Class of 2024 Admission Statistics

[ovch0peful]

Does anyone know approximately when statistics will be released from this past admission cycle? I'm trying to decide what changes to make if I plan to re-apply to OVC and the stats will be important for that. Thanks!

[Otter]

Hello!

It's unlikely they will be released anytime soon considering the delay in interviews and schedule-planning. Maybe check back in September

[Guest101010101]

Hi! It looks like they have posted the admission stats for the 2024 class - however the link is not working. But at least we know they will be posting it up soon

[gryphon123]

Admission stats are now up with a working link!

[WonderingGrades]

Does anyone know how to calculate your academic average? i.e. how do they turn letter grades and gpa into percentage? Is there a conversion chart somewhere, and is this based on each institution (if I'm from another university), or based on Guelph's grading scale?

[gryph25]

Hi!

I think this link www.uoguelph.ca/uaic/faq/grades/how-do-i-calculate-gpa-using-my-guelph-grades from the university might be helpful on converting your GPA!

[MooMoo]

Grades are posted

[2024Grades]

Kinda crazy how the lowest admitted this year was higher than the median admitted of 2 years ago

[guest79]

It's pretty clear grades alone are no longer a solid measure of applicants. Once you get into the high 80s and low 90s, its splitting hairs. Those are all intelligent, capable candidates for the program. It's a shame so many won't even have a chance

[Anon]

Well, honestly, unless there are extenuating circumstances in your life (and I mean this with the greatest respect possible), everyone intending to apply to OVC knew what the marks were to get in (or roughly) well in advance. Yes, an excellent interview with slightly lower marks will get you in, but good marks do demonstrate work ethic, dedication, and preparedness. As well, getting those marks while also getting sufficient experience ensures applicants have learned to develop good time-management or work-life balance in order to have gotten this far. All I'm trying to say is that good marks do stand for something and what they stand for is often more concrete than other determinants. Many perfectly good candidates are getting blocked out of every medical career due to the number of admission spots and to sustain earning potential later on. It's unfortunate but perhaps it would be better to point fingers at the governing agencies that currently let about half of new vets/doctors in from other countries, many of which are already Canadian or American citizens. Why are we forcing our own citizens to accumulate massive debts getting educated in Australia, UK or the Philippines when we could have just trained them here and had the same end result?

[Anon]

* the Caribbean, not Philippines

[guest79]

I definitely agree that "good marks" should be a major consideration for admission! But what do you consider a good average? This year there must have been many students with an average over 90, which is an A+, a 4.0, and by any standards an EXCELLENT average that demonstrates the work ethic, dedication, and preparedness you refer to, who were not admitted, even if they had a decent interview score. The inflation is out of control... just look at stats over the last 5 years. The people I know attending school overseas are all people who had averages >85 but could not break into the insane new standard, yet wanted to follow their dream career even if it means 200k in debt.

[currentvetstudent]

I agree with guest79. I also would like to add that marks do not indicate a person's communication or people skills (or empathy in general). The way the interviews are currently being conducted, they can be 'studied' for because of their structure, and they're worth so little it doesn't really matter if someone with high marks doesn't do great on them. Additionally, some students with 90s may not be coming by these marks honestly, and may be cheating by getting old tests, or actually hurting their work life balance working themselves to the bone. OVC does not look at the amount of experience someone has to determine whether they should get in (which I think is good in the end, because it doesn't hurt people who have difficult lives/situations and maybe can't spend x number of hours volunteering or working), but it definitely means people with 90s do not have good work life balances necessarily. I think it's great to look at marks to assess everything Anon said, but it is not the be all end all, and OVC needs to change their admission procedures with this mark inflation or we're going to get some seriously problematic people entering vet school with the brains, but not the empathy and people skills (and to be honest, that is already happening). Someone with an 85 may be just as, if not more deserving as someone with a 95. For any future applicants reading this forum, your marks do not define your worth to be a veterinarian, and never forget that, no matter what the statistics say. And to be clear, I'm not saying those with 90s are underserving or didn't work their butts off--but it doesn't mean they are going to make any better a vet than someone with less.

[Anon]

I do mostly agree, currentvetstudent, I was more just arguing against what I thought was the suggestion that marks don't matter at all. However, besides Casper and maybe counting hours, it's somewhat difficult to objectively evaluate these abilities. Not to mention that people who are hardcore academics may also be able to figure out what interviewers are looking for, even if they don't exactly have the perfect repertoire of personality traits. But work-life balance is a huge issue, I can speak from personal experience that I've missed out on many things just so I can keep my marks in the narrow range for vet school and that's not helpful either. Career burnout is already high enough. At least (or so I believe) people skills can be learned and improved over time. OVC only has a limited number of spots and marks at the very least ensure the applicant is going to get through. I think that is a good point though--that marks don't define how much a person deserves to be a vet. I know many people who are great at the practical and people side of this career and only just miss on the mark and I really respect the people with lower marks who refused to give up on their dreams and eventually scrape their way in (which really isn't fair). One thing for any medical field though, is that applicants need to play to the interviewers' demands, and as much as the current scenario may not be ideal, people need to work on making the requirements to get in now if they want to get in now.

[topazturtle]

Oct 13, 2020 12:37:06 GMT -5 guest79 said:

I definitely agree that "good marks" should be a major consideration for admission! But what do you consider a good average? This year there must have been many students with an average over 90, which is an A+, a 4.0, and by any standards an EXCELLENT average that demonstrates the work ethic, dedication, and preparedness you refer to, who were not admitted, even if they had a decent interview score. The inflation is out of control... just look at stats over the last 5 years. The people I know attending school overseas are all people who had averages >85 but could not break into the insane new standard, yet wanted to follow their dream career even if it means 200k in debt.

Not to be a devil's advocate, but how do you know those people with high averages who didn't get in for 2024 had a good interview score? CASPer and interview scores were not released. The reality is, if OVC can interview the most academically competitive students, and then select the ones who have the qualities and experience they're looking for (as per CASPer and the short interview), why wouldn't they? They must believe the MMI and CASPer do a good job assessing applicants' soft skills. They have the privilege of selecting the best students out of a sea of excellent applicants. 

What's fair is unfortunately not a factor here. If you have grades above the cut off and good soft skills, you have the advantage of competing against students who are also academically strong, but maybe lacking those skills. They get weeded out during the interview, making it slightly less competitive. If you don't have the grades to get an interview, you are SOL. IMO, grade inflation could be dealt with by requiring applicants to take the CASPer BEFORE applying. Then applicants without the right soft skills can be weeded out (no matter their grades), and students who DO have those skills AND high grades can go on to the interview.

[guest79]

If the lowest academic average interviewed was 88.5 and the lowest admitted was 90.5, that leaves a big chunk of students who interviewed but were not admitted (nearly half of all interviewed candidates!). Last year the lowest interviewed had a 87.96, while the lowest admitted had an 88.05. While the stats were not released for interviews, I think it's reasonable to assume that many of those people between 88.5-90.5 did reasonably well in the interview. Looking at the median interviewed and admitted for this year vs. last, my guess is that the interview was weighted lower than in previous years or used solely for flagging. Just speculating here.

But I do like the idea of writing CASPer before interviews are offered. I admit I would not want to be the one making these decisions. There is no perfect way to select candidates and it's even harder when they are all so similar in terms of academics, ECs, etc.