Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, GH0ST said:

Lastly, these changes shouldn't detract from trying to do well in school. Because med school admissions have less emphasis on grades... does that equate to working less hard in school? 

Why would you work so much harder in school if your grade is not going to matter. That time can be spent doing things that would actually matter. Instead of spending countless nights studying, I'd be happy with a B+ and dedicate way more time to EC's because that would be a more efficient use of my time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, VINCHER said:

Why would you work so much harder in school if your grade is not going to matter. That time can be spent doing things that would actually matter. Instead of spending countless nights studying, I'd be happy with a B+ and dedicate way more time to EC's because that would be a more efficient use of my time. 

Because a 3.3 would eliminate hope in almost every other medical school in the country? Unless, you are implying that you are only applying and aiming for UofA, then by that logic ECs would be a more efficient use of your time past 3.3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, VINCHER said:

Why would you work so much harder in school if your grade is not going to matter. That time can be spent doing things that would actually matter. Instead of spending countless nights studying, I'd be happy with a B+ and dedicate way more time to EC's because that would be a more efficient use of my time. 

 

9 hours ago, sgsw454 said:

Because a 3.3 would eliminate hope in almost every other medical school in the country? Unless, you are implying that you are only applying and aiming for UofA, then by that logic ECs would be a more efficient use of your time past 3.3. 

To add on to this....... if that's what you're happy with then that's great... but I want higher marks in my courses because I personally wouldn't be satisfied with a B+, application or not. I expect the best from myself in all aspects, not just because an application says I only need to reach a certain threshold. 

This somewhat leads to a tangent that can be better saved for another thread... but what happened to just striving to do the best in school just because? it just feels that everywhere I go I see people look at grades as some minimum requirement for something else. I don't see it that way but maybe I'm in the minority. 

- G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complaining about having to work hard and do you absolute best in your education? seriously, what about the virtues of hard work and dedication,  especially to your education? My mother is completing her degree as a very mature student and her gpa really puts mine to shame. She has no goal for professional schools but growing up in a unindustrialized country, she knows not only the cost and value of her education but her potential and is willing to exert herself to master the subject. Do we think those only apply when you're immediately rewarded for it with a med school admission? What happens IN your medical education? You've only exerted yourself to achieve your bare minimum in some things and not all things, that may feedback into your character as a person... and ultimately predicts future behaviour. Seriously, its not all about the GPA... its about if during the circumstances life presented you, did you demonstrate that your exerted yourself to do your absolute best AND master the material? Because as a physician, you must certainly need to master your speciality...

Guys, come on... i know its a bummer for some of us... but there is character development in academic studies too and striving for that better grade. You learn discipline, hard work, perseverance, sometimes resilience and even dedication. EC's are good for those too, but last time I checked you still have to sit in class with people, work with individuals on group projects and perhaps have to communicate with your prof or TA for help with some concepts. I know it doesn't seem like you're developing as a person but you're internalizing key attributes that are essential to medical school and even your residency... you will have to learn to discipline yourself to master information you may not be graded for but your competency as a physician will depend on... canMED attributes guys... we're not just trying to reflect those in our apps but actually trying internalize them and become them. ***seriously, i certainly hope this is what is happening**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2017 at 6:36 PM, RedVelvetRims said:

You've worked hard, but there are TONS  of individuals with lower GPA's that have worked equally hard. 

Not necessarily. GPA is a combination of many factors: effort, course/program choice, and innate ability (i.e. intelligence). If a person with a 4.0 worked equally as hard as a person with a 3.3, differences in the other factors would account for it. At the end of the day, it is unreasonable to assert that people with lower GPAs work equally hard [on their studies].

 

On 6/23/2017 at 6:36 PM, RedVelvetRims said:

 Perhaps they have dealt with other responsibilities that have proved somewhat challenging for them to manage or have had to overcome certain social factors, health issues and structural inequalities that are subtle and not as evident as being sociopolitically identified with an underrepresented population. 

If this person had other obligations that took away from their schooling and their ability to get a 4.0, that could potentially be reflected in their ECs. If this person worked many hours per week while attending school, this would be reflected in their application. If the person has kids, that would certainly be something that could be in their diversity of experience section. If the person has a medical condition which they have worked to overcome, that could also be in their diversity of experience section. The point is: many of these barriers would probably score well on the EC section of the application. 

About the structural inequalities portion of the argument... I am not sure that scoring extra-curriculars like volunteerism is helpful to underrepresented groups compared to scoring GPA. Volunteerism mostly comes from a position of privilege. In general, so does the ability to take the time and focus on school to get a high GPA. Are the EC scores we get from admissions committees not scoring how privileged we are, in a sense? For instance, back when admissions used to give score breakdowns for each section, I got my scores for employment versus volunteerism. I got a 2 in work experience (with thousands of hours despite never taking any time off my full-time schooling) and 1 in volunteerism with a couple hundred hours. It seems to me the scores will be skewed towards the financially privileged that can afford to volunteer more instead of paying bills. Unless they do a major overhaul on how they score the ECs, ignoring GPA doesn't necessarily help the groups that you're speaking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^To go along with your points and some other peoples points, I feel if UofA developed a way to evaluate ECs in a manner similar to UofC by allowing us to write "Top10" type entries that will be a much needed huge overhaul to the way ECs are currently evaluated. Or, at least giving us more space to write about our ECs. With the way ECs are currently evaluated, one does not get much room to talk about their EC and if ECs are going to be counted or looked at a lot more than present (assuming GPA past 3.3 is no longer considered/or even if it is deemphasized) they really should give us more space to discuss our ECs and what what learnt/contributed etc. Not sure if the faculty takes applicants opinion on things like this to heart....but if current students could raise this idea to their faculty then maybe we can get somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the admissions page is updated with this cycle's info, but they haven't released any info about how they calculate or consider GPA. Also, they removed any mention of the formula they've been using for pre and post-interview scores. Interesting. Maybe they're still debating about how to handle GPA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really hoping for a big overhaul in how they look at ECs, not really concerned with GPA at the moment but I always found it weird how low ECs score were. For instance, last year for the 4th IP pool the average EC score for those invited to interview was 7/17, which means almost no one got scores in the double digits. Very strange. Most importantly, if they simply gave us more space to talk about our ECs/experiences I think this can elevate the small spread of scores since it would distinguish applicants ECs more which should have the desired effect of giving more weight to EC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gradschooldream said:

It looks that U of A won't be dropping lowest year GPA. This will make it even worse for non traditional students.

How do you know this?

Maybe they want a cGPA of 3.3+, they wont drop worst year, but if you meet 3.3 GPA wont be considered anymore. That makes a lot more sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sgsw454 said:

How do you know this?

Maybe they want a cGPA of 3.3+, they wont drop worst year, but if you meet 3.3 GPA wont be considered anymore. That makes a lot more sense

they do say that info about how GPA will be "calculated" is not available. This suggests that theyre working on rules about how to calculate GPA and probably not about how to count GPA. Maybe they wont just drop the lowest year but instead drop the three lowest credits or something. Who knows. But I think (hope) it's still assessed competitively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few points:

1. I always thought that UofA had a best years policy? The GPA that showed up on my application after they received my transcript most definitely did not include my worst year.

2. Regarding the idea that some people may not work as hard academically just because they only need a 3.3, how about after they get into medical school, when it's pass/fail? And as many others have already pointed out, this would realistically benefit non-traditional applicants and those who may not have had as much luck academically, rather than those who were already academic gunners to begin with, because high GPAs will get you into other schools, but low GPA applicants finally have a chance as well.

3. As a counter to the insistence that doctors must be social people, that's not necessarily true for all. While it's inevitable that they will have to work with others, a surgeon who is incapable of striking up a casual conversation but has exceptional skill will serve their patient just fine. Of course, truly rude or inappropriate behaviour may make their hospital more susceptible to lawsuits, but those are things that would hopefully show up in references and interviews, not a potential future physician's GPA.

4. I hope this doesn't come off as a slight to family doctors, but a thought occurred to me that the lower emphasis on GPA is a way to get more students into family or rural medicine? It's an unfortunate side effect but most pre-meds I know with extremely high GPAs are also very competitive people, who are only interested in pursuing the competitive specialties and working in academic centres. The problem of course, is that competitive specialties - by definition - have no shortage of doctors, and admitting more of these students won't help address physician shortages in rural areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lulu95 said:

Just a few points:

1. I always thought that UofA had a best years policy? The GPA that showed up on my application after they received my transcript most definitely did not include my worst year.

2. Regarding the idea that some people may not work as hard academically just because they only need a 3.3, how about after they get into medical school, when it's pass/fail? And as many others have already pointed out, this would realistically benefit non-traditional applicants and those who may not have had as much luck academically, rather than those who were already academic gunners to begin with, because high GPAs will get you into other schools, but low GPA applicants finally have a chance as well.

3. As a counter to the insistence that doctors must be social people, that's not necessarily true for all. While it's inevitable that they will have to work with others, a surgeon who is incapable of striking up a casual conversation but has exceptional skill will serve their patient just fine. Of course, truly rude or inappropriate behaviour may make their hospital more susceptible to lawsuits, but those are things that would hopefully show up in references and interviews, not a potential future physician's GPA.

4. I hope this doesn't come off as a slight to family doctors, but a thought occurred to me that the lower emphasis on GPA is a way to get more students into family or rural medicine? It's an unfortunate side effect but most pre-meds I know with extremely high GPAs are also very competitive people, who are only interested in pursuing the competitive specialties and working in academic centres. The problem of course, is that competitive specialties - by definition - have no shortage of doctors, and admitting more of these students won't help address physician shortages in rural areas.

In regards to your final point, I dont care what type of doctor I become, if it means becoming a family doctor in a rural town than so be it. My dream is to get into medical school so if there was somewhere to indicate this / admissions to take this into account than awesome, although I dont think it is realistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a bad policy because Dal med offers interviews to any IP applicant with a minimum of 3.3/4.0 and meeting the MCAT cut off. People in the past have been accepted with a 3.3 although the average GPA has still been a 3.8-3.9. Dal med's application scoring also put more value on ECs (35/100) and interview (40/100) MCAT + GPA are only worth 25/100. From my experience after being in UG for 7 years I can say that GPA is not the best measure because:

 

1. Many privileged pre-meds study for courses in the summer and are able to pull off a 4.0. This allows them more time to commit to ECs during the year which most schools look at vs ECs in the summer. I know of three people who did this and were successful in getting into UOttawa without a degree. This also makes the class more difficult for those just studying during the year because the averages start going up and most profs try to maintain an average in the Bs. For instance, if everyone at my school did really well on the midterm then you better expect the final to be fairly difficult to bring the average down. 

2. Many successful pre-meds have strategically selected their course load by spreading out core classes required for their degree with easy electives. For instance, in a highly competitive program in which I was enrolled you had to take 4 really hard classes that were only offered in the fall term in your 3rd year. When I quit the program I realized that majority of people had split those classes by taking 2 in their 3rd year with 3 easy electives and the other 2 either at another university or in their 4th year again with 3 easy electives. These people had averages of 3.8+. Also, when I started undergrad, organic chem was a larger part of the MCAT and a requirement for many schools, so many people took orgo in the summer because if it impacted their GPA negatively it would not count towards their med GPA. I found many people avoided challenging themselves as med school would like them to. Those who did challenge themselves by taking harder electives either ended up studying 24/7 or did not perform well. 

3. After looking at fairly decent schools in the U.S. I found that quite a few have average GPAs of 3.6-3.7.In the US they have a more holistic approach in comparison to Canada.  Also, from shadowing a few physicians I found that 2 really well known and successful physicians had a GPA of 3.6 and 3.4.

4.I also noticed that Kuwaiti students enrolled at Dal dentistry which has a very high emphasis on GPA for Canadian students were able to enroll with a 3.3 and low DAT scores compared to what is expected of Canadian students. These students still graduate with a DDS. Keep in mind the dentistry curriculum is much harder than med. 

My only issue with  is that of measuring ECs. I have known people who were accepted to med school by lying about their responsibilities, duration of their activities. One was caught and their EC score went down by quite a bit and were rejected, but this application cycle another out of province school accepted them. Another thing I noticed while I volunteered at various organizations was that many people would show up at random times to volunteer. The would claim that they were sick, had midterms blah blah blah. These people ended up getting in by saying they volunteered X hours and had all these responsibilities (90% of which was BS). Another issue is verifiers, one of my friends had added a bunch of ECs and since he went to school in the same town he grew up in his verifiers were mostly family friends who volunteered or worked in the community. 

Just to add MUN has no GPA or MCAT minimums for IP applicants and sometimes they have accepted people with poor academics. There must be a reason why they have continued for so long. 

For those who are academically inclined and have lower social skills I honestly feel that that an academic career would be best for you. It is a fairly reputable profession and you have the ability to impact million-billions of peoples lives and you can make millions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mollypercocet said:

I don't think this is a bad policy because Dal med offers interviews to any IP applicant with a minimum of 3.3/4.0 and meeting the MCAT cut off. People in the past have been accepted with a 3.3 although the average GPA has still been a 3.8-3.9. Dal med's application scoring also put more value on ECs (35/100) and interview (40/100) MCAT + GPA are only worth 25/100. From my experience after being in UG for 7 years I can say that GPA is not the best measure because:

 

 

DAL interviewing everyone IP that meets GPA/MCAT only works as they can handle the number of interviews (so far).  That would not work in Ontario.   Schools therefore need some quantitative method to grant interviews. GPA/MCAT/Casper are all ways to do that with each school doing it in different ratios.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Meridian said:

 

DAL interviewing everyone IP that meets GPA/MCAT only works as they can handle the number of interviews (so far).  That would not work in Ontario.   Schools therefore need some quantitative method to grant interviews. GPA/MCAT/Casper are all ways to do that with each school doing it in different ratios.

 

 

I see what you're saying because of the large number of applicants they won't be able to accommodate enough interview spots. However, consider NOSM's policy: they look equally at 3 things for an interview invite GPA, ECs, and Rural context. NOSM on average has the same number of applicants every year and the biggest factor that determines if you get an interview comes down to ECs and rural context. NOSM has also accepted people within the range of 3.2-4.0. 

People with high GPAs and MCAT have also taken up interview spots in many cases. Many of these individuals were not even ready for the interview or had very poor ECs and would not have been accepted anyway. Whereas someone with a lower GPA may have been more successful. 

I understand that IP policies in other provinces put people in Ontario at a disadvantage, but Ontario has more schools compared to other provinces. If they allocated seats according to the area in which you live in Ontario and had similar requirements for offering interviews I think they would be able to accommodate a lot of people. In this case if you were from the GTA you'd have more of a chance at UoT. I think that many people with 3.7-3.8s in Ontario fail to get an interview because every school has its own GPA calculation. Like UOttawa, UoT, Western weigh GPA by a lot compared to McMaster where people with a 3.3 in any random degree with a high CARS and Casper can get an interview. 

Although every school has autonomy, I think that because med seats are funded by taxpayers there should be some leeway especially in Ontario.    

We also need to keep in mind that there is a greater demand for family physicians in Canada not specialists, especially in rural and remote areas. 

 

For those who say that this policy would mean that people won't work hard and try to maintain a 3.3. I think they're wrong because maintaining a high GPA opens up opportunities that add to your ECs as well. For instance, you'd be more likely to be getting awards, scholarships, research funding and positions. A high GPA would also still keep other career options open.  Many people realize in their UG that becoming a doctor is not for them.

People in the rest of the world get accepted from high school and still become fairly decent docs. High school education is nothing in comparison to going through UG. 

I feel that this policy would allow a person like myself to consider those challenging or more interesting classes where I know the prof only gives out 2 As or whatever and I would not be sucking my profs dick to get an A/A+.

Maybe this new policy would have rules like you need to have taken challenging courses and this would be indicated by the median of the class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-07-04 at 9:40 AM, mollypercocet said:

2. Many successful pre-meds have strategically selected their course load by spreading out core classes required for their degree with easy electives. For instance, in a highly competitive program in which I was enrolled you had to take 4 really hard classes that were only offered in the fall term in your 3rd year. When I quit the program I realized that majority of people had split those classes by taking 2 in their 3rd year with 3 easy electives and the other 2 either at another university or in their 4th year again with 3 easy electives. These people had averages of 3.8+. Also, when I started undergrad, organic chem was a larger part of the MCAT and a requirement for many schools, so many people took orgo in the summer because if it impacted their GPA negatively it would not count towards their med GPA. I found many people avoided challenging themselves as med school would like them to. Those who did challenge themselves by taking harder electives either ended up studying 24/7 or did not perform well. 

I have noticed this trend as well, with people strategically choosing courses to maximize GPA. While there is nothing technically wrong with what they are doing, I too feel that those who choose to take on more challenging programmes/course-loads should be awarded as such. Just looking at numerical GPA doesn't really tell of student's academic prowess. I know PIs look at courses taken when selecting students for graduate studies, so why not do it when considering entrance into Medicine.

On 2017-07-04 at 9:40 AM, mollypercocet said:

My only issue with  is that of measuring ECs. I have known people who were accepted to med school by lying about their responsibilities, duration of their activities. One was caught and their EC score went down by quite a bit and were rejected, but this application cycle another out of province school accepted them. Another thing I noticed while I volunteered at various organizations was that many people would show up at random times to volunteer. The would claim that they were sick, had midterms blah blah blah. These people ended up getting in by saying they volunteered X hours and had all these responsibilities (90% of which was BS). Another issue is verifiers, one of my friends had added a bunch of ECs and since he went to school in the same town he grew up in his verifiers were mostly family friends who volunteered or worked in the community. 

 

UofA have started checking almost all EC verifiers last application via an E-mail form. I think is a good move and will prevent people from stretching the truth, if combined with the requirement that all verifier emails be organizational e-mail addresses (as does Calgary). However this doesn't make it foolproof, it just makes it very hard to spoof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sanctaphrax said:

I have noticed this trend as well, with people strategically choosing courses to maximize GPA. While there is nothing technically wrong with what they are doing, I too feel that those who choose to take on more challenging programmes/course-loads should be awarded as such. Just looking at numerical GPA doesn't really tell of student's academic prowess. I know PIs look at courses taken when selecting students for graduate studies, so why not do it when considering entrance into Medicine.

I  think that it's difficult to evaluate students from different schools as well. For example, the material taught in my first year chem was much harder compared to a school where most of my friends went. The first part of organic chemistry was pretty much a review of what we had covered in first year chem at my school. Despite these differences their averages for first year and orgo were about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna chime in here since this has been weighing on my mind a bit since I got rejected post-interview. I can verify that it will be happening, as I did go see an advisor in person after my rejection, and she did definitely mention this was going to take place. Basically, some threshold(3.3 or 3.5) for GPA, then MCAT and ECs matter the most. Also, now there will be a requirement that you have to finish a degree before admissions, and it will be in effect this year. In other words, I can't apply this year and would have to wait a whole year to go by, which is quite frustrating.

 

GPA. I really do understand why the UoA wants to make this move. GPA isn't a great indicator because of the mentioned reasons in this thread. For example, taking easier classes, or getting lucky with profs. Maybe you got a really bad prof in a couple classes which dropped your GPA, or you had a life crisis to attend to. A 4.0 in Engg is much more impressive than a 4.0 in Sciences. This change evens out this playing field. Yet at the same time, I feel a bit miffed that a lot of my hard work in my 2 years striving to get a 4.0 is going to be kinda negated. This is not to say that if I knew about the 3.3 threshold, I would slack off or spend much more time focusing on ECs, because I know I would still aim for the 4.0 anyways. It just doesn't feel so nice.

On the flip side, I think that GPA has quite a few merits. One of them is that it indicates consistency, resourcefulness, and hard work in a variety of courses. It is very hard to maintain a high GPA by slacking around in class. If you want to maintain that 4.0, you need to be very consistent and on-the-ball throughout the school semester with managing the course load. All assignments need to be done on time, meticulously. Every exam needs to be studied for, methodically. Friends need to be made, resources need to be found, all in order to boost your chances of scoring that sweet A at the end of the semester. Personally, I've yet to meet a student with a high GPA that isn't somewhat friendly because you need to be able to socialize to some extent to make friends and complete group assignments.

As far as the argument/stereotype that 4.0 students are just bookworms, its pretty much void as the whole point of the interview process is to screen out these types of students. I think that if they want to implement a GPA threshold, they should do it in multiple tiers. Something like 3.3-3.5 we're gonna have to really look at the ECs and MCAT to offset the lower GPA. 3.5-3.7 similar to above, a higher GPA means a bit more leeway with MCAT and ECs. 3.7-4.0 same as above. Basically the same as they've been doing it, but doing it in groups instead of straight numerical. This way, someone who has a 3.88 due to some unluckiness or something is the same as a 4.0.

 

MCAT. So with GPA taking a backseat, we can imagine the MCAT being one of the two forerunners for the interview selection. To me, I think this is the section that should have the threshold, rather than the GPA section(or at least, in a different way than assumed to be implemented). Personally, I think that the MCAT has a luck component to it to some extent. As well, typically doing well on the MCAT means you have to drop a decent amount of money, be it prep courses, practice exams, learning materials, etc.(of course, you can do without, but its much harder), which means that it is "unfair" towards those without the means. Finally, I would be amiss to if I did not mention the ever inflating MCAT scores.

Maybe I'm salty cause I got a 513(126 B/B) when I was really hoping for a 515 and I'm looking at a potential re-sit for the MCAT, but I feel that the MCAT isn't as good of an indicator as GPA because of the aforementioned luck and means factor, meaning the playing filed isn't as even. GPA at least you have to be consistent over time, and you can get great marks by focusing and working hard. The MCAT is a all-or-nothing gamble sometimes, and the AAMC isn't very transparent about the whole situation either. With the ever increasing MCAT inflation, IMO there should be a threshold on this, as I proposed above. 512(90%ile) above would be like the 3.7-4.0 500-508 would be like the 3.3-3.5 ground, and 508-512 the 3.5-3.7 area.

 

ECs. Here is one of the hardest things to mark objectively and quantify it. All an admissions reviewer knows about you is what you write on the app. The interviews will barely touch your ECs unless you specifically talk about them, which is a complete shame IMO. I feel that to some extent, this can become a matter of titles. A student with the title of "Student Council President for 3 years in high school" even if they didn't really do anything on the student council may sound better than "Child-care community volunteer for 3 years for a day-care program" who works with crying children on a daily basis.

Another thing is that ECs sometimes aren't that level of a playing field. Connections matter a lot when trying to build your CV, not to mention the means(monetary or even something like transportation) to capitalize on these opportunities. Age definitely helps with this though, as by virtue of being older, you can be afforded more opportunities. Which can discriminate against those 19-20 year old students(although that's moot with the degree requirements now). Then there's the whole issue with doing ECs just for the sake of getting into med school, which can mean the difference between someone doing ECs to put into the app, and someone loyally doing it because they believe in the cause, and its impossible for a reviewer to tell that in an app.

I just really wished that we have more chances to talk about our ECs than what's provided in the app. Once again, maybe I'm just salty because my EC score was much lower than expected, a 4/17, even though I had though I had decent ECs. When I spoke to the advisor, they said to just keep doing what I've been doing, since I made it to the interview and all. Yet, I'm just despairing thinking of what I can do to increase my ECs when its that low after all I've done, and its the limit of what I can do throughout the school year while maintaining my GPA. I've been doing some of my ECs for 3+ years, and continue with them throughout the school year.  I'm dreading the next application cycle because now my GPA won't matter and I can't magically improve my ECs that easily.

 

I don't envy the admissions committee. Its impossible to please everyone, there is not way to objectively score applicants, it costs resources to implement new things or collect and analyze data. And at some point, even with everything, its hard to tell a difference between Student A and Student B with what you have, yet you're supposed to make a decision, which leads to the idea of admissions being a lottery sometimes.

 

tl;dr: I think MCAT, more than GPA, should be a threshold. Both should be a sort of tiered system. ECs are a whole other can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, carebthenarb said:

Also, now there will be a requirement that you have to finish a degree before admissions, and it will be in effect this year. In other words, I can't apply this year and would have to wait a whole year to go by, which is quite frustrating.

ignore --   I see the answer looking at your history  (you applied after 2nd year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK this has actually not been implemented into UofA Med admissions policy and it isn't looking like it will be implemented.

In my own personal opinion, it would be an absolute shame if this did go through and became a part of UofA's admission policy. In no way, shape or form, should a 3.3 and 4.0 be equivalent on a medical school application. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...