|
|
Post by lowenger on Feb 5, 2015 10:27:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Owlie on Feb 5, 2015 20:01:55 GMT -5
Hey vetwannabe! I know you posted back in december but figured you might see this for some encouragement. I had 87/87/24 when I applied, received an interview and received an 88 on the interview and got in (hence my name "owlie") So I think your chances of getting an interview are very good (given your references and experiences are ok). You will just need to do well on your interview. I highly recommend attending the Mock interviews held by the future vets club and practicing in advance.  Goodluck! |
|
|
|
Post by vetwannabe on Feb 6, 2015 15:11:04 GMT -5
Owlie! Thank you so much for giving me some hope! I really appreciate you reaching out. I've signed up for the mock interviews and my references/experience are solid. My fingers are crossed!
|
|
|
|
Post by guest5516 on Nov 27, 2015 21:24:24 GMT -5
What are the chances of receiving an interview with an 80.2 for the last two semesters and top 8 being 85?
|
|
|
|
Post by Worthless on Dec 3, 2015 15:33:37 GMT -5
Hi this is a question for the administrator: Does OVC even look at the BIF? In all seriousness, it is only used to DISqualify people if they have no experience, correct? Someone can get high marks and have essentially no experience but OVC just wants good grades right? Even if they've never handled an animal before? Does OVC have any plans to tackle the changing dynamic of admitted students, given that not all of them should actually be there?
Does experience ever help someone with a good but not stellar average? Because unless someone can prove otherwise, why would someone send their pet to a vet who attended an institution that chooses the future of the profession not on ability, compassion, work ethic, or integrity, but on numbers on a transcript featuring irrelevant courses? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by datass on Dec 3, 2015 16:43:59 GMT -5
Hi this is a question for the administrator: Does OVC even look at the BIF? In all seriousness, it is only used to DISqualify people if they have no experience, correct? Someone can get high marks and have essentially no experience but OVC just wants good grades right? Even if they've never handled an animal before? Does OVC have any plans to tackle the changing dynamic of admitted students, given that not all of them should actually be there? There were MULTIPLE posts on this forum last year of students with 85/89%+ averages being surprised that they did not get an interview. Obviously people ARE being disqualified for whatever reason. Does experience ever help someone with a good but not stellar average? Because unless someone can prove otherwise, why would someone send their pet to a vet who attended an institution that chooses the future of the profession not on ability, compassion, work ethic, or integrity, but on numbers on a transcript featuring irrelevant courses? Just wondering. Having said that, you don't have access to applicant data. Why are you just assuming that people with a high average don't have the experience? I've never seen or talked to a pre-vet who wasn't "into" veterinary medicine. I imagine there are very few 'random' applicants, who are just applying to random programs, that apply for a DVM. That typically happens for professional programs where the $ is at - like dentistry. Veterinary medicine is not exactly a honey pot. And if you have the grades for OVC, you pretty much have the grades for Pharm/Dent/Med/etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Worthless on Dec 6, 2015 0:10:29 GMT -5
In response to 'datass' (?): Just because some people with high averages didn't get in, it does not indicate that people who shouldn't get in are not. Similarly, just as some people who SHOULD get in do, some who should do not.
I don't have access to applicant data but I have access a.k.a. information regarding many, many people who are actually in, or have already attended, OVC. And how do you propose 'random' applicant numbers will decrease, given that the MCAT was spontaneously removed?
Finally, I spoke to a girl in her fourth year at OVC. She got in with a 79% and 81% average. A person applying with those grades today - a mere 4 years later - wouldn't even stand a chance at getting an interview. Does nobody see the problem with that? Are you telling me that had I been born 4 years earlier, I would be more qualified to be a vet than I am now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest255 on Dec 6, 2015 10:21:08 GMT -5
I am not sure how you would weigh an applicant's clinical/animal experience with respect to other applicants in a fair and objective manner. Some clinics allow more hands-on activity than others depending on their protocols and whether you are a volunteer or an employee. Some people get their experience in laboratories, some with mobile vets, some in small animal clinics, etc, etc... How would the committee compare applicants when their experiences differ so vastly?
It seems like they way they use the BIF and references right now is to determine if you have taken initiative to spend some time in the field and see what is involved so you can make an informed decision about seriously pursuing vet medicine. Your references will let them know if people already in the field see you as someone who would succeed in it. They also want to see that you can handle getting experience/working/doing extracurricular activities on top of remaining academically competitive because the DVM is a very challenging program. I have a hard time believing that someone with minimal/no animal experience would be admitted just because they have a high average, unless there is some falsification of their experience/references.
The averages have been increasing each year but I think that is partly due to more and more people using strategic planning of their semesters (i.e. taking easy courses at particular times) to boost their average where it counts. I highly doubt that averages are going up because the OVC is becoming lax in their screening of applicants for experience and references. It's hard to say how the upcoming cohort will turn out with the removal of the MCAT - it's easy to speculate but we won't know until numbers are released next year. Based on that, my strategy has been to devote all of my time outside of volunteering/working to my courses to give me the best chance of getting a high average. It's obviously not easy, and not everyone can do that, but I look at it as a short period of my life where I work ridiculously hard that will hopefully give a big return on investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by datass on Dec 7, 2015 1:16:16 GMT -5
In response to 'datass' (?): Just because some people with high averages didn't get in, it does not indicate that people who shouldn't get in are not. Similarly, just as some people who SHOULD get in do, some who should do not. This logic applies to every single admission process, to any possible application scenario that has or will ever exist. Whether it be a professional school application or a job application to a crappy burger flipping position - this argument will apply. It will also apply to whatever 'better' magical criteria that you come up with. I don't have access to applicant data but I have access a.k.a. information regarding many, many people who are actually in, or have already attended, OVC. A couple of anecdotal examples where Johnny is going to OVC and mentioned that he got in with only 100 vet hours does not mean that the vast majority of the other applicants also "essentially have no experience". The admissions committee are not stupid. They have been doing this for years. Sure, with the current system you will get a couple of admissions with high averages but have a comparatively small # of experience hours. For whatever reason you deem these people as being "not worthy". BUT, even if the admissions committee changed their criteria and suddenly allowed people with lower-grades-but-high-experience into OVC, you would be much more likely to get people who might struggle academically in this rigorous program. Why do you think these people are more worthy? Just because I have 3000 vet & clinical hours on my BIF, that doesn't guarantee I have " ability, compassion, work ethic, or integrity". Just because Johnny over there only has 100 hours, doesn't mean he lacks " ability, compassion, work ethic, or integrity". And how do you propose 'random' applicant numbers will decrease, given that the MCAT was spontaneously removed? Nothing in my post even vaguely suggests these numbers will decrease, way to pull it out of your ass. It is logical that these numbers will go up. Applicants. Not admissions. Finally, I spoke to a girl in her fourth year at OVC. She got in with a 79% and 81% average. A person applying with those grades today - a mere 4 years later - wouldn't even stand a chance at getting an interview. Does nobody see the problem with that? Are you telling me that had I been born 4 years earlier, I would be more qualified to be a vet than I am now?Grade inflation happened. They are consistently getting A LOT more people with higher grades. Your solution is to disregard good academics, and stick to a lower threshold. Brilliant. The average acceptance grades went up, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE PEOPLE DO NOT ALSO HAVE THE NECESSARY EXPERIENCE. The most logical and rational situation is that the grades went up, the experience stayed the same. I am telling you that the person next to you, who has higher grades AND experience is more qualified to be a vet student. Newsflash: Just because your parents, your supervisors, your workmates, your vets, etc are telling you "oh my god you definitely deserve to be a vet! you are so awesome, you didn't deserve to be rejected!". Doesn't mean that's the case. Of course this may be true, but every single serious applicant hears that nuts from their mentors/etc. Admission is limited. Application is competitive. Not everyone can get it, the decision has to be made somehow. Get your nuts together and do some non-degree semesters and raise your grades. That is what I am doing. That is what many other people are doing. The removal of the MCAT seriously put a big dent in my application because I did really well on it while my grades were alright but nothing stellar. Sure I love pregnant doging about this, but it is what it is and now I just need to work harder in other aspects. The admissions committee are not stupid. They have been doing this for years. More importantly, they can see see how all the current and recent vet students are doing. Based on this, I am certain that throughout the years they have changed and altered the necessary amount of experience needed on the BIF. Just because you think you are entitled to get in, that does not mean it's the case. It's not supposed to be easy to get in. |
|
|
|
Post by Getkraken on Dec 7, 2015 17:01:10 GMT -5
To "worthless":
As a current phase one student. I can tell you that every single person in my class deserves to be here. No one got in by accident. None of them randomly decided they wanted to be a vet on a whim. No one took someone else's spot. OVC determined that it was THEIR spot because they were the most qualified for it.
As for the animal experience issue. From my understanding the requirement for experience so that you can see the good, bad and ugly side of this profession and still want to be apart of it. Having more animal/veterinary during your undergrad isn't going to make you a better veterinarian. When your a pre-vet, you don't even know what to do with that information. Sure you may know more pathologies and facts etc. when you get here, BUT you will also learn all of that stuff when your here. That's kind of the point of vet school. Second, If you have enough experience to get 2-3 letters of references from veterinarians you probably have enough hands on experience.
Having a lot of experience hours may tell the admissions committee that you have a passion for veterinary medicine, but it doesn't tell them if you will be able to handle the program. Thats what grades and the interview are for. How are you supposed to handle the course load in vet school if you can't do that in undergrad.
I'm really sorry if your upset about the admissions averages going up, but so are the admissions numbers. You don't know the 100 people who got into the program this year. You can't make assumptions that they don't have enough animal experience.
Your previous posts are incredibly ignorant, and insulting. The admissions committee spends countless hours going over your application and interview to figure out if you belong in the program. OVC selects students who can successfully complete the program. Given their world ranking and the quality of veterinarians they produce I'd say it's working. Are there more then 100 qualified people who apply each year? Absolutely. Is there more then 100 spots per year? No (well yes but those are for grad students and international). It sucks, but welcome to the reality of applying to a world renowned program.
|
|
|
|
Post by 123445 on Dec 7, 2015 17:22:45 GMT -5
I worked with a girl who had next to ZERO animal experience -she was the receptionist at a vet clinic. She had stellar marks from UofT and was accepted to OVC
|
|
|
|
Post by Churny on Dec 7, 2015 17:24:53 GMT -5
There are so many spelling mistakes in this... To "worthless": As a current phase one student. I can tell you that every single person in my class deserves to be here. No one got in by accident. None of them randomly decided they wanted to be a vet on a whim. No one took someone else's spot. OVC determined that it was THEIR spot because they were the most qualified for it. As for the animal experience issue. From my understanding the requirement for experience so that you can see the good, bad and ugly side of this profession and still want to be apart of it. Having more animal/veterinary during your undergrad isn't going to make you a better veterinarian. When your a pre-vet, you don't even know what to do with that information. Sure you may know more pathologies and facts etc. when you get here, BUT you will also learn all of that stuff when your here. That's kind of the point of vet school. Second, If you have enough experience to get 2-3 letters of references from veterinarians you probably have enough hands on experience. Having a lot of experience hours may tell the admissions committee that you have a passion for veterinary medicine, but it doesn't tell them if you will be able to handle the program. Thats what grades and the interview are for. How are you supposed to handle the course load in vet school if you can't do that in undergrad. I'm really sorry if your upset about the admissions averages going up, but so are the admissions numbers. You don't know the 100 people who got into the program this year. You can't make assumptions that they don't have enough animal experience. Your previous posts are incredibly ignorant, and insulting. The admissions committee spends countless hours going over your application and interview to figure out if you belong in the program. OVC selects students who can successfully complete the program. Given their world ranking and the quality of veterinarians they produce I'd say it's working. Are there more then 100 qualified people who apply each year? Absolutely. Is there more then 100 spots per year? No (well yes but those are for grad students and international). It sucks, but welcome to the reality of applying to a world renowned program. |
|
|
|
Post by 56575 on Dec 7, 2015 17:58:36 GMT -5
Can't we all just get along?
|
|
WHAT DID U SAY TO ME
Guest
|
Post by WHAT DID U SAY TO ME on Dec 7, 2015 18:49:45 GMT -5
Can't we all just get along? Them's fighting words. |
|
|
|
Post by Churny on Dec 7, 2015 19:59:17 GMT -5
I think it's ironic that a vet student is defending their position in school - and rightly so - yet doesn't know the differences between 'your you're then than...' It sucks, if you're a doctor at a world renowned school, I expect you to know how to spell.
No hate though.
|
|
|
|
Post by 56575 on Dec 7, 2015 22:05:51 GMT -5
Can't we all just get along? Them's fighting words. LoL!! oh u better believe it haha |
|
|
|
Post by 56575 on Dec 7, 2015 22:10:13 GMT -5
I think it's ironic that a vet student is defending their position in school - and rightly so - yet doesn't know the differences between 'your you're then than...' It sucks, if you're a doctor at a world renowned school, I expect you to know how to spell. No hate though. in their defence, if you were to bring your sick animal to the vet, would you really care how well they used proper grammar, or if they knew what they were doing?!? |
|
|
|
Post by ... on Dec 7, 2015 22:25:09 GMT -5
Somehow I think the admissions committee takes into consideration grades, experience, and PERSONALITY/social skills of each applicant. Perhaps we should be worrying about our own applications instead of judging the 120 strangers who were successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellarke on Dec 8, 2015 11:45:35 GMT -5
For those judging the students that were accepted to the class of 2019, shame on you. Each and every one of us deserves to be here. We have students from several countries and all walks of life, many of us have faced extreme personal struggles on our journey here. We have all worked extremely hard in our academics and extra-curriculars. But, that does not mean that the applicants that were unsuccessful did not work just as hard. Unfortunately, marks are currently the primary determinant of who gets accepted and who doesn't. If someone struggles to achieve an 80% average in their undergrad under normal circumstances, they are really going to struggle with the DVM curriculum. I did my undergrad at Guelph (Animal Biology) and got accepted in third year. The amount of material is a huge step up and my marks have definitely dropped.
Admissions are clearly outlined on the website. Based on info from last year, they look at marks and take the top 200 students, THEN they look at the BIFs and references and exclude those with inadequate experience or bad references. So if your marks don't get you in and around the top 200 your BIF will likely never get looked at.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest255 on Dec 8, 2015 19:33:01 GMT -5
The passive-aggressive comments toward current OVC students is really unwarranted. If you weren't admitted, your frustration and disappointment should be directed toward reflecting on how you can improve your application and actually working towards that, not at trying to diminish the work of people who were successful. It is spiteful and honestly reflects really poorly on you.
|
|
