UofT Post-Interview Weighting

[God]

Does anyone know how UofT looks at all aspects of the applicant and how they weigh each thing? E.g. 50% Interview performance, 

 

[VladTheLad]

50(interview)-50(everything else)? I think?

[Bluberblubo]

The interview is worth 20% (or at least it was a couple of years ago and I doubt they changed it). There was a document floating around the forum that showed the official breakdown. I believe GPA was like 50% and extra curriculars+references were 30% and interview 20%. If you really want, you can search through old posts, but I really wouldn't waste my time. At this point if you've already had your interview, it's best to just chill and enjoy yourself until you get your answer. I know it's easier said than done though. If you still will have it, how much the weighing is really doesn't matter, just do your best. Good luck!

[brady23]

The pre-interview file review score is worth 50%

Interview is worth 50%

See their medical admissions video (28:52 specifically)

 

[MD.VA]

I was gonna say that 20% for the interview seems too little. TBH I prefer closer to 100% interview. Grades got us there, personality should seal the deal.

[brady23]

Tbh I don't think interviews really make a difference in the quality of applicants you select - maybe a minor one at most.

I've always found it interesting that law doesn't require interviews to get in, and I can kinda understand that viewpoint. 

[MD.VA]

15 minutes ago, brady23 said:

Tbh I don't think interviews really make a difference in the quality of applicants you select - maybe a minor one at most.

I've always found it interesting that law doesn't require interviews to get in, and I can kinda understand that viewpoint. 

They're supposed to weed out anyone anti-social or socially-inept. Lawyers dont have to worry about bedside manners or delicate relationships between physicians and patients. Also, the law schools know you are in it for the money. The med schools want to make sure you can at least pretend you're not. 

[brady23]

Just now, MD.VA said:

They're supposed to weed out anyone anti-social or socially-inept. The law schools know lawyers are in it for the money. Lawyers dont have to worry about bedside manners or delicate relationships between physicians and patients. Also, the law schools know you are in it for the money. The med schools want to make sure you can at least pretend you're not. 

Good point. But it's not that hard to fake it, many people make it through the cracks. You could probably weed out maybe at most, 50 people who are extremely socially inept, and that leaves 550 plausible candidates fighting for ~260 spots.

I do see the benefit, but don't think it's a major one.   

[MD.VA]

1 minute ago, brady23 said:

Good point. But it's not that hard to fake it, many people make it through the cracks. You could probably weed out maybe at most, 50 people who are extremely socially inept, and that leaves 550 plausible candidates fighting for ~260 spots.

I do see the benefit, but don't think it's a major one.   

Youd be surprised to see how vastly different everyone's communication skills are unter pressure.

[brady23]

Just now, MD.VA said:

Youd be surprised to see how vastly different everyone's communication skills are unter pressure.

There's definitely people that know how to fake it. I'd argue that more people succumb to nerves who are otherwise great candidates than being exposed as "socially inept" in these high pressure situations.

[MD.VA]

19 minutes ago, brady23 said:

There's definitely people that know how to fake it. I'd argue that more people succumb to nerves who are otherwise great candidates than being exposed as "socially inept" in these high pressure situations.

I'm not arguing against either of those points. All I'm trying to say is that an interview is a tool that is able to rank applicants on their social skills - be it communication, confidence, composure, professionalism, or anything else. At the end of the day, they're just trying to pick whoever is the most suited. Now whether that should be someone with a 4.0 GPA, endless extracuricculars, and a bland personality or stumbling over their words vs. someone with 3.85 GPA, several extracurriculars, and very outgoing.... That's up to them. UofT clearly prefers a combination, which is fair. Some USA schools are 100% interview. McGill is 80% interview. All depends on what the school values more.

[excelspreadsheet]

Definitely agree responding well under pressure and softer skills are important. Strong academics, diverse extracurriculars, and extraversion aren't really mutually exclusive though... I would argue that the people I've met who are more social, tend to be more involved in extra curricular activities and do better overall in school.

32 minutes ago, MD.VA said:

They're supposed to weed out anyone anti-social or socially-inept. Lawyers dont have to worry about bedside manners or delicate relationships between physicians and patients. Also, the law schools know you are in it for the money. The med schools want to make sure you can at least pretend you're not. 

Maybe "corporate law", but there are so many more fields of law out there that do require you to navigate delicate relationships, and do want to help others...

[MD.VA]

16 minutes ago, excelspreadsheet said:

Maybe "corporate law", but there are so many more fields of law out there that do require you to navigate delicate relationships, and do want to help others...

But you're still mainly in it for the money. You can be a paralegal if you want to help people. Same with doctor vs nurse. Not to say that there are absolutely no exclusions.

[excelspreadsheet]

3 hours ago, MD.VA said:

But you're still mainly in it for the money. You can be a paralegal if you want to help people. Same with doctor vs nurse. Not to say that there are absolutely no exclusions.

I guess... if you say the main reason people choose MD vs nursing is the money (or lawyer vs paralegal) I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you otherwise. I'm sure it is a factor but still, "mainly"...

[jr2]

Lol, the things people say on these forums. There is so much more to law than just money....there's human rights law, academic law/scholarship, oral advocacy, etc. In today's world, lawyers are just as important as doctors, and I don't think their profession should be reduced to a means for a paycheck.

Also, I think a law school graduate would most likely outperform most premeds on a medical school interview. A big chunk of interviewing  is about thinking critically on your feet and about using language tactfully and diplomatically. I imagine a good lawyer would be a master of these skills compared to your run of the mill premed.

[MD.VA]

7 minutes ago, jr2 said:

Lmao, the things people say on these forums. There is so much more to law than just money....there's human rights law, academic law/scholarship, oral advocacy, etc. In today's world, lawyers are just as important as doctors, and I don't think their profession should be reduced to a means for a paycheck. Honestly, the money in law isn't what it used to be either...

Also, I think a law school graduate would most likely outperform most premeds on a medical school interview. A big chunk of interviewing  is about thinking critically on your feet and about using language tactfully and diplomatically. I imagine a good lawyer would be a master of these skills compared to your run of the mill premed.

I've absolutely never undermined the importance of lawyers. I'm speaking from my own (limitted) experience where every single one of my friends that applied to law admitted that money is a huge factor in their decision making. Yes, they were all also interested in various aspects of law, but the money was a driving factor. That's not my observation, that's just what they told me. Again, I'm sure not everyone is like that and exceptions exist. But there's a reason why the field is so competitive. There's honestly no need to get self righteous here. Unless your goal is to spend 200K on education, and then selflessly go work in developing countries, you're attracted to the wealth and prestige that both of these occupations bring.

Now onto your second point, and boy it's a doozey. Why you would compare a lawyer to a premed is absolutely beyond me. They literally spend years training for that... ? So no shit they're going to beat a pre-med 10 times out of 10. Those guys can talk miles around you. That's like asking whether a pre-law can suture better than a surgeon. I never even compared them. I just said law school doesn't need interviews because they're not trying to gauge your compassion, which is best done in person. 

As you yourself cleverly pointed out: Lmao, the things people say on these forums.

[MD.VA]

1 hour ago, excelspreadsheet said:

I guess... if you say the main reason people choose MD vs nursing is the money (or lawyer vs paralegal) I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you otherwise. I'm sure it is a factor but still, "mainly"...

You're right, "mainly" was an overexaggeration. I'm just trying to say it's a significant factor in career choice. Again, there are always exceptions.

[brady23]

57 minutes ago, jr2 said:

Lmao, the things people say on these forums. There is so much more to law than just money....there's human rights law, academic law/scholarship, oral advocacy, etc. In today's world, lawyers are just as important as doctors, and I don't think their profession should be reduced to a means for a paycheck. Honestly, the money in law isn't what it used to be either...

Also, I think a law school graduate would most likely outperform most premeds on a medical school interview. A big chunk of interviewing  is about thinking critically on your feet and about using language tactfully and diplomatically. I imagine a good lawyer would be a master of these skills compared to your run of the mill premed.

I know some lawyers who have been rejected post-interview, so not entirely true.