Happy long weekend everyone.
We often get questions regarding entries into the top 10. I’m re-posting this from last year because it’s the best guidance I can give to the applicant pool…BE YOURSELF!!!
One of the themes throughout my time blogging on this site has been BE YOURSELF. If I were applying today and I read the application manual (Section 4.11) the first sentence states : “Applicants are given the opportunity to identify up to 10 activities or experiences that they feel are sufficiently important as to define them as individuals.” I would then site down and ask myself the question “Who am I” What do I want the admissions committee to know about me? What am I proud of? What in my life that makes me feel good and has made me the person I am? Do my top 10s clearly pain of picture of me?
Too often, applicants craft their top 10s because of advice from people who believe they know what the file reviewers are “looking” for or their experience. They want to duplicate the path of success of others while truly not knowing what that path was.
In addition, applicants look at CanMeds or the 5 non-cognitive attributes and want to fill every bucket with an entry into the top 10 or “plan” their life to fill these buckets. I will give you some silly examples that most of you hopefully will relate to. The applicant sees in CanMeds roles and the attributes we score on leadership. The applicant scratches their heads and comes to the conclusion that they don’t have anything that is strong to enter….Oh wait…I was captain of my pee-wee hockey team. This gets entered into the top 10. They then try to write eloquently around this. If you were a reviewer, what would you think of this? Does this event which happened likely over a 10-20 years ago truly show leadership? The fact the applicant chose this…does it demonstrate insight? Maturity? Does this truly tell me anything about the applicant and who they are today? What else may have the applicant put in the top 10. This is an example, where not only would the entry likely lead to a low score in one of the attributes but leads to lower scores in other attributes which all stemmed from the desire to enter a score to fulfil a CanMeds role or an attribute we list.
We often hear rumbles from unsuccessful candidates, I checked all the boxes, “why were my scores so low”. “Chasing” the attributes, “checking the boxes”, “trying to demonstrate the CanMeds roles often leads to undesired consequences. It also leads to what we identify as token experiences in the trifecta-volunteer at a hospital, do some research, and belong to a club.. The example that I often site is “the one summer of research”. This does not make you a scholar. It checks a box but during that summer the applicant could have been exploring their passion for old cars. They had no previous knowledge of mechanics but self-taught themselves, worked full time to earn money to buy the parts and restored an old car to working condition. That entry shows maturity to follow a passion, passion for something outside academics, self-balance, and yes intellectual curiosity.
Finally, for those who are still not convinced and want me to talk about numbers. None of these candidates actually exist but you probably “recognize” them. Candidate A fills out their applications; they are passionate about their volunteer work, Examples litter her/his top 10 and because of this passion they have led and organized events or societies. It’s obvious what makes them hum and who they are. They have no research experience, have never published, etc… The candidate has scores ranging from 8-10 on four categories and even 0 in scholarly activity. Candidate B is an athlete. Has spent their entire life chasing this dream. Has overcome injury, struggled with mental health issues and overcome all of this to become the captain of a an elite sports team, Has never done research, only minimal volunteering mostly with their sports related activities. I know what makes this candidate hum and who they are. Scores range from 8-10 and then a few 3-4. Candidate C has escaped a war torn country, and immigrated to Canada, They have endured racism and have learned English as a second language. Because of financial difficulties within the family they have worked various part-time jobs since the age of 14. They have taken time to help other immigrant families. They have balanced this with a very respectful GPA. No research, no high profile leadership. I know this candidates life story, I know what they could sacrifice, and where they struggled. Scores range from 8-10 across multiple activities. Candidate D. This candidate has a stellar GPA and very good MCAT score (90 the percentile). In their top 10 they list numerous academic awards, the fact they played piano (grade 10), hasn’t played this since. decided to work one summer in a research lab after first year undergrad, volunteers 3-4 hours every other week at a local hospital, formed a club on campus in their last year of undergrad but this club doesn’t seem to have much activity that is visible , oh an btw the summer they took the MCAT there was a void ( the reviewers can’t ascertain what the candidate was doing). I have no idea who this candidate is. What makes them hum. But they sure tick every box, Guess what the scores may be here. Candidate D doesn’t get an interview and then wonders why..”I ticked all the boxes.” The process must be flawed or unfair.
For those who read this. BE PROUD IF WHO YOU ARE!!! BE YOURSELF!!! WE VALUE ALL TYPES OF EXPERIENCES!!!
