The 2012 Waitlist

[Waitlister99]

Originally Posted by SunnyD

i wouldn't count on offers going out tomorrow. their blog comment says 'after 23rd'. i'm personally giving myself until the first week of june to find out..
also, does anyone know how interview rankings work? if roughly 1/3 get 'above average' interview, and about 1/2 of interviewees get in, does that mean that some people with average interviews get in?

I was reading previous years waitlists, yes I have been that obsessed with this bloody waitlist, and it seems that the day that people have to let them know whether or not they are accepted - at 12pm, the first round of waitlist offers usually goes out later that afternoon. They want to get the class finalized ASAP, so why would they wait. And they usually do things in a similar pattern every year, so I'm pretty sure they will send some out tomorrow. Here's to hoping, anyway.

I'm positive people with average interviews get in. You never see anyone with maxed out AQ and almost maxed out NAQ get rejected, and you can't tell me they all kill the interview. Plus, anecdotally speaking, I have had a few friends that have felt they absolutely bombed the interview, (more than a few station screwups where they started stuttering, turned red, couldn't finish their thoughts, or started crying due to stress) and they still got in. So although the interview is important, people can get by it by doing an average job if they have really good stats going into it. (It all boils down to numbers & if you have amazing numbers going in, you will likely get in if you can at least do an average interview).

[Waitlister99]

Originally Posted by sirnoodleton

Serious question!!!!

I have the oppourtunity to transfer my M.Sc. to a PhD, but I am waitlisted.
I also have the potential to complete said PhD in time for next cycle (MD2017)

Do I finish my M.Sc. on the assumption that I will get into UBC med this round, or do I decide to transfer to a PhD regardless of what happens when more offers come out from the waitlist?

Does doing a PhD really help me to do what I want to do in life?
(which would be to do clinical and be able to teach at a university as well, but not necessarily be heavy into the research)

I'm trying to weigh my options, there are just so many possible scenarios that could play out, and so little time to make a decision.
Will postponing med school by a year (for sure) and having a PhD really help me in terms of placements for residencies and such?


Here are my current stats.

Thanks guys.

Hi everyone,

I am currently waitlisted at UBC (third time applying, from BC), but if I don't get in I am trying to gauge the probability of my application going through to the interview stage at U of T (and other ontario schools or anywhere really) next year.

Undergrad GPA: 3.72/4.33 (152 credits) (Honours, 5.5 years, 12 semesters, "slow")
Graduate GPA: 4.33/4.33 (10 credits) (M .Sc.) (13 months, really "fast")

3 publications, 9 abstracts, 8 presentations (3 oral, 1 outstanding research award)

NSERC CGS-M, Graduate Fellowship, and 4 TA positions, and a bunch of other scholarships

Varsity Athlete, 2005 Canada Games Champion, academic all-canadian (x4)
Hospital Volunteering, Officiating, and Coaching for various sports.
Club Executive and Committee member for a few things.

MCAT: 30 R (VR:9, BS: 10, PS:11)

Thanks a lot for any feedback and suggestions as to where I might have a shot of applying next year. I think one place that I can't apply to next year is UWO... This waitlist waiting is brutal.

Thanks in advance, and thanks for reading.

"There is no try, only do"

Cheers

I wish I could help you out, but this sounds like one tough decision. When do you have to decide by - if you can wait to decide until like mid-June, I think it would be best since the class will be practically finalized by then. But if you have to decide before June, I don't know, you may indeed still get an offer. That's a tough decision to be put in and I wish I could be more help, but ultimately you've got to figure out what will be best for you!! Good luck - hopefully you get in tomorrow so the decision will be made for you!

[thehalfie]

Well, just for the record, I was rejected last year post interview, and I scored above average on it. No wait list. Nothing. So I'm gonna preen up my mcats, haha.

[Waitlister99]

Originally Posted by thehalfie

Well, just for the record, I was rejected last year post interview, and I scored above average on it. No wait list. Nothing. So I'm gonna preen up my mcats, haha.

I don't understand that... what is the point of interviewing someone if they can get above average and still not get in? That doesn't make any sense to me... basically they have no chance of getting in yet you are still interviewing them?

[thehalfie]

Originally Posted by Waitlister99

I don't understand that... what is the point of interviewing someone if they can get above average and still not get in? That doesn't make any sense to me... basically they have no chance of getting in yet you are still interviewing them?

Well precisely. You can imagine my outrage. Heh. Oh well, I guess. Maybe I'll get in off te wait list this year. If I don't... Well... I don't know. I'm the only person I've heard of that that's happened to.

[lurkingone]

Originally Posted by Waitlister99

I don't understand that... what is the point of interviewing someone if they can get above average and still not get in? That doesn't make any sense to me... basically they have no chance of getting in yet you are still interviewing them?

Just because you are above average in your NAQ/AQ and have an interview doesn't mean you deserve a spot in medical school. If you are offered an interview, it means UBC is willing to take a closer look at you, it does not mean anything beyond that. Besides, interview performance is entirely subjective. I would take any med applicant's own evaluation of their interview performance with a grain of salt. No one can "grade" themselves on how they did on their interview. That's for the interviewer's to decide, and there are so many variables in the interview process that we can't know anything for sure.

The unfortunate -- but undeniable -- reality is that there are too many qualified applicants and too few medical school seats. I have friends that I personally know would make amazing doctors (and quite frankly, I think would be better physicians than me) who have either been wait-listed or rejected. Qualified and deserving applicants WILL be rejected for no other reason than the fact that there just weren't enough seats.

The only solace that interviewees can take after a rejection is that fact that they were offered an interview. I feel this means they shouldn't give up and should continue applying, because UBC obviously believed it was worth the time and effort to interview the individual.

[Waitlister99]

Originally Posted by lurkingone

Just because you are above average in your NAQ/AQ and have an interview doesn't mean you deserve a spot in medical school. If you are offered an interview, it means UBC is willing to take a closer look at you, it does not mean anything beyond that. Besides, interview performance is entirely subjective. I would take any med applicant's own evaluation of their interview performance with a grain of salt. No one can "grade" themselves on how they did on their interview. That's for the interviewer's to decide, and there are so many variables in the interview process that we can't know anything for sure.

The unfortunate -- but undeniable -- reality is that there are too many qualified applicants and too few medical school seats. I have friends that I personally know would make amazing doctors (and quite frankly, I think would be better physicians than me) who have either been wait-listed or rejected. Qualified and deserving applicants WILL be rejected for no other reason than the fact that there just weren't enough seats.

The only solace that interviewees can take after a rejection is that fact that they were offered an interview. I feel this means they shouldn't give up and should continue applying, because UBC obviously believed it was worth the time and effort to interview the individual.

I think you missed my point... I was referring to the fact that people are given above average interview scores and then rejected... that doesn't make sense to invite someone and have them excel at it (the interview), but still not able to get in because of other aspects that were too low. If they were never able to overcome these from the beginning, why bother inviting them? They talk about not wanting to create "false hope," but that sounds like false hope to me.

[UBCStudent128]

Originally Posted by Waitlister99

I think you missed my point... I was referring to the fact that people are given above average interview scores and then rejected... that doesn't make sense to invite someone and have them excel at it (the interview), but still not able to get in because of other aspects that were too low. If they were never able to overcome these from the beginning, why bother inviting them? They talk about not wanting to create "false hope," but that sounds like false hope to me.

Not really. Being above average interview doesn't really tell you a lot about where you stand. They never said you couldn't overcome low TFR. For all we know, those two people could have lacked in MCAT/LOR/or personal essays. Maybe those two people were barely over the average in interview? Or perhaps everyone in the entering class had an above average interview?
Maybe other people did even better than above average?
Unless adcoms tell you your exact score in the interview, you can't really say that they are giving false hope.

In a class with 60% average, being 61% and 100% is not the same although they are both "above average"

[SunnyD]

Originally Posted by Waitlister99

I think you missed my point... I was referring to the fact that people are given above average interview scores and then rejected... that doesn't make sense to invite someone and have them excel at it (the interview), but still not able to get in because of other aspects that were too low. If they were never able to overcome these from the beginning, why bother inviting them? They talk about not wanting to create "false hope," but that sounds like false hope to me.

I think there's probably other factors that can lead to the rejection.. Someone said in another thread that references may have played a role? If your interview is above average, and your AQ/NAQ scores are good enough to get an interview in the first place, it makes no sense to get rejected unless something else sabotaged your application. I suppose this is where red flags could come in too.

[Waitlister99]

Originally Posted by SunnyD

I think there's probably other factors that can lead to the rejection.. Someone said in another thread that references may have played a role? If your interview is above average, and your AQ/NAQ scores are good enough to get an interview in the first place, it makes no sense to get rejected unless something else sabotaged your application. I suppose this is where red flags could come in too.

Very true. It would really suck though if you got above average and didn't get in because you got flagged for some reason or a reference screwed you over!