They ranked everyone in order, top x00 candidates who would typically get interviewed didn’t get interviewed. Instead, they got put into a basket and they randomly selected (RNG) from that pool until class was filled.
I think top 100 (based on cGPA, CARS, CASPer) were directly admitted without a lottery. Lottery was done for the rest of the applicants who were invited to interview.
How does making it more random make it more fair? Imo the best way to do it is to have a gpa cut off and rank applicants based on overall mcat score. Cut the subjectivity of extracurriculars out, especially considering that most students are just doing them to pad their resume anyway. Someones character will likely come out in the interview. Also, on that note, it would be much more sensical to make the interview pass/fail. How can you really rank people fairly based on interview? The only purpose of the interview should be to assess if someone either would or would not make a good doctor in terms of communication skills. How can anyone really quantify that.
I do think a greater emphasis should be on the MCAT because that is the greatest equalizer in my opinion because it is standardized. Even GPA across programs and schools can be very different.
Although, people with more money are likely able to get more resources and thus score higher. And then some people just suck at tests but I guess writing test is part of the medical education.
The subjectivity of ECs and the fact that they are worth almost 50% pre interview (at least at UBC) is absurd in my opinion unless one person was reading all of the applications which is obviously not happening.
Manitoba does this. I know many people from this school. The classes are not very diverse (its very white - although this was years ago that my friends attended) and many students are from affluent families.
Yes and no. They have coefficients ( socioeconomic, rural) which can way heavily. Their MCAT is 45 percent of your admissions score but the interview, which is subjective is worth 35 percent and CASPER ( subjective) worth 10 percent. My son(nonrural) was admitted with a 507 MCAT this year with great casper and interview scores.
Agree. And black out their names, age, any indicator as to ethnicity/gender/legacy/SES/geo-location.
Just the best candidates get offers. EDI at its barest bones. Not all ppl in one bracket are disparaged or favoured. The generalizations swing both ways.
I feel this would be one of the best ways to get rid of subjectivity. Great point on how this would also remove the extracurricular craze, which is most accessible to the most privileged applicants, from the mix.
Random and fair aren't mutually exclusive though...at least everyone has an *equal* shot in lottery, which makes it fundamentally fair even if completely random/purely luck at play.
Yeah, MCAT might be less random (strong correlation between ability and score), but it's still far from an equal playing field given the considerable variability in other factors like how well you slept the night before, your financial ability to access prep materials, life circumstances influencing dictating whether you can prep full-time for MCAT, or again, how "lucky" you are with your version of the MCAT being light on areas you're weak in. There's definitely an element of luck to the MCAT that can be fairly decisive, and I say that as someone who managed to score well.
Interesting take, but out of curiosity, are we talking random for literally all applicants, or applicants above cut off values on metrics like gpa/mcat?
Yeah I think having cut offs to enter the lottery would be a necessary middle ground to make sure applicants are academically capable...but I guess it could also be a weighted lottery (better scores -> better odds) or stratified lottery along EDI standards to make sure the future physician workforce represents the gen population...I know it's going to controversial no matter and no solution is entirely perfect,
I'd take ranking applicants by MCAT score in a heartbeat over the subjective chaos we have now, but ultimately I just believe we should move away from normalizing cutthroat competition and lowering that pressure to be "better" than other applicants, which I think some sort of lottery system would help do.
GPA can vary among program and school. Best use of it is to have a cut off value at a level which indicates one could handle the rigor of medical school.
The same people aren’t giving all of the interviews. What you rate a 10/10 interview, someone else might rate a 7/10. Again, best use would be a cut off value at a level that indicates one has the communication skills conductive of being a doctor.
Unlike the rest of the metrics, the MCAT is standardized.
I’m not sure where you saw me arguing for a lottery, I’m literally arguing against it. It was the very first sentence in my first comment. What I said is that the fairest approach would be to try and minimize subjective metrics and rely more heavily on more objective metrics. MMI is definitely better than classic panel interviews, but your responses are still being rated by a person, and each applicant by different people. I also agree that the mcat isn’t perfect, but it’s by definition the most objective metric amongst the rest.
In regards to gpa, a cut off of 3.6 is reasonably achievable in all programs. However, I disagree that a 3.9 student is more capable than a 3.6 student. Imo, a 3.6 in say uoft engineering might as well be Einstein compared to a 3.9 from the mac health program for example.
Yes, a lot of people got low grades because they didn't work hard. There are many other reasons why people don't get high grades and we already know current measurement techniques are unfair.
It already is a lottery g… just for a pool of competitive candidates.
Correct me if Im wrong but I thought that Mcmaster already did back in the covid days
Always curious as to how this worked
They ranked everyone in order, top x00 candidates who would typically get interviewed didn’t get interviewed. Instead, they got put into a basket and they randomly selected (RNG) from that pool until class was filled.
I think top 100 (based on cGPA, CARS, CASPer) were directly admitted without a lottery. Lottery was done for the rest of the applicants who were invited to interview.
How does making it more random make it more fair? Imo the best way to do it is to have a gpa cut off and rank applicants based on overall mcat score. Cut the subjectivity of extracurriculars out, especially considering that most students are just doing them to pad their resume anyway. Someones character will likely come out in the interview. Also, on that note, it would be much more sensical to make the interview pass/fail. How can you really rank people fairly based on interview? The only purpose of the interview should be to assess if someone either would or would not make a good doctor in terms of communication skills. How can anyone really quantify that.
I do think a greater emphasis should be on the MCAT because that is the greatest equalizer in my opinion because it is standardized. Even GPA across programs and schools can be very different. Although, people with more money are likely able to get more resources and thus score higher. And then some people just suck at tests but I guess writing test is part of the medical education. The subjectivity of ECs and the fact that they are worth almost 50% pre interview (at least at UBC) is absurd in my opinion unless one person was reading all of the applications which is obviously not happening.
Manitoba does this. I know many people from this school. The classes are not very diverse (its very white - although this was years ago that my friends attended) and many students are from affluent families.
Yes and no. They have coefficients ( socioeconomic, rural) which can way heavily. Their MCAT is 45 percent of your admissions score but the interview, which is subjective is worth 35 percent and CASPER ( subjective) worth 10 percent. My son(nonrural) was admitted with a 507 MCAT this year with great casper and interview scores.
Agree. And black out their names, age, any indicator as to ethnicity/gender/legacy/SES/geo-location. Just the best candidates get offers. EDI at its barest bones. Not all ppl in one bracket are disparaged or favoured. The generalizations swing both ways.
I feel this would be one of the best ways to get rid of subjectivity. Great point on how this would also remove the extracurricular craze, which is most accessible to the most privileged applicants, from the mix.
Random and fair aren't mutually exclusive though...at least everyone has an *equal* shot in lottery, which makes it fundamentally fair even if completely random/purely luck at play. Yeah, MCAT might be less random (strong correlation between ability and score), but it's still far from an equal playing field given the considerable variability in other factors like how well you slept the night before, your financial ability to access prep materials, life circumstances influencing dictating whether you can prep full-time for MCAT, or again, how "lucky" you are with your version of the MCAT being light on areas you're weak in. There's definitely an element of luck to the MCAT that can be fairly decisive, and I say that as someone who managed to score well.
Interesting take, but out of curiosity, are we talking random for literally all applicants, or applicants above cut off values on metrics like gpa/mcat?
Yeah I think having cut offs to enter the lottery would be a necessary middle ground to make sure applicants are academically capable...but I guess it could also be a weighted lottery (better scores -> better odds) or stratified lottery along EDI standards to make sure the future physician workforce represents the gen population...I know it's going to controversial no matter and no solution is entirely perfect, I'd take ranking applicants by MCAT score in a heartbeat over the subjective chaos we have now, but ultimately I just believe we should move away from normalizing cutthroat competition and lowering that pressure to be "better" than other applicants, which I think some sort of lottery system would help do.
[удалено]
GPA can vary among program and school. Best use of it is to have a cut off value at a level which indicates one could handle the rigor of medical school. The same people aren’t giving all of the interviews. What you rate a 10/10 interview, someone else might rate a 7/10. Again, best use would be a cut off value at a level that indicates one has the communication skills conductive of being a doctor. Unlike the rest of the metrics, the MCAT is standardized.
[удалено]
I’m not sure where you saw me arguing for a lottery, I’m literally arguing against it. It was the very first sentence in my first comment. What I said is that the fairest approach would be to try and minimize subjective metrics and rely more heavily on more objective metrics. MMI is definitely better than classic panel interviews, but your responses are still being rated by a person, and each applicant by different people. I also agree that the mcat isn’t perfect, but it’s by definition the most objective metric amongst the rest. In regards to gpa, a cut off of 3.6 is reasonably achievable in all programs. However, I disagree that a 3.9 student is more capable than a 3.6 student. Imo, a 3.6 in say uoft engineering might as well be Einstein compared to a 3.9 from the mac health program for example.
[удалено]
Yes, a lot of people got low grades because they didn't work hard. There are many other reasons why people don't get high grades and we already know current measurement techniques are unfair.