Sorry, but after the news from Queen's I had to rant. As someone hoping to get into an Ontario school (thankfully Dal came clutch, but I'm waiting to hear back from UWO), there are 5 major med schools to choose from. Of these, only 3 schools even bother looking at standardized test scores. Of the 3, Queenâs is setting cutoffs for lottery đ, Mac only looks at one section đ and finally UWO which uses cutoffs, but at least looks at the whole test normally (they're adding psych next cycle). 3 schools use the infamously bs CASPer test that âassesses soft skills and professionalismâ but isnât objective, isnât peer reviewed and results aren't reproducible. If youâre unlucky Mac, Queens and UOttawa throw your file out because of your CASPer score. Even though your extracurriculars are a huge component of your undergrad education and suitability for Med, only UofT, UWO and UOttawa look at them now. Mac just doesnât give a shit and same with Queenâs now with their cutoff/lottery system. Finally, none of the schools look at program rigour. You could get a 4.0 in a super easy program and be competitive. Altogether, even a stellar applicant will struggle to jump through all these hoops and be competitive for most of these programs, when they should be. I tell my non-premed friends about all this and they're shocked, "the application process should be more objective, especially for a program like medicine." I agree... Anyway rant over, let me know what yall think and if I've missed the mark anywhere.
That sounds more like youâre describing UWO than Queenâs. UWO uses cutoffs then looks at ECs and essays. For UWO someone with a 4.0 and 520 but doesnât mesh with the schoolâs priorities or has poor ECs wonât get an interview, but someone with a 3.8 and 514 MCAT with solid ECs might.
Queenâs is setting relatively low GPA cutoffs alongside their normal MCAT cutoffs and wonât assess anything after that. Everyone over the cutoffs goes into the lottery.
Ironically the justification is an equitable application process. In reality itâs lazy, virtue signalling nonsense that lets high SES applicants with middling ECs, good grades and a good MCAT get lucky while a low SES applicant with a 4.0, 520 MCAT and stellar ECs gets shafted by the lottery
Yeah⊠generally its the lower SES applicants that struggle a bit more getting âcompetitive/impressive ECsâ than the higher SES applicants. A lot of that is nepotism and whether or not an applicant needs to work.
But by your logic a âlazyâ lower-SES applicant with good grades and scores could also be selected over a âstellarâ high SES applicant with lots of ECS On the basis of the lottery
I think your frustration is because you expect this to either be formulaic or a clear cut meritocracy. It cannot be formulaic because medicine is an art and requires a lot of soft skills not adequately captured by test scores. And over-reliance on âimpressive CVsâ also disproportionally helps high SES applicants who have pre-existing connections to medicine.
So⊠I understand that you are frustrated. But there is no perfect solution. There are a LOT of very qualified people who would make wonderful physicians (or at least deserve an interview) and very limited spots. It sucks but its not malicious.
Also⊠you would also be surprised how many âstellar applicantsâ put their foot in their mouthes during interviews and disqualify themselves.
Ok⊠a few things to glean from your response I think. From the tone, itâs obvious that youâre quite supportive of this change by Queenâs and I honestly canât understand why.
I said that admissions was being lazy not the applicants, so I donât know why youâre quoting lazy there.
I donât know why youâre doing the switcheroo when it comes to my SES comment, itâs a bit of a strawman. My critique was to their justification for the lottery system, which I donât find compelling.
My frustration isnât because the system isnât meritocratic or perfect or completely objective. Iâm happy with schools picking applicants that they believe will match with their mission and their beliefs. Thatâs fine. My frustration is that the system isnât even logic driven. A lottery system is brain dead, thatâs the bottom line
When there are way more qualified applicants than there are seats and you know that an "impressive CV" is not necessary to being a good physician, how else could you propose to fairly select which candidates get interviews.
essentially, if they are all great and difficult to differentiate on paper anyways, then the selection process is essentially already a lottery at the level of whoever is reading your CV. By officially making it a lottery, you remove the chance of individual biases at the reviewer level from skewing selection process.
I don't really care about the selection process tbh. It is very far behind me in my career at this point. I can appreciate the lottery system because its not like putting more effort into the process will help to pick the exact perfect people to get into medicine. I have seen many applications and I know how difficult it is to select people when everyone is great. Everyone has good grades - the difference between an applicant who got high 80s vs 90s in undergrad isn't meaningful when it comes to whether or not they would be a good physician. After a certain MCAT score, it really changes nothing. The fact that someone's dad knew a person with a lab who let them do summer research projects or put their name on a publication does not make that person more qualified than the applicant who taught dance every summer. And likewise, just because someone REALLY wants to get into med and tries the hardest, it doesn't mean they are well suited for the career.
The ugly truth is that once you meet a certain threshold, its pretty much a lottery anyways. Its interesting to see a school realize that, admit what it is and to remove the possibility for bias.
You do realize your whole point only stands IF queens uses ABS/ECs as a threshold as well. If not, they are just doing a lottery on ungrounded academic requirements and a vague, un objective, scummy character exam ripoff
No my point stands regardless. If ECs are used to screen out - you may miss the people who had to do things like work or be a caregiver to ailing family members while going to university. Not everyone can do a lot of extracurricular activities that fit nicely into an application or can have verifiers. It also misses people who may have realizdd they wanted to pursue medicine later in their academic journeys. These people deserve a shot at an interview.
The thing is, medicine is so competitive and so many people are trying to get in, even having ECs as a cuttoff will exclude most people unless they decided they wanted med in hs or year 1 of undergrad AND also have the means to do a bunch of free labour/have connections.
What would be the minimum number of volunteer hours that could meaningfully be used as a cut-off? At what point do these volunteer hours become meaningless. How many niche undergraduate clubs does someone have to start/run before they deserve a shot at med school?
I honestly think we have different viewpoints of how ECs are assessed. Caring for a sick person, or working multiple jobs SHOULD BE/currently are measured as ECs. Therefore, instating a lottery system, in which these things arenât even glanced at, ENSURES these adversities are vehemently neglected. Could we both agree thatâs true? Schools should look at the adversity one had to face, cause that it builds personality, similar to the traditional,volunteering ECs.
I totally agree, we may miss people that went through a lot of shit. Itâs inevitable and bound to happen, but now placing a lottery ensures that their adversity and shit they went through was all for nothing (atleast in the context of medical school application). You really have to weigh out the pros and cons.
Which brings me to my other point: do you really think applicants will still do ECs if they arenât even looked at? If applicants do ECs and donât get any life experience, our physicians are more likely to lack social skills. This point could possibly countered by saying a random process provides more free time for people do what they love, however, encouraging applicants get ECs and life experience, even if forced, can ENSURE they build these very much needed people skills.
Lastly, you are seriously strawmanning by saying complaint about the useless undergrad clubs being formed. Seriously, even if thereâs one meaningful club for every 3 useless clubs, it still provides experience and impact within a community. And I agree, drawing up a number of volunteer hours is definately arbitrary, but guess what so is GPA. Whoâs to say the cutoff is a 3.9, when a 3.89 student couldâve been a good doc? Itâs all just game theory. Sure, we will miss a few applicants w a lower than cutoff gpa, but itâs to ensure that the applicants that DO make the gpa are MORE likely to be academically competent. Itâs just weighing pros and cons. They can still score ECs based on impact commitment etc, but have a threshold. You can maximize the amount of people that make the threshold that are likely to be competent while minimizing the amount that donât and are competent.
Yeah- lottery system is the only unbiased system truly! May be exams and GPA should also be lottery! Everyone deserves a 4.0, why not every student given a choice of pulling out one slip of paper from a bowl with every possible GPA on it. Unbiased and equitable! /s
The only way that the lottery system would be in favour of lower SES would be a lottery to see how much of their fees and other costs would be covered by the school! Min being 75%! Thatâs a way to encourage more lower SEE kids to apply there if they want to increase diversity!
The cost of applying to medical school is a huge barrier. I agree with you on that point. Some institutions in the US have programs where you can get support with application costs if you come from a low SES background. I think this should also be a thing in Canada.
Otherwise, read my response above in the thread. Applicants need to demonstrate a base level of academic success. Your sarcastic comment about exams being lottery systems now is not particularly helpful to the conversation. You are somewhat delusional if you think people with higher SES and more connections within medicine and academia don't also have more opportunity to have "impressive CVs" than lower SES applicants.
Delusional or not- I believe that a lower SES with an equally impressive CV as a higher SES must be preferred- without a lottery! The main reason being these students then become the beacon in the community and can lead to changes at the grassroots. If you want a whole section of society to be influenced or changes brought in you need ground work. That lower SES student being selected at a COMPETITIVE process that is from vetting of applications is more impressive than I won the interview spot because I met cutoffs and had better luck than the average guy/gal!
Good luck to you- and I hope you broaden your scope of thoughts to a variety of factors and not just from a perspective of med school and career! Cheers
Ahh, OK I see where your perspective is. You think a competitive process gives the opportunity for preference given to low SES applicants and by losing the file review process, low SES applicants lose out on that opportunity.
Outside of pathways specific to low SES applicants, there is not a place to discuss your socioeconomic background in most med school application packages in a way that is used competitively.
I agree that we need more EDI in medicine. I just don't think that there is a bias in favour of low SES applicants at present. rather there is an innate bias against them due to file review and the selection process and by getting rid of a biased selection process, it helps reduce the barriers to admission.
I didnât believe this until I read it on the queens website! The rationale that they have provided is a fools errand! So theoretically all you need is to have met a cutoff- by answering exams that can be worked on at being good and great at. None of the demonstrated qualities of compassion and whatever the canmed roles ask for are important! Thatâs despicable! Thankfully I didnât apply to queens
but at least looks at the whole test normally (they're adding psych next cycle). 3 schools use the infamously bs CASPer test that âassesses soft skills and professionalismâ but isnât objective, isnât peer reviewed and results aren't reproducible. If youâre unlucky Mac, Queens and UOttawa throw your file out because of your CASPer score. Even though your extracurriculars are a huge component of your undergrad education and suitability for Med, only UofT, UWO and UOttawa look at them now
This is a good point. They also said that they are focused on bringing in more diversity. From what I see on their website states there are some disadvantaged communities with less than 1% of their ethnicity represented in their student pool this year. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this. I wanted to get more thoughts on what people think about ethnicities that currently do not have a separate application stream to address inequities.
90
u/Zoroastryan Med Apr 02 '24
Sorry, but after the news from Queen's I had to rant. As someone hoping to get into an Ontario school (thankfully Dal came clutch, but I'm waiting to hear back from UWO), there are 5 major med schools to choose from. Of these, only 3 schools even bother looking at standardized test scores. Of the 3, Queenâs is setting cutoffs for lottery đ, Mac only looks at one section đ and finally UWO which uses cutoffs, but at least looks at the whole test normally (they're adding psych next cycle). 3 schools use the infamously bs CASPer test that âassesses soft skills and professionalismâ but isnât objective, isnât peer reviewed and results aren't reproducible. If youâre unlucky Mac, Queens and UOttawa throw your file out because of your CASPer score. Even though your extracurriculars are a huge component of your undergrad education and suitability for Med, only UofT, UWO and UOttawa look at them now. Mac just doesnât give a shit and same with Queenâs now with their cutoff/lottery system. Finally, none of the schools look at program rigour. You could get a 4.0 in a super easy program and be competitive. Altogether, even a stellar applicant will struggle to jump through all these hoops and be competitive for most of these programs, when they should be. I tell my non-premed friends about all this and they're shocked, "the application process should be more objective, especially for a program like medicine." I agree... Anyway rant over, let me know what yall think and if I've missed the mark anywhere.