Hi everyone,
I agree that the MCAT depends more on you as a student rather than the school you attend. I say that because the material is actually pretty basic if you're a science undergrad, so you'll cover it no matter which school you choose, plus the AAMC gives you a complete list of all the topics you're responsible for. The MCAT is much more about instant recall under time pressure, so it comes down to the student more than the material.
For what it's worth, here were my thoughts on U of T, from the start when I was in your position, Endri. I had a 95% OAC average, earned in high school courses that were conducted like university classes, i.e. with a strong emphasis on self-motivation. I chose UT St. George because I felt it was the strongest for an undergrad Science education, and graduated last year after doing a Physiology Specialist degree. But if I had to do it again, I would either choose the Physiology major accompanied by a French major, or not have gone to St. George at all.
Here's one problem I found: the attitude towards learning at St. George -- because of sheer class sizes, the emphasis is on weeding out their so-called "poor" students instead of testing material that's relevant to the big picture of each course. The Faculty of Arts and Science sets specific quotas for each grade mark (ex. 15% of the class can receive an A, 20% B..), and if these quotas are exceeded, course lecturers must write a letter of explantion to the Dean of the faculty stating why this cohort is exceptional. That's directly from the mouths of my lecturers and teaching assistants. So, exams are set to reflect this push towards the quotas. I think it undermines students and their goals when a place of higher education puts a quota on the number of students allowed to earn particular grades, and it makes you question the validity of the mark you receive. It can be quite destructive, too, because there are so many "poor" students who are so bright and know the material inside and out, but because their marks don't reflect their knowledge, they become convinced they are dumb, lose confidence, and find it hard to recover afterwards.
The quotas are probably one reason for a lack of interest on the part of educators, which I thought was another problem: most lecturers are dispassionate when it comes to encouraging the potential in their students. Most of them lecture because it's mandated in their contracts, and there's a flood of students each year, so they're not under any onus to take any particular interest -- whomever will fail out, will fail out, there's always another student to take the place. Also, these same lecturers are under incredible pressure from the university itself to publish papers, and some may have contracts revoked if they're not performing up to par. I think it's a shame, given the reputation the university has, and with the incredible amount of funding it secures, it has the potential to be so much more.
Another reason there's a lack of interest when it comes to learning at St. George -- in the first 3 years of Science classes, most of your day-to-day contact in a lab/classroom is with teaching assistants who are themselves graduate students. Typically, they're primarily concerned with their own research, grant applications, and submitting papers, and end up doing the minimum in the classroom. Cheap labour, unfortunately, is the trademark of a good business.
Here's another problem I found, specific to the meds process: the personal statement, including extra-curriculars and work experience, is incredibly important in deciding between med applicants post-interview (exactly as someone said before, pre-interview only depends on meeting the GPA and MCAT cutoffs). At St.George, the time away from studies directly translates into lower grades (because of that emphasis on weeding out), but a more complete set of soft skills which, I believe, are equally important to your skills as a physician. So it's like being caught between a rock and a hard place. I'm not sure I would have encountered the same problem had I chosen even UTM/UTS for Science. At the end of it, the science education itself you receive is good, whether you're at York, UTM, UTS, St. George, Mac, Western, what have you -- the difference is that at St. George your grades often don't reflect what you really know, and when it comes to interview, the cutoffs are what matter.
I think long-term goals are ultimately the most important in making the decision. For sure, if you're thinking of biomed research as an alternative/plan b, nothing can beat back the opportunities available at St. George -- they are phenomenal. But if you know it's meds all the way, then you need to decide on the most important factors in getting you there. And I'm sorry for the long message, but I hope it helps some!! Good luck with the decision.