2020-2021 Central Florida

[REL]

Quality over quantity. If you have said everything you need to say and are happy with it, it shouldn't matter!

AMEN to this!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted1061754]

anyone's app labeled complete?

Not yet, was gonna ask same thing.

 

[KnightDoc]

Does UCF send secondaries to all applicants?

All who meet minimum requirements per www.med.ucf.edu/admissions

To build off of this, what if GPAs are under 3.0 but you have the last two years of your bachelors (60ish credit hours) at a 3.8? Im a Florida resident and live relatively close to the school.

That changes the equation in your favor and a competitive MCAT score around the average of the entering class would increase your candidacy. While metrics do get noticed, what will help to get the interview is a demonstrated consistency of medical motivation (vol,shad) and humanism (comm vol) as well as a goodly level of teamwork ethic.

@REL -- My follow up question, based on your responses above, is whether you would ever get to the point of changing the equation? In this case, would a candidate be screened out and not even receive the secondary since the GPA does not meet the minimum requirement, notwithstanding the strong upward trend? In other words, is there any flexibility in determining whether minimum requirements are met when deciding whether or not to send a secondary? You seem to imply "yes," but that contradicts your earlier post.

 

[REL]

@REL -- My follow up question, based on your responses above, is whether you would ever get to the point of changing the equation? In this case, would a candidate be screened out and not even receive the secondary since the GPA does not meet the minimum requirement, notwithstanding the strong upward trend? In other words, is there any flexibility in determining whether minimum requirements are met when deciding whether or not to send a secondary? You seem to imply "yes," but that contradicts your earlier post.

There are instances where a very weak academic start can result in a GPA of less than 3.00 that have achieved an interview. In these few instances the student was not ready for college or had other factors (family, relationship, etc) that caused them to have a very poor academic start or tank completely. Often they took a break, got their situation resolved and finished college with a consistency of very high outcomes but still finished less than a 3.0. We do look at trends and a very strong positive trend over the final 2-3 years may still end just short of 3.0. Couple this with a competitive MCAT score and all of the other motivations that we desire and it is possible to be included in the pool and obtain an interview. This not common, but is possible.

A fairly common scenario is a weaker 1-2 years followed by a stronger academic effort ending with a lower-mid 3+ gpa. Some get interviews, some need that strong effort in a 1 yr MS in a core-science discipline to convince MD programs of the continued trend.

In both cases it is important to remember that the GPA and the MCAT are not compared on a sliding scale where a weak GPA can be "covered" by a strong MCAT, or vice-vesa. These two admissions factors are not proxies for one-another. Finally the total application showing a strong motivation for medicine and humanism, socio-economics, backgrounds/opportunities, are separate and significant factors to obtain an interview. Note while it is possible to obtain an interview with a less than 3.0, it is very rare that someone is successful. Those in this situation are motivated and would make inquiries and show interest in the program.

 

[KnightDoc]

There are instances where a very weak academic start can result in a GPA of less than 3.00 that have achieved an interview. In these few instances the student was not ready for college or had other factors (family, relationship, etc) that caused them to have a very poor academic start or tank completely. Often they took a break, got their situation resolved and finished college with a consistency of very high outcomes but still finished less than a 3.0. We do look at trends and a very strong positive trend over the final 2-3 years may still end just short of 3.0. Couple this with a competitive MCAT score and all of the other motivations that we desire and it is possible to be included in the pool and obtain an interview. This not common, but is possible.

A fairly common scenario is a weaker 1-2 years followed by a stronger academic effort ending with a lower-mid 3+ gpa. Some get interviews, some need that strong effort in a 1 yr MS in a core-science discipline to convince MD programs of the continued trend.

In both cases it is important to remember that the GPA and the MCAT are not compared on a sliding scale where a weak GPA can be "covered" by a strong MCAT, or vice-vesa. These two admissions factors are not proxies for one-another. Finally the total application showing a strong motivation for medicine and humanism, socio-economics, backgrounds/opportunities, are separate and significant factors to obtain an interview. Note while it is possible to obtain an interview with a less than 3.0, it is very rare that someone is successful. Those in this situation are motivated and would make inquiries and show interest in the program.

Thanks! This response is very understandable, understanding, and consistent with what most other schools do. My question, and the original question, is more specific and more technical.

Before anyone gets the chance to maybe receive an II, they have to be marked complete, and that involves submitting a secondary. In response to a question regarding whether or not UCF sends secondaries to everyone, you replied that secondaries go to everyone who meets the minimum requirements. One of those requirements is a 3.0 cGPA and sGPA.

So, the question is, how is it possible for someone to receive an II with a GPA less than 3.0 if that person will not receive a secondary? Is the secondary screen manual or automatic, and are there in fact exceptions, such as in the case of the person with the strong upward trend? Thanks!!!

 

[Calizboosted76]

Thanks! This response is very understandable, understanding, and consistent with what most other schools do. My question, and the original question, is more specific and more technical.

Before anyone gets the chance to maybe receive an II, they have to be marked complete, and that involves submitting a secondary. In response to a question regarding whether or not UCF sends secondaries to everyone, you replied that secondaries go to everyone who meets the minimum requirements. One of those requirements is a 3.0 cGPA and sGPA.

So, the question is, how is it possible for someone to receive an II with a GPA less than 3.0 if that person will not receive a secondary? Is the secondary screen manual or automatic, and are there in fact exceptions, such as in the case of the person with the strong upward trend? Thanks!!!

I was curious about this as well but in another portion of the website it said that one should (not that an applicant would be screened) have a 3.0 to be considered. Hearing from someone from that school reassures me to apply to UCF.

Also, just because an applicant isn’t considered competitive doesn’t mean they can’t get an interview. That’s my take on it at least.

 

[REL]

Thanks! This response is very understandable, understanding, and consistent with what most other schools do. My question, and the original question, is more specific and more technical.

Before anyone gets the chance to maybe receive an II, they have to be marked complete, and that involves submitting a secondary. In response to a question regarding whether or not UCF sends secondaries to everyone, you replied that secondaries go to everyone who meets the minimum requirements. One of those requirements is a 3.0 cGPA and sGPA.

So, the question is, how is it possible for someone to receive an II with a GPA less than 3.0 if that person will not receive a secondary? Is the secondary screen manual or automatic, and are there in fact exceptions, such as in the case of the person with the strong upward trend? Thanks!!!

It is a manual screen, that is why secondaries are not automatically send until they are reviewed. Some are that are interested in the program and have scenarios similar to what I described above do contact us for a discussion on their chances. More often than not the 1-year MS core-science degree is the best answer in most cases.

 

[doctorAZindahouse]

Hi, I was wondering if UCF still requires 5 letters of recommendation (3 faculty, 2 character) for traditional applicants this cycle? The website doesn't give much info on this, it just says a minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 @REL

 

[Hulk_MD]

Looks like UCF will require VITA

 

[KnightDoc]

Looks like UCF will require VITA

Hi @REL! As my absolute favorite admissions administrator, due to your transparency, honesty and willingness to participate on SDN, would you be willing to share the rationale behind UCF's decision to participate in this? Do candidates have an ability to opt out?

Full disclosure, I happen to think this whole exercise is pure evil, but I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise. Thanks in advance!!!

Wow!! A wide cross-section across all tiers and geographies. Interesting that some UCs are in while others are out. Same for NYU-LI in and regular NYU out. UCSF-Berkeley Joint Program in, regular UCSF out. Sure looks to me like an experiment to gather data across all types of schools and students, but, as nothing more than an ignorant pre-med, what do I know?

All I know is I sure do resent being forced to contribute to this study, with no compensation other than being permitted to submit an application and not being charged extra for the privilege. I think it's outrageous that we don't have an ability to opt out while they are being less than forthcoming regarding how this is really going to be used.

If it were truly simply the case that:

"Each medical school will determine how it will incorporate the AAMC VITA interview into its application review process. If you have questions about how a participating medical school is using the AAMC VITA interview, please contact the participating medical school directly."

we would not need to sign:

"The Interviewee Agreement is a legally binding contract between you and the AAMC. It sets forth the terms and conditions under which the AAMC will permit you to access and complete the AAMC VITA interview."

that states:

"I further agree and give permission for the medical schools that select to view my VITA interview to release my relevant school records to the AAMC and any third-party service providers under contract to the AAMC to conduct research on the relationships between interviews, admissions decisions, and medical school performance. My medical school records released to the AAMC may include admission decisions, grades, ratings from courses and clerkships, performance on USMLE exams, professionalism, and graduation." [WTF??????? -- this goes WAAAYYYYYY beyond another data point to maybe be used in an application!!!!!! I'm actually thinking about not applying to some schools I have been planning on applying to for the past year just to avoid participating in this. I'm not sure if I'm really going to do that, but I am definitely thinking about it and am going to think long and hard about how badly my cycle would be impacted by replacing a few of these schools, since I can't apply to every school anyway.]

in order to participate in a simple exercise that AAMC cannot answer questions about!

VERY INTRUSIVE, and, in the end, highly unlikely to benefit candidates.

 

[REL]

Hi @REL! As my absolute favorite admissions administrator, due to your transparency, honesty and willingness to participate on SDN, would you be willing to share the rationale behind UCF's decision to participate in this? Do candidates have an ability to opt out?

Full, disclosure, I happen to this this whole exercise is pure evil, but I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise. Thanks in advance!!!

Before I provide a response I need to do some checking. I know that some of this information is provided to AAMC by various offices during your medical school journey (admissions decisions of course). I know that some of those things are mentioned in the MSPE that goes to residencies.

REL

 

[KnightDoc]

Before I provide a response I need to do some checking. I know that some of this information is provided to AAMC by various offices during your medical school journey (admissions decisions of course). I know that some of those things are mentioned in the MSPE that goes to residencies.

REL

Many thanks!! My real question is why any school would want to waste its time looking at six three minute one-way videos of candidates responding to generic questions as part of the II process. I have therefore convinced myself that a cross-section of schools have been roped into this by AAMC in order to gather data for the vendor, HireVue, which markets an artificial intelligence algorithm to employers that is supposedly highly predictive of who will be successful in the workplace.

If I am correct, the endgame here would be for HireVue to sell this to you for you to use in deciding who receives IIs. Not this year, but in the future, after they have provided proof of concept. I only say this because AAMC has stated that these videos will not be scored or otherwise evaluated by AAMC. I am taking it on faith that you are not already purchasing scoring services directly from HireVue. Please correct me if I am wrong and you are at liberty to say.

My problem, besides being creeped out by the idea that all of my hard work over an extended period of years will ultimately come down to how a computer scores my body language, facial expressions and responses to a bunch of stupid questions, is that I am offended by the notion that I am forced to participate in the proof of concept study as a term and condition of being allowed to apply for admission to your school, without compensation and apparently without an ability to opt out. If true, it's not really what I've come to expect from UCF over the past year, based merely on your openness and transparency, as well as the general vibe given off by the school.

Providing data to AAMC, a non-profit association of medical schools, for its use in publishing various studies and analyses is one thing. Providing academic data to whoever is gathering it to make residency decisions is, of course, totally legitimate. But being FORCED to provide ALL of MY personal data, from admission, grades, ratings from courses and clerkships, performance on USMLE exams, professionalism, and graduation, to a third party for its use in selling a product back to you actually appears to be unethical. Apple and Google provide opt-outs for users who do not want their personal data monetized without compensation or their consent. Why does AAMC and its associated schools not do the same???????

 

[Med16484]

Has anyone been marked complete? I submitted last week and still not complete

 

[REL]

Has anyone been marked complete? I submitted last week and still not complete

Many thanks!! My real question is why any school would want to waste its time looking at six three minute one-way videos of candidates responding to generic questions as part of the II process. I have therefore convinced myself that a cross-section of schools have been roped into this by AAMC in order to gather data for the vendor, HireVue, which markets an artificial intelligence algorithm to employers that is supposedly highly predictive of who will be successful in the workplace.

If I am correct, the endgame here would be for HireVue to sell this to you for you to use in deciding who receives IIs. Not this year, but in the future, after they have provided proof of concept. I only say this because AAMC has stated that these videos will not be scored or otherwise evaluated by AAMC. I am taking it on faith that you are not already purchasing scoring services directly from HireVue. Please correct me if I am wrong and you are at liberty to say.

My problem, besides being creeped out by the idea that all of my hard work over an extended period of years will ultimately come down to how a computer scores my body language, facial expressions and responses to a bunch of stupid questions, is that I am offended by the notion that I am forced to participate in the proof of concept study as a term and condition of being allowed to apply for admission to your school, without compensation and apparently without an ability to opt out. If true, it's not really what I've come to expect from UCF over the past year, based merely on your openness and transparency, as well as the general vibe given off by the school.

Providing data to AAMC, a non-profit association of medical schools, for its use in publishing various studies and analyses is one thing. Providing academic data to whoever is gathering it to make residency decisions is, of course, totally legitimate. But being FORCED to provide ALL of MY personal data, from admission, grades, ratings from courses and clerkships, performance on USMLE exams, professionalism, and graduation, to a third party for its use in selling a product back to you actually appears to be unethical. Apple and Google provide opt-outs for users who do not want their personal data monetized without compensation or their consent. Why does AAMC and its associated schools not do the same???????

Many thanks!! My real question is why any school would want to waste its time looking at six three minute one-way videos of candidates responding to generic questions as part of the II process. I have therefore convinced myself that a cross-section of schools have been roped into this by AAMC in order to gather data for the vendor, HireVue, which markets an artificial intelligence algorithm to employers that is supposedly highly predictive of who will be successful in the workplace.

If I am correct, the endgame here would be for HireVue to sell this to you for you to use in deciding who receives IIs. Not this year, but in the future, after they have provided proof of concept. I only say this because AAMC has stated that these videos will not be scored or otherwise evaluated by AAMC. I am taking it on faith that you are not already purchasing scoring services directly from HireVue. Please correct me if I am wrong and you are at liberty to say.

My problem, besides being creeped out by the idea that all of my hard work over an extended period of years will ultimately come down to how a computer scores my body language, facial expressions and responses to a bunch of stupid questions, is that I am offended by the notion that I am forced to participate in the proof of concept study as a term and condition of being allowed to apply for admission to your school, without compensation and apparently without an ability to opt out. If true, it's not really what I've come to expect from UCF over the past year, based merely on your openness and transparency, as well as the general vibe given off by the school.

Providing data to AAMC, a non-profit association of medical schools, for its use in publishing various studies and analyses is one thing. Providing academic data to whoever is gathering it to make residency decisions is, of course, totally legitimate. But being FORCED to provide ALL of MY personal data, from admission, grades, ratings from courses and clerkships, performance on USMLE exams, professionalism, and graduation, to a third party for its use in selling a product back to you actually appears to be unethical. Apple and Google provide opt-outs for users who do not want their personal data monetized without compensation or their consent. Why does AAMC and its associated schools not do the same???????

So while I am checking out the details of the terms and conditions per my last response, I do think that you are going a bit over the top with some of your theories and thoughts. Applicants, medical schools, and our nation are under extreme conditions of change right now.

From the individual medical school perspective we are forced to change the entire process of admissions. In addition schools are changing the way of teaching and interacting within the classroom, medical curriculum delivery, and simple physician/patient interactions. All of these changes have been created, adopted, and implemented in six months. I think we all know that med school admissions will likely be totally virtual where little was virtual six months ago.

How many med schools performed totally virtual interviews last year? For that matter how many interviews throughout the medical school/residency process included virtual interviews? A very limited number. Ergo every MD program is making a rapid transition and some of us will do it better than others this year. We have no real experience in "total virtual" and there will be bumps in the road. We would all greatly prefer having groups of applicants come on an interview day to "experience" the school, our students, and our support. Applicants have to pay for travel etc., but they too prefer to put "eyes on target" and get a true vibe from the institution. We are all denied that. I think the overall change in the process will be good, but we wont get there instantly -- applicants and med schools are all forced to adapt to a new way. I feel that there are many positives for applicants, med schools, interviewers, etc. to much of this change. Do we expect that all we planned for this year will work - yes! Will it -- probably not, there will be unexpected challenges to overcome for all of us no matter how much we plan. Will virtual interviews continue into the future? I think so. We will also overcome the way to "transmit" the programs true "vibe" as well. But understand that med programs, applicants, advisors, heck the entire industry is in flux right now. We dont know what will work and what will need an adjustment. We are trying new things to see if they "fit" the process.

I know that the Emergency Medicine Residency process included virtual interview over the last three years. The AAMC and the EM Residencies collaborated to create a short interview for EM residency directors to use to screen large applicant pools down to more manageable numbers. I do not believe that it includes AI (am I wrong?) but it is a simple Q/A set of standard questions for all EM residency applicants. The AAMC adjusted that process and offered it to MD programs as an assist to the interview process this year as a test - at no charge. Each program had a chance to opt in or out. Many opted in to have one more data point. I cannot say what the intent is for other programs and how much they will rely on the VITA. Each program will determine how to use it and how or score it, if at all. The AAMC does not score it, and the vendor does not score it. Since it is not proven, I would imagine that most intend to use it in a tertiary way and to learn whether it has a future in their process. In short, I dont see VITA as being a major factor in med school decision-making until there is some comfort and outcome data available. There are many things that MUST work at each medical school in this year of industrial change and I dont see VITA as being in that must work category. I feel that it is more in the test phase where we would come back to see what decisions would be different if we used VITA as a more prominent tool. Yes you are a guinea pig in this but so are the med programs. In this application season I think we are all guinea pigs to some degree.

 

[KnightDoc]

So while I am checking out the details of the terms and conditions per my last response, I do think that you are going a bit over the top with some of your theories and thoughts. Applicants, medical schools, and our nation are under extreme conditions of change right now.

From the individual medical school perspective we are forced to change the entire process of admissions. In addition schools are changing the way of teaching and interacting within the classroom, medical curriculum delivery, and simple physician/patient interactions. All of these changes have been created, adopted, and implemented in six months. I think we all know that med school admissions will likely be totally virtual where little was virtual six months ago.

How many med schools performed totally virtual interviews last year? For that matter how many interviews throughout the medical school/residency process included virtual interviews? A very limited number. Ergo every MD program is making a rapid transition and some of us will do it better than others this year. We have no real experience in "total virtual" and there will be bumps in the road. We would all greatly prefer having groups of applicants come on an interview day to "experience" the school, our students, and our support. Applicants have to pay for travel etc., but they too prefer to put "eyes on target" and get a true vibe from the institution. We are all denied that. I think the overall change in the process will be good, but we wont get there instantly -- applicants and med schools are all forced to adapt to a new way. I feel that there are many positives for applicants, med schools, interviewers, etc. to much of this change. Do we expect that all we planned for this year will work - yes! Will it -- probably not, there will be unexpected challenges to overcome for all of us no matter how much we plan. Will virtual interviews continue into the future? I think so. We will also overcome the way to "transmit" the programs true "vibe" as well. But understand that med programs, applicants, advisors, heck the entire industry is in flux right now. We dont know what will work and what will need an adjustment. We are trying new things to see if they "fit" the process.

I know that the Emergency Medicine Residency process included virtual interview over the last three years. The AAMC and the EM Residencies collaborated to create a short interview for EM residency directors to use to screen large applicant pools down to more manageable numbers. I do not believe that it includes AI (am I wrong?) but it is a simple Q/A set of standard questions for all EM residency applicants. The AAMC adjusted that process and offered it to MD programs as an assist to the interview process this year as a test - at no charge. Each program had a chance to opt in or out. Many opted in to have one more data point. I cannot say what the intent is for other programs and how much they will rely on the VITA. Each program will determine how to use it and how or score it, if at all. The AAMC does not score it, and the vendor does not score it. Since it is not proven, I would imagine that most intend to use it in a tertiary way and to learn whether it has a future in their process. In short, I dont see VITA as being a major factor in med school decision-making until there is some comfort and outcome data available. There are many things that MUST work at each medical school in this year of industrial change and I dont see VITA as being in that must work category. I feel that it is more in the test phase where we would come back to see what decisions would be different if we used VITA as a more prominent tool. Yes you are a guinea pig in this but so are the med programs. In this application season I think we are all guinea pigs to some degree.

Thank you very much for the comforting words. As always, yours is a voice of reason and transparency. Hopefully, my reaction will turn out to be over the top.

I totally get what you are saying regarding virtual versus in-person, both pro and con. However, my father pounded into my head a long time ago to beware of Greeks bearing gifts, so AAMC introducing this at the last minute, totally free of charge, set off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

My experience with AAMC thus far is that NOTHING is free (other than rescheduling MCATs due to COVID). MSAR should really be free, with any costs built into MCAT fees, but it isn't. In fact, all AAMC test prep material should be free, given how essential it is and how everyone buys it anyway, again with costs built into other fees, but it isn't. VITA certainly isn't free -- it's going to be paid for with every candidate's data, with a view towards charging you later after proof of concept (which you will recapture through increased secondary fees), as well as by charging me to utilize the service.

It is, however, reassuring to know that at least one school only expects to utilize it in a tertiary manner, without vendor scoring. My only remaining question then is, given how I don't see how sharing my personal academic and professional data with a third party not involved in the delivery of medical education services or medical care services will ever benefit me, other than possibly allowing me to be considered for enrollment at your fine institution, will you be offering a provision to opt out, either in full or at least allowing candidates to participate without signing the consent form?

Volunteering to be a test subject is one thing -- medical research could not advance without such individuals. Being forced to participate in order to be allowed to do something else is another matter entirely. Why isn't it voluntary? Aren't there enough neurotic pre-meds to think they might be missing out on some advantage if they didn't participate to make the experiment worthwhile without conscripting your entire applicant pool? Or would the study be invalid without everyone's participation, willing or otherwise?????

 

[ripmysociallife]

Just got marked as completed, submitted 7/16 and my last LOR finally uploaded today

edit: got an email saying I was complete but portal still says secondary email sent as status

 

[REL]

Many thanks!! My real question is why any school would want to waste its time looking at six three minute one-way videos of candidates responding to generic questions as part of the II process. I have therefore convinced myself that a cross-section of schools have been roped into this by AAMC in order to gather data for the vendor, HireVue, which markets an artificial intelligence algorithm to employers that is supposedly highly predictive of who will be successful in the workplace.

If I am correct, the endgame here would be for HireVue to sell this to you for you to use in deciding who receives IIs. Not this year, but in the future, after they have provided proof of concept. I only say this because AAMC has stated that these videos will not be scored or otherwise evaluated by AAMC. I am taking it on faith that you are not already purchasing scoring services directly from HireVue. Please correct me if I am wrong and you are at liberty to say.

My problem, besides being creeped out by the idea that all of my hard work over an extended period of years will ultimately come down to how a computer scores my body language, facial expressions and responses to a bunch of stupid questions, is that I am offended by the notion that I am forced to participate in the proof of concept study as a term and condition of being allowed to apply for admission to your school, without compensation and apparently without an ability to opt out. If true, it's not really what I've come to expect from UCF over the past year, based merely on your openness and transparency, as well as the general vibe given off by the school.

Providing data to AAMC, a non-profit association of medical schools, for its use in publishing various studies and analyses is one thing. Providing academic data to whoever is gathering it to make residency decisions is, of course, totally legitimate. But being FORCED to provide ALL of MY personal data, from admission, grades, ratings from courses and clerkships, performance on USMLE exams, professionalism, and graduation, to a third party for its use in selling a product back to you actually appears to be unethical. Apple and Google provide opt-outs for users who do not want their personal data monetized without compensation or their consent. Why does AAMC and its associated schools not do the same???????

Thank you very much for the comforting words. As always, yours is a voice of reason and transparency. Hopefully, my reaction will turn out to be over the top.

I totally get what you are saying regarding virtual versus in-person, both pro and con. However, my father pounded into my head a long time ago to beware of Greeks bearing gifts, so AAMC introducing this at the last minute, totally free of charge, set off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

My experience with AAMC thus far is that NOTHING is free (other than rescheduling MCATs due to COVID). MSAR should really be free, with any costs built into MCAT fees, but it isn't. In fact, all AAMC test prep material should be free, given how essential it is and how everyone buys it anyway, again with costs built into other fees, but it isn't. VITA certainly isn't free -- it's going to be paid for with every candidate's data, with a view towards charging you later after proof of concept (which you will recapture through increased secondary fees), as well as by charging me to utilize the service.

It is, however, reassuring to know that at least one school only expects to utilize it in a tertiary manner, without vendor scoring. My only remaining question then is, given how I don't see how sharing my personal academic and professional data with a third party not involved in the delivery of medical education services or medical care services will ever benefit me, other than possibly allowing me to be considered for enrollment at your fine institution, will you be offering a provision to opt out, either in full or at least allowing candidates to participate without signing the consent form?

Volunteering to be a test subject is one thing -- medical research could not advance without such individuals. Being forced to participate in order to be allowed to do something else is another matter entirely. Why isn't it voluntary? Aren't there enough neurotic pre-meds to think they might be missing out on some advantage if they didn't participate to make the experiment worthwhile without conscripting your entire applicant pool? Or would the study be invalid without everyone's participation, willing or otherwise?????

I have been checking on some of what you said is included in the applicant agreement you provided. It does appear all that they mention will be in their systems as your progress through medical school since they have application data for admissions and for residency. They use the data in an aggregate, deidentified way, to determine the validity of the MCAT, third year clerkship and graduation outcomes, etc.

I am pretty sure that the VITA is not scored nor is it linked up with any AI. IF that is not correct scores/outcomes are not shared with the medical programs. We are charged with coming up with our own evaluations for what is provided to us. I do expect that medical programs will be charged in the future if they opt in.

 

[KnightDoc]

I have been checking on some of what you said is included in the applicant agreement you provided. It does appear all that they mention will be in their systems as your progress through medical school since they have application data for admissions and for residency. They use the data in an aggregate, deidentified way, to determine the validity of the MCAT, third year clerkship and graduation outcomes, etc.

I am pretty sure that the VITA is not scored nor is it linked up with any AI. IF that is not correct scores/outcomes are not shared with the medical programs. We are charged with coming up with our own evaluations for what is provided to us. I do expect that medical programs will be charged in the future if they opt in.

I copied and pasted the relevant portions directly from "The AAMC Video Interview Tool for Admissions: Essentials for the 2021 Application Cycle" document. My concern is that the data will, in accordance with the consent required we are required to provide, be given to "any third-party service providers under contract to the AAMC [e.g., HireVue] to conduct research on the relationships between interviews, admissions decisions, and medical school performance. My medical school records released to the AAMC may include admission decisions, grades, ratings from courses and clerkships, performance on USMLE exams, professionalism, and graduation."

This data will not have any value in the aggregate, since it will need to be mapped to the interviews and how they were scored by their AI system, regardless of whether or not you are using or even seeing that score now. Aggregate data regarding medical school outcomes is available today, and isn't has no relation to HireVue's provision of an interview platform to AAMC, with no control on how interviews are used, since it is totally up to each individual school, who apparently are not making use of the AI technology. I am pretty sure that they will be using MY data, mapped to MY videos, to show you how much better their algorithm predicted my success, or failure, as compared to your adcom, across all participating applicants and all participating schools. I can't think of another reason I would be asked to provide this consent.

Yes, AAMC has access to all the data. Why would I need to consent to AAMC providing it to HireVue if all HireVue is doing is providing a dumb platform to you to allow you to watch videos of me, to do with whatever you wish? HireVue's whole game is providing this AI technology to employers (and presumably, in the future, medical schools). If this were not in their hoped for future, they would not be providing the interview platform at no cost to you and AAMC for free today, and I would certainly not be asked to sign an Interviewee Agreement that contains the provision I quoted above.

 

[thunderstorm1824]

For the question that asks us to list all online coursework, should we just list the prerequisites we completed online or any college-level course we took online?

 

[mkko09]

For the question that asks us to list all online coursework, should we just list the prerequisites we completed online or any college-level course we took online?

I did all my online courses including ones I anticipate to take.

 

[AegonTargaryenVI]

Just got a complete email

 

[bubblymed23]

.

 

[KnightDoc]

Hi Guys! Reapplicant here. My main reason for being rejected last year was my mcat score ( based off of the feedback given ). I recently retook the mcat (507) and scored alot better than my first attempt (500) but I barely meet the mcat range they give on msar. Would it still be worth applying here? Really torn because I’m really drawn to the school and its values

???? You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. You certainly have some chance, because you barely meet the minimum. You don't have a great chance, because you barely meet the minimum. You probably aren't going to get extra points because you are a reapplicant, or because you improved from not meeting the minimum to barely meeting the minimum, but who knows?

Bottom line -- you're really drawn to the school and its values, so you throw an application in and take your shot. The worst that can possibly happen has already happened, so what else do you have to lose? Another $71?

Edit: UCF's 10%-ile is 510 for all accepted, and 509 for all matriculated, so I'm not sure why you think a 507 is barely in range on MSAR. What exactly were you looking at? Unfortunately, unless you have something special going on, like Olympic athlete, URM, etc., the odds are very high that you are going to be disappointed again. The bottom 10% is not typically reserved for regular old reapplicants who happened to improve 7 points and are still in the bottom 10%.

 

[Davidfromcali]

Hi Guys! Reapplicant here. My main reason for being rejected last year was my mcat score ( based off of the feedback given ). I recently retook the mcat (507) and scored alot better than my first attempt (500) but I barely meet the mcat range they give on msar. Would it still be worth applying here? Really torn because I’m really drawn to the school and its values

If a 507 is above the 10th percentile, then you have a chance

 

[Microbe_Hunter]

@REL do you know when you guys are gona start sending out IIs?

 

[HopeP]

Just wanted to give UCF an A+ for the friendly, transparent, and communicative admission staff; they are one of very few schools that tells you exactly when your decision arrives post -II and tells you exactly where you place on the ranked WL!

A TLC of to be Drs goes long way for patients TLC. @REL as a parent I am certainly impressed about details, non-Gothic straight answers and transparancy.

 

[REL]

A TLC of to be Drs goes long way for patients TLC. @REL as a parent I am certainly impressed about details, non-Gothic straight answers and transparancy.

Thanks, it is a different mind-set. It is a product of also being a parent, having had a full military career, then nearly 25 years of MD admissions experience. The more an applicant knows, the better decisions they can make for themselves.

 

[REL]

@REL do you know when you guys are gona start sending out IIs? Likely another ~3 weeks. We need to batch for AORTA for faculty team reviews before we can invite

 

[comet2sixty]

Hey everyone! I'm watching the days go by waiting for AMCAS to verify my application. Its been over a month now, I thought I applied early but I guess this year is unpredictable. Nothing I can do now but wait to be verified and write as many secondaries as possible. Is anyone having this verification issue, or does anyone think I should be worried that people have already submitted secondaries to UCF?

 

[KnightDoc]

Hey everyone! I'm watching the days go by waiting for AMCAS to verify my application. Its been over a month now, I thought I applied early but I guess this year is unpredictable. Nothing I can do now but wait to be verified and write as many secondaries as possible. Is anyone having this verification issue, or does anyone think I should be worried that people have already submitted secondaries to UCF?

Nothing you can do, so nothing productive will be gained by worrying, but, no, "on time" every year extends at least through Labor Day, with the speculation that this year could be longer due to all the delays, so you are totally fine. UCF has not yet even begun to issue IIs.

Pretty much everyone is/was having the verification issue (you can check out the verification thread and see the lucky few who were verified quickly, with no issues), but, for the record, submitting this time last month was not really "early" when people started submitting at the end of May.

 

[avocadogirly1]

Hello!

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions! I am currently completely a Master's in Medical Sciences at USF. I have a few questions that come to mind.

1) How is a Master's in Medical Sciences viewed? Obviously a subpar undergraduate GPA (~3.4) is low for most allopathic medical schools.

2) How will my Master's GPA (3.7+) be viewed with respect to my undergraduate GPA (~3.4)?

3) Do you know if anyone has been accepted to UCF from the USF Medical Masters programs (MSP3 or Anatomy Concentration) in recent years?

4) Will I be at disadvantage this cycle if I submit my primary early and then take a Mid-August or September MCAT?

I would like to give myself ample time to study for the MCAT. However, I would love to apply this cycle but I am wondering if I should just apply in the next cycle. I know that COVID-19 has changed this application cycle!

Thank you!

Hey, MSP3 Grad- message me if you have questions

 

[StopLyingAboutYourStats!]

@REL does UCF COM have a preference for their undergraduate students?

 

[REL]

@REL does UCF COM have a preference for their undergraduate students?

We do not give preference to any program. We do give preference for those students who meet the preferences for admission to the program.

 

[ripmysociallife]

@REL this is probably premature but I was wondering for II if you call or send out emails? I know it varies between schools so I was just trying to keep track of everyone’s policies

 

[REL]

@REL this is probably premature but I was wondering for II if you call or send out emails? I know it varies between schools so I was just trying to keep track of everyone’s policies

We will normally call to advise of interview opportunity.

 

[theoriginalyaga]

i just received a "File Complete" email from UCF COM, and the status has updated on my Applicant Dashboard, but i know that AMCAS is still waiting on my Committee Letter... has this happened to anyone else, where you received a complete email prior to all necessary items being submitted?

thank you in advance!

 

[REL]

i just received a "File Complete" email from UCF COM, and the status has updated on my Applicant Dashboard, but i know that AMCAS is still waiting on my Committee Letter... has this happened to anyone else, where you received a complete email prior to all necessary items being submitted?

thank you in advance!

Man you are FAST! And all of that was corrected and your status updated within minutes!

 

[rachillthefout]

for the question:
The complexity of healthcare delivery increasingly requires interdisciplinary teamwork. What lessons have you learned from sports, music, business or other experiences have prepared you to succeed in this environment?

does this mean we have to tie in how an outside field prepared us to succeed in medicine?

 

[REL]

for the question:
The complexity of healthcare delivery increasingly requires interdisciplinary teamwork. What lessons have you learned from sports, music, business or other experiences have prepared you to succeed in this environment?

does this mean we have to tie in how an outside field prepared us to succeed in medicine?

The focus of the answer should be teamwork.

 

[rachillthefout]

The focus of the answer should be teamwork.

can I talk about teamwork experience working in a research lab? or since I'm a music major would it be better if I link this question to music ?

 

[Sockomockey]

can I talk about teamwork experience working in a research lab? or since I'm a music major would it be better if I link this question to music ?

I talked about my research lab instead of talking about track, but it's up to you I think! If you play with other people I think music would be really cool to talk about

 

[Microbe_Hunter]

For the online coursework and online degree, if our classes transitioned to an online format for Spring 2020 and we received our degree via a virtual graduation, should we answer no to both??

 

[thunderstorm1824]

For the online coursework and online degree, if our classes transitioned to an online format for Spring 2020 and we received our degree via a virtual graduation, should we answer no to both??

You can say no for the online degree question since only the final semester transitioned online due to COVID. But I thought the question asking you to list online coursework said to include classes that were moved online because of COVID, right?

 

[Microbe_Hunter]

You can say no for the online degree question since only the final semester transitioned online due to COVID. But I thought the question asking you to list online coursework said to include classes that were moved online because of COVID, right?

I think you're right, thanks for clarifying, when clicking yes for online classes, it tells us to note any COVID classes

 

[ripmysociallife]

does anyone else’s portal have upcoming interviews underneath their status lol I feel like I haven’t seen that there before (it’s still blank and my status is still just under review) but maybe I just never noticed it before

 

[SpaceDogMushka]

does anyone else’s portal have upcoming interviews underneath their status lol I feel like I haven’t seen that there before (it’s still blank and my status is still just under review) but maybe I just never noticed it before

I noticed it today as well. I think it’s new

 

[MadStork]

Is your "upcoming interviews" still there? I had it yesterday but I am not seeing it now.

 

[SpaceDogMushka]

Is your "upcoming interviews" still there? I had it yesterday but I am not seeing it now.

Mine is gone. Yes

 

[Med16484]

My status is still "FILE COMPLETE - READY FOR REVIEW". Are most people still on this?

 

[will scott]

My status is still "FILE COMPLETE - READY FOR REVIEW". Are most people still on this?

Yup that’s what mine says