Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, tm55 said:

Those who applied to OT do you think it is possible to receive an offer with a sGPA from 3.6-3.7? Has anyone been accepted with this range of sGPA? I am trying to apply for next year again and I am an trying to boost my gpa in order to apply but the probability of a 3.8 is very slim. I just want to be realistic and see if it is still possible to get in. Thanks! 

Hey! I got waitlisted for UofT with a sGPA of 3.69. Unfortunately they can't comment on my position, but i'm probably on the farther end of the waitlist because my sGPA is lower than most that i've seen on here. HOWEVER if you can take courses to boost your cGPA I think that may be worth it. I got accepted into Queens OT because of my cGPA, and I guess my supplementals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 627
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I disagree. Experiences, references, interviews, and essays are what set applicants apart. If 95% of admissions was based on GPA, then what stops people who have no real interest in pursuing a career

Think we're all forgetting this most important thing in all of this... Vegas is currently up 1-0 in the cup finals. Who would've thought? 

You might struggle with the diversity and inclusion courses in OT/PT with an attitude like this. There are a ton of reasons people are not able to achieve good marks in classes that have to do with ra

Posted Images

3 hours ago, churros31 said:

Unfortunately, I think that based on the sGPA increase in recent years, anything lower than a 3.7 would be a long shot. Most OT schools in Ontario don't release what they consider a competitive sGPA, but Mac posted that their cut-off for a first round interview invite this year was 3.77. This eventually went down to 3.75 with people accepted off the waitlist. So if you think about Ontario schools having a similar applicant pool as this group, the top ~300ish people who apply to OT have an sGPA in the high 3.7s (of course Mac only looks at GPA so a bunch of people might have applied as a backup, which skews it higher).

However, if OT is really what you want, I really hope this doesn't discourage you from trying again! Many people on this forum have applied 2, even 3 times before getting in. This year off could be your time to boost your sGPA, make money, and gain more experiences in the profession. There are also some people who have tons of experience but have an sGPA in the low-mid 3.7s who have been accepted, so experience, essays, and references could make a HUGE difference! It's just that the reality of things is that sGPA is usually the first cut-off point for schools before your application is looked at, so I would definitely focus on improving that this year.

Also do you have a higher cGPA than sGPA? I think Queens and McGill (correct me if I'm wrong) look more at cGPA so that could be to your advantage.

Anyway, best of luck to you and I hope you don't let this setback stop you from pursuing OT! :) 

I agree, I went back to school, did a second undergrad (it only takes 2 years once you finish your first) and applied to PT again and I've just been accepted. If you can't see yourself doing anything but OT do whatever you can and need to make yourself competitive, which unfortunately means high grades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 1:17 PM, tm55 said:

Those who applied to OT do you think it is possible to receive an offer with a sGPA from 3.6-3.7? Has anyone been accepted with this range of sGPA? I am trying to apply for next year again and I am an trying to boost my gpa in order to apply but the probability of a 3.8 is very slim. I just want to be realistic and see if it is still possible to get in. Thanks! 

I applied for OT this year for the first time with a sGPA of 3.73 and cGPA of 3.56 and was offered admission at U of T and Queens. Waitlisted at Western and completed an interview at McGill (still awaiting a response). I would say its possible! I will probably be going to Queens as I have lived in Kingston previously and I find it is much cheaper to live than the GTA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 11:06 AM, newPT2020 said:

Applied: Queen's, McGill, Dalhousie PT
Accepted: Queen's, Dalhousie
Waitlisted:
Rejected: McGill
GPA: sGPA 3.72
Perceived strength of essays/interviews/references: Registered Massage Therapist (RMT), a Registered Kinesiologist (R.kin), 75+ hours volunteering at a cardiac center and years working as a swim instructor/lifeguard. I've basically worked my way up the physical care latter and gained experience/education in a related field. This is my second time applying, last year I only applied to Queen's. I suggest to aim above the GPA cut-off and have a variety of experience volunteering/working in different places. I believe great references that can highlight your attributes are important to help differentiate you from the next candidate.

Edit: CASPer is required for McGill and Dalhousie (new 2018). Please do your diligence for this test. Don't wing it.

Hey! Congrats on the offers do you know which school you're planning on accepting??

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, OTStudentfromBC said:

Has anyone else accepted their offer on ORPAS and not heard anything from either ORPAS or the uni (Queens)? Accepted the offer a few days ago and ordered transcripts to go to ORPAS and wondering when I should be hearing back from the school on the next steps 

Im not sure about OT but for PT we were sent packages in the mail that had a lot of information for next steps. Mine for UofT explained I needed to mail a deposit in within a certain time frame so if you haven't heard from them or received a package maybe call and see?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OTStudentfromBC said:

Has anyone else accepted their offer on ORPAS and not heard anything from either ORPAS or the uni (Queens)? Accepted the offer a few days ago and ordered transcripts to go to ORPAS and wondering when I should be hearing back from the school on the next steps 

I accepted my offer to McMaster on ORPAS a week ago and all I got was a confirmation number from ORPAS/OUAC emailed to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OTWannaBee said:

I applied for OT this year for the first time with a sGPA of 3.73 and cGPA of 3.56 and was offered admission at U of T and Queens. Waitlisted at Western and completed an interview at McGill (still awaiting a response). I would say its possible! I will probably be going to Queens as I have lived in Kingston previously and I find it is much cheaper to live than the GTA. 

Can you please describe your volunteer and work experience? Feel free to PM me about it if you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jna1929 said:

Can you please describe your volunteer and work experience? Feel free to PM me about it if you like.

 

I would say I have a fair amount of experience, I have worked in related fields throughout university and this year since I have graduated (complete degree last June). I currently hold a psychology degree and college diploma in behavioural science. I have implemented behaviour plans under an OT and BcABA, coordinated employment for youth with intellectual disabilities, and worked in a women's homeless shelter and transitional housing program. I currently work at the shelter part time and for a psychologist full time doing psychological assessments and return to work programs in a patients home/community using ACT methods and PGAP for those on long term disability due to chronic pain and/or mental health issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 6:39 PM, OTkylie said:

Applied: UBC, Toronto, McMaster, Queens, Western (all OT)

Interview: UBC, McMaster (off waitlist but did not attend as I was already given a seat at UBC)

Accepted: UBC, Toronto, Queens

Waitlisted: Western (upper third)

Rejected:

GPA: Cummulative: 3.33 Sub: 3.75, 94% average for 300/400 level classes for UBC MOT 

Strengths: 

Strong references from academic professors who knew me well. My professional reference was from a practicing OT that I’ve been volunteering with for a year. I have volunteered with an OT in South Africa as well as OT’s in geriatrics, and rural First Nations Communities. For those who did not get in, keep trying! I am a second time applicant and took the last year to strengthen myself as an applicant. I was told by UBC last year when I interviewed and didnt get it that they’re looking for applicants who have a wide range of professional and personal experience which is why I did as much shadowing as I could with different populations in different settings. Im so thankful that I did because my knowledge and understanding of Occupational Therapy increased so much which was incredibly helpful when I went through the application process again this year. 

Hey there! If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious to know more about your volunteering in South Africa? How did you come across this awesome opportunity? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OTWannaBee said:

 

I would say I have a fair amount of experience, I have worked in related fields throughout university and this year since I have graduated (complete degree last June). I currently hold a psychology degree and college diploma in behavioural science. I have implemented behaviour plans under an OT and BcABA, coordinated employment for youth with intellectual disabilities, and worked in a women's homeless shelter and transitional housing program. I currently work at the shelter part time and for a psychologist full time doing psychological assessments and return to work programs in a patients home/community using ACT methods and PGAP for those on long term disability due to chronic pain and/or mental health issues.

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

This is just so wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

I disagree. Experiences, references, interviews, and essays are what set applicants apart. If 95% of admissions was based on GPA, then what stops people who have no real interest in pursuing a career in the OT or PT field from applying as backups? 

While a 3.86 GPA is harder to achieve than a 3.73, who are you to say that those with a higher GPA have "demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program"?  It goes without saying that clinical placements are a huge focus of the programs (and profession) as well, and the soft skills you gain from volunteering are also valuable in preparing you to become a clinician in the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

I agree with churros31.

Graduate school is not as simple as an undergrad. Having a high GPA only demonstrates one thing that one is capable of studying at an undergraduate level.  It does not show how well you can apply what you have learned, reflex completely you ability to succeed at the graduate level or what personality you have. 

Admission processes are complex and vary in different university but they all want students who can complete their program and be competent professional based on their personality hence MMI, references and cover letters. 

Individuals who have very high marks might not Fullfil these requirements. 

My advice if you have a high GPA you are continuously refused would be to look at the other aspects of your application and reevaluate if you’re personality is a good fit for the job. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

I believe, and have received feedback from multiple OT programs, that admission committees are looking for well rounded applicants (academic success, work, life, and volunteer experience). However, I think another important piece that they’re looking for is professionalism. This forum is used to share information with prospective OT/PT students in what I think should be a respectful and professional fashion. Let’s not call someone out, who could maybe be a fellow colleague one day, and discredit their successes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jna1929 said:

Thanks for replying.

I am not trying to bash you or discredit you by this post, but I just find it somewhat ridiculous how there is so much emphasis on volunteering work in terms of admission. It should be 95% based on GPA. For example you got 3.73 and were accepted but someone with a 3.86 got waitlisted. So the difference must be due to volunteering/experience. A 3.86 is EXTREMELY higher than a 3.73 and it shows MUCH MORE ability and is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve: a 3.86 shows that you clearly have the ability to succeed in the graduate program. It is like scoring 30 points in a basketball game compared to scoring 17 points. I seriously don't understand why the schools do not realize this and don't place more emphasis on GPA. I understand that volunteering is also important but I mean to what extent. "Holistic" admissions have simply gotten out of hand and I believe they are discriminating against students who have demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program. I really wish a member of the admission committee would enrol as an undergraduate and see just how difficult it is to get a 3.86 GPA compared to something like a 3.7, maybe then they would start auto-admitting students with ridiculously high GPAs that are good enough for medical school, into something like OT. The level of consistency and ability to get a 3.8+ GPA should be rewarded, not be unnoticed as it currently is apparently. I mean the bottom line is that they want students who will succeed in the graduate program. Volunteering is not going to help you succeed academically nor is it a valid indicator of this. Students will spend the rest of their lives working in the field so what does it matter if someone spends 500 hours vs 100 hours volunteering while doing their undergraduate degree.

Very debatable, I had a 3.96 GPA when i got accepted last year but that doesn't make me the most qualified candidate. The reason why marks should only be a part of the picture is because I understood the in's and out's of what courses to take and how to achieve good marks (from being a TA). My time being a TA taught me what other TA's look for when marking exams. Ultimately, marks are very subjective depending on your school and they definitely should be a big part of admissions criteria (to weed out some applicants out of the 1000), but volunteer experiences I think are more valuable for admissions in order to show commitment and learn things you simply can't in school. My 3.96 wasn't very difficult because I took a degree in neuroscience and loved it, loved all my courses, and ultimately was in a great position to succeed at my smaller university. Just because others don't have similar situations doesn't mean they should be penalized based on a couple decimals of GPA points. If you got volunteer experience that's what makes candidates unique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, churros31 said:

I disagree. Experiences, references, interviews, and essays are what set applicants apart. If 95% of admissions was based on GPA, then what stops people who have no real interest in pursuing a career in the OT or PT field from applying as backups? 

While a 3.86 GPA is harder to achieve than a 3.73, who are you to say that those with a higher GPA have "demonstrated better ability to succeed in the graduate program"?  It goes without saying that clinical placements are a huge focus of the programs (and profession) as well, and the soft skills you gain from volunteering are also valuable in preparing you to become a clinician in the field.

What stops people who have no real interest in OT/PT from accumulating volunteer hours for the purpose of admission? Much of the volunteering is not even directly related to OT/PT anyways. Let's be real here, volunteering in OT/PT settings a certain number of hours more than another candidate does not make you any more able to succeed in graduate schools: schools ONLY use this as a raw numbers game (x had more than y, therefore x is admitted), no different than GPA. I mean, the person I initially replied to, that person said that AFTER they graduated, they took a year just to do volunteer work to boost their application. How is this in any way indicative of success in graduate school? Anybody can take a year off and accumulate more hours: why on earth would the universities force students to do this (by over-focusing on the volunteering portion for admission purposes)? This has absolutely no correlation with success in the graduate program. So of the two, GPA is a much more likely and OBJECTIVE indicator of success in graduate school than accumulating a bunch of volunteer hours. Who am I to say it? A person. People have opinions. I am saying mine. I can also say "who are you to doubt what I am saying" lol. Let's not downgrade the discussion into petty insults please.

Clinical placements are there for a reason: to make you ready for the work force. The curriculum was designed with this in mind, and the clinical placements do more than enough to prepare students for the work place. That is why volunteering prior to even starting the program is, as I said above, strictly for x>y raw numbers admission competition purposes. In light of this, I think GPA is more of an accurate indicator of success in an academic, rigorous, master's program, and it is also much more difficult to get a high GPA (this also shows more ability) as opposed to spending a bunch of your free time volunteering which is not evaluated or graded or held to any standard, just to accumulate hours to make your application more competitive for admission purposes. 

Let us not kid ourselves: the ONLY reason schools are having more "holistic" admission standards is because they are riding the wave of "equality and inclusion and anti-discrimination and 'progressiveness'" which has been seen in our society since the 21st century and is increasing its momentum annually. It has nothing to do with admitting the more qualified/able candidates. Any organization, whether it be a university, corporation, or government entity, will face massive social backlash if they don't ride this wave. Unfortunately, universities are putting their own long-standing academic reputations at risk by riding this wave. Before, when you saw that someone got admitted to a certain competitive program, you would be assured of the university's admission standards and you would know that individual is intelligent and able, but now, an increasing portion of under-qualified candidates are being granted entry via "holistic" methods so when you hear someone has a certain degree, that is by no means any guarantee that they are as intelligent or able as their credentials suggest.

GPA is a much more objective and merit-based indicator of performance and ability compared to stuff like volunteering (in which there are no standards), impressive reference letters (professors are human and in most cases the best reference letters go out to students they like most or who spent the most time slaving away for them, not the most intelligent or able students), or work experience (getting jobs is largely based on fortunate and connections, not abilities or intelligence). I understand that making admissions somewhat holistic can give a better overall picture of a candidate, but it has simply gone too far. When a high GPA candidate gets rejected and someone with a much more easy to obtain GPA gets accepted because of volunteer/work/ref letters, then one can safely say that the university's reputation has been tarnished. It is ironic that universities, which are supposed to have the highest standards of science and scientific validity in society, have fallen prey to the unscientific, nominal social norms of society, by  choosing to have scientifically invalid admission standards. Validity= something that has high validity will measure what it is intended to measure. Apparently, taking a year off after graduating and doing a bunch of volunteer hours=higher chance success in a rigorous, academic program, more so than GPA. To me, that model has poor validity. But apparently nowadays universities are basing their admission model on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PT_93 said:

Very debatable, I had a 3.96 GPA when i got accepted last year but that doesn't make me the most qualified candidate. The reason why marks should only be a part of the picture is because I understood the in's and out's of what courses to take and how to achieve good marks (from being a TA). My time being a TA taught me what other TA's look for when marking exams. Ultimately, marks are very subjective depending on your school and they definitely should be a big part of admissions criteria (to weed out some applicants out of the 1000), but volunteer experiences I think are more valuable for admissions in order to show commitment and learn things you simply can't in school. My 3.96 wasn't very difficult because I took a degree in neuroscience and loved it, loved all my courses, and ultimately was in a great position to succeed at my smaller university. Just because others don't have similar situations doesn't mean they should be penalized based on a couple decimals of GPA points. If you got volunteer experience that's what makes candidates unique.

In terms of inter-school GPA variability, as far as I know, some universities already do consider which universities/departments practice grade inflation. If they don't, they should. It is also easy to use the transcript: compare the class average to the candidate's performance in that specific class, and do this for every course. If you see that all of the courses have high class averages and the candidate got the same grade as the class average or very slightly better, then that tells you all you need to know. But if you see that the candidate consistently got much above the class average, then you know that the class average was not inflated and that the candidate did much better and thus their GPA is a valid indicator.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OTkylie said:

I believe, and have received feedback from multiple OT programs, that admission committees are looking for well rounded applicants (academic success, work, life, and volunteer experience). However, I think another important piece that they’re looking for is professionalism. This forum is used to share information with prospective OT/PT students in what I think should be a respectful and professional fashion. Let’s not call someone out, who could maybe be a fellow colleague one day, and discredit their successes. 

 

At no point did I call anyone out or discredit them: I simply used their experience to analyze and critique the, in my opinion, subjective and invalid admission standards that have become the norm these days.

Link to post
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...