 seats, Mac has 206 and Western 171. 

[FeelingTheBern]

I imagine getting into medical in Canada is similar to getting into Ivy League School's in the states for undergrad... Many many applicants and applications, so much prep (SATs, ACTs, personal essays, EC's, resume's...etc).

[1D7]

Amongst cohort of individuals that applied with me the average cGPA was just above 3.8 and MCAT around the 91st percentile.

 

In my experience, most people who are not competitive realize relatively early on that don't have the GPA/MCAT and either find another career or go overseas.

[Birdy]

It's worth remembering that a very significant majority of applicants apply to multiple schools. So the 35,000+ applications per year to Canada's 2800 med school seats looks terribly intimidating. It's not so scary when you consider the actual number of individual applicants is about a third of that. The average number of applications per person is around 3. 

 

So on the whole it's 20-25% of applicants per year, depending on pool (some pools its nearly 30%) get in. 

 

Rough numbers. It's been two and a half years now since I looked them up in detail, but I'd imagine they're likely still in that ballpark. 

 

It's not as horrifically difficult as it seems, but it's also not *easy.*

[Sauna]

This is for Ontario:

 

To estimate how many applicants have a competitive MCAT score, we can use Western as a reference.

If we assume those who apply to Western are familiar with the application process (given Western's transparency with the preinterview cut-offs), then those ~2000 applicants who apply must be either above or near the cut-offs.

If we assume a few applicants applied without knowing Western's cut-offs or applied out of desperation while knowing about the cut-offs (one of my friends applied to Western with 126 CARS while knowing the cut-off last year was 130), that would mean that just below 2000 have a "competitive" MCAT score.

For GPA, we can use Ottawa / Toronto, where the "competitive" GPA cut-offs are 3.85/~3.8

At Ottawa, the number of applicants who met "excellence of marks" was 1868. At Toronto, the number of applicants who made it to file review (therefore having a competitive GPA) was ~1700 I believe. So for GPA, again you're looking at just below 2000 applicants with a "competitive" GPA.

It's difficult to analyze other admissions criteria such as ABS and reference letters, for obvious reasons. Though we can probably assume that the number of applicants who have both a competitive GPA and MCAT score is lower than ~2000, and the number of applicants who have both, in addition to a strong ABS and reference letters is even lower.

[GoodNight]

This is for Ontario:

 

To estimate how many applicants have a competitive MCAT score, we can use Western as a reference.

 

If we assume those who apply to Western are familiar with the application process (given Western's transparency with the preinterview cut-offs), then those ~2000 applicants who apply must be either above or near the cut-offs.

 

If we assume a few applicants applied without knowing Western's cut-offs or applied out of desperation while knowing about the cut-offs (one of my friends applied to Western with 126 CARS while knowing the cut-off last year was 130), that would mean that just below 2000 have a "competitive" MCAT score.

 

For GPA, we can use Ottawa / Toronto, where the "competitive" GPA cut-offs are 3.85/~3.8

 

At Ottawa, the number of applicants who met "excellence of marks" was 1868. At Toronto, the number of applicants who made it to file review (therefore having a competitive GPA) was ~1700 I believe. So for GPA, again you're looking at just below 2000 applicants with a "competitive" GPA.

 

It's difficult to analyze other admissions criteria such as ABS and reference letters, for obvious reasons. Though we can probably assume that the number of applicants who have both a competitive GPA and MCAT score is lower than ~2000, and the number of applicants who have both, in addition to a strong ABS and reference letters is even lower.

Ugh - I guess these stats are only increasing year on year. How much can excellent ABS entries make-up for not quite up to par stats? 

[ralk]

Ugh - I guess these stats are only increasing year on year. How much can excellent ABS entries make-up for not quite up to par stats? 

 

ABS don't really balance out lower stats, for the most part. Even for schools that care about ABS reasonably heavily, the first cut-off is GPA and MCAT scores - don't have those, ABS doesn't even get looked at. The ABS, in Ontario, is more used as a way to distinguish between candidates with good stats than it is to pick out good candidates with low stats.

[Pippa756]

ABS don't really balance out lower stats, for the most part. Even for schools that care about ABS reasonably heavily, the first cut-off is GPA and MCAT scores - don't have those, ABS doesn't even get looked at. The ABS, in Ontario, is more used as a way to distinguish between candidates with good stats than it is to pick out good candidates with low stats.

Thats' what I have heard. Canadian med schools really are tough to get into and each cohort is only getting more competitive. 

[rmorelan]

ABS don't really balance out lower stats, for the most part. Even for schools that care about ABS reasonably heavily, the first cut-off is GPA and MCAT scores - don't have those, ABS doesn't even get looked at. The ABS, in Ontario, is more used as a way to distinguish between candidates with good stats than it is to pick out good candidates with low stats.

 

yeah that is the problem - with so many people applying GPA or MCAT just makes such a convenient means to reduce quickly the pool that they are just applied first. Of course are losing out on some excellent people that way but they are drowning in applications full of great candidates.   

[Pippa756]

yeah that is the problem - with so many people applying GPA or MCAT just makes such a convenient means to reduce quickly the pool that they are just applied first. Of course are losing out on some excellent people that way but they are drowning in applications full of great candidates.   

Yeh it just seems that the current system isn't necessarily getting the best people for the field. I just wonder about all those bad experiences you hear of medical care is a result of an admissions process that does not necessarily correlate to who would ake the best physicians! Not sure, what alternatives would be possible, however. Lol 

[rmorelan]

Yeh it just seems that the current system isn't necessarily getting the best people for the field. I just wonder about all those bad experiences you hear of medical care is a result of an admissions process that does not necessarily correlate to who would ake the best physicians! Not sure, what alternatives would be possible, however. Lol 

 

yeah there is easy way to even define what a "best candidate" is. To make it more complex to even thing that way implies that there is one best doctor personality and skill set when in reality I think there are actually such wide differences in what makes different specialists great in their area that it doesn't make a lot of sense to think that way. There is of course overlap but it a diverse career really.

[older]

That's a wise summary and goes right to the heart of argument that admissions in Canada suck. The yardstick used to weed out applications is too uniform and too rigid. Whilst academic ability must always be a factor, there is  too much reliance on fractions of GPA and miniscule differences in MCAT, thus making the process inherently flawed. The only exception is Mac, with their CASPER and much less fixation on GPA.   

 

I like British system much more. All schools set high academic cutoffs, but that's about it. A means A,  A+ means A+, nobody cares about  3.94 versus 3.95.

 

There are med schools with exceptionally high academic expectations. These schools (minority) use BMAT, expect excellent scores, and ask you during interview how nephrosis is treated.  They couldn't care less about your interests and attributes generally expected in the profession, such as compassion or caring. They want academic elite, and will produce excellent academics, lab rats and researchers, many of whom  will never see a patient. Medicine needs such people to progress, and those  best suited for such environment are appropriately selected.

 

But other schools value well-rounded applicants,  and use UKCAT score plus other less than objective criteria, i.e. personal statement and life and work experience, with expectation of at least some interaction with humanity in caring capacity. When reviewing extracurriculars and personal references, they will look for all kinds of desired traits.  Since  different  schools put different weight to all the elements of the application, there are always chances  for applicants who are strong in one area and less in others. The selected people will make a broad pool of  diverse individuals suited to diverse careers, from rural GPs to highly specialized experts.

 

The point is that  such system casts much wider net, and chances are  it will fish more candidates for best physicians. Library nerds with 4.0 average are not punished for lack of extracurriculars; they have their chances, and so do people who, besides meeting high academic criteria, have their lives filled with passion for people and medicine and all that it entails.

[CXR]

That's a wise summary and goes right to the heart of argument that admissions in Canada suck. The yardstick used to weed out applications is too uniform and too rigid. Whilst academic ability must always be a factor, there is  too much reliance on fractions of GPA and miniscule differences in MCAT, thus making the process inherently flawed. The only exception is Mac, with their CASPER and much less fixation on GPA.   

 

I like British system much more. All schools set high academic cutoffs, but that's about it. A means A,  A+ means A+, nobody cares about  3.94 versus 3.95.

 

There are med schools with exceptionally high academic expectations. These schools (minority) use BMAT, expect excellent scores, and ask you during interview how nephrosis is treated.  They couldn't care less about your interests and attributes generally expected in the profession, such as compassion or caring. They want academic elite, and will produce excellent academics, lab rats and researchers, many of whom  will never see a patient. Medicine needs such people to progress, and those  best suited for such environment are appropriately selected.

 

But other schools value well-rounded applicants,  and use UKCAT score plus other less than objective criteria, i.e. personal statement and life and work experience, with expectation of at least some interaction with humanity in caring capacity. When reviewing extracurriculars and personal references, they will look for all kinds of desired traits.  Since  different  schools put different weight to all the elements of the application, there are always chances  for applicants who are strong in one area and less in others. The selected people will make a broad pool of  diverse individuals suited to diverse careers, from rural GPs to highly specialized experts.

 

The point is that  such system casts much wider net, and chances are  it will fish more candidates for best physicians. Library nerds with 4.0 average are not punished for lack of extracurriculars; they have their chances, and so do people who, besides meeting high academic criteria, have their lives filled with passion for people and medicine and all that it entails.

 

You clearly have never seen the diversity that comes in most Canadian medical school classes. A lot of the people with good grades also have done a lot of amazing extracurriculars and have great leadership qualities. 90% of the classes are composed of extremely talented and well rounded people, while a small minority often make up the extremes of "library nerd" or pure passion. Additionally, there are enough great applicants that have BOTH a good GPA and passion/ECs that Canada can afford to use this huge filtering process. There is no shortage of people that have done everything you have, and even better academically. 

[gangliocytoma]

That's a wise summary and goes right to the heart of argument that admissions in Canada suck. The yardstick used to weed out applications is too uniform and too rigid. Whilst academic ability must always be a factor, there is  too much reliance on fractions of GPA and miniscule differences in MCAT, thus making the process inherently flawed. The only exception is Mac, with their CASPER and much less fixation on GPA.   

 

I like British system much more. All schools set high academic cutoffs, but that's about it. A means A,  A+ means A+, nobody cares about  3.94 versus 3.95.

 

There are med schools with exceptionally high academic expectations. These schools (minority) use BMAT, expect excellent scores, and ask you during interview how nephrosis is treated.  They couldn't care less about your interests and attributes generally expected in the profession, such as compassion or caring. They want academic elite, and will produce excellent academics, lab rats and researchers, many of whom  will never see a patient. Medicine needs such people to progress, and those  best suited for such environment are appropriately selected.

 

But other schools value well-rounded applicants,  and use UKCAT score plus other less than objective criteria, i.e. personal statement and life and work experience, with expectation of at least some interaction with humanity in caring capacity. When reviewing extracurriculars and personal references, they will look for all kinds of desired traits.  Since  different  schools put different weight to all the elements of the application, there are always chances  for applicants who are strong in one area and less in others. The selected people will make a broad pool of  diverse individuals suited to diverse careers, from rural GPs to highly specialized experts.

 

The point is that  such system casts much wider net, and chances are  it will fish more candidates for best physicians. Library nerds with 4.0 average are not punished for lack of extracurriculars; they have their chances, and so do people who, besides meeting high academic criteria, have their lives filled with passion for people and medicine and all that it entails.

 

I would say Mac is very much fixated on GPA. 33% of pre-interview score is GPA based, and they look at all the courses you've ever.

 

Had a bad first year? That's too bad, without an amazing CARS and solid Casper you have no chance.

[Unsure_med]

I have a physician in the family and the main reason why med is so competitive is money. If doctors made much less (say 50-80k) you would not see as many people applying. That's a large part why more spots are not made. Less spots, more demand, more money, it's like a bottleneck. While some may deny it, the truth is, a lot of people trying to get into med do it for the wrong reasons like money and prestige. It's hilarious to me when they try to justify their med ambitions with reasons like "I want to help people." Uh you can help people without having to be a physician ffs.

[SunAndMoon]

I have a physician in the family and the main reason why med is so competitive is money. If doctors made much less (say 50-80k) you would not see as many people applying. That's a large part why more spots are not made. Less spots, more demand, more money, it's like a bottleneck. While some may deny it, the truth is, a lot of people trying to get into med do it for the wrong reasons like money and prestige. It's hilarious to me when they try to justify their med ambitions with reasons like "I want to help people." Uh you can help people without having to be a physician ffs.

 

Agreed - all applicants want money and money only and schools maintain a bottleneck effect to make sure that the select few (usually freemason reptilians) end up getting all of it. Only people with physicians in their families know this.

 

In other news, 9/11 was an inside job and Alex Jones unraveled the great conspiracy about running water turning our frogs gay. This is not a joke, people.

[011235813]

Agreed - all applicants want money and money only and schools maintain a bottleneck effect to make sure that the select few (usually freemason reptilians) end up getting all of it. Only people with physicians in their families know this.

 

In other news, 9/11 was an inside job and Alex Jones unraveled the great conspiracy about running water turning our frogs gay. This is not a joke, people.

Does the "gay-turning"water affect the Freemason reptillians as well? Or does it strictly work on Amphibians? And did the gay frogs help bring down the twin towers?

[SunAndMoon]

Does the "gay-turning"water affect the Freemason reptillians as well? Or does it strictly work on Amphibians? And did the gay frogs help bring down the twin towers?

 

I feel like you may be trying to mock me. I suggest you dont. I have an uncle who's a doctor so my family is quite far-reaching.

Also:

[011235813]

I feel like you may be trying to mock me. I suggest you dont. I have an uncle who's a doctor so my family is quite far-reaching.

Also:

I know, I've seen it. No offence intended. Sorry if I offended you. Sarcasm doesn't really come across well on the internet. I find Alex Jones quite funny, honestly. Although, considering that he has the ear of the US president, he's become less and less amusing lately.

[SunAndMoon]

I know, I've seen it. No offense intended. Sorry if I offended you. Sarcasm doesn't really come across well on the internet. I find Alex Jones quite funny, honestly. Although, considering that he has the ear of the US president, he's become less and less amusing lately.

 

haha sorry dude i was kidding too

[011235813]

haha sorry dude i was kidding too

oh, my bad. Hard to tell through writing. Considering that I had an argument on here with an actual Nazi, it's hard to tell these days. Crazy times. (He may not have been an actual Nazi, but did express admiration of eugenics and claimed that Nazis didn't hate jews)