MONTREAL — An external review done of the admissions process for the faculty of medicine at McGill University concludes that the faculty has taken a “defensible” path with changes it has made to how students are selected and in its emphasis on diversity, but also hints at the frustration and unhappiness the new direction has sparked among some of McGill’s traditional stakeholders.

That frustration may have translated into a decline in donations as the university’s financial vulnerability, particularly in light of seeking alumni and potential donors, is mentioned no less than seven times in the 13-page report.



LINK: Read the full report here.



The review — which was commissioned last spring, conducted last fall and made public this spring — makes recommendations about how the faculty should improve the way it communicates its message and on the process surrounding admissions.

It suggests that the assistant dean of Admissions, Equity and Diversity, Dr. Saleem Razack, should not also serve as chair of the admissions committee or chair of the multiple mini interview (MMI) review committee to avoid the appearance of combining roles “that should be entirely separate.”

However, the review doesn’t make recommendations about the admissions process itself — namely, the criteria used for selection purposes, the way the MMIs are conducted or how the CV and narrative required by applicants should be assessed.

When asked about that, Razack said the reviewers “were very happy with the way the process runs.” He also said that all of the recommendations are being studied with a goal of implementing them, but while he probably will soon step down as chair of the MMI review committee, he couldn’t give a clear answer about the admissions committee.

But one recommendation that likely won’t be implemented any time soon was the one to increase the number of interviews of applicants, because it is more “palatable” to be rejected after an interview. Razack said while he would love to grant more interviews, it also requires more resources and may not be feasible.

A story in The Gazette last summer described a palpable frustration among many in the urban anglophone community who believe the faculty’s increasing emphasis on diversity has put them at a disadvantage. They believe that such selection criteria as empathy, intelligence and dedication have been replaced with a growing emphasis on parental income, skin colour, language and rurality.

And with only about eight to 10 per cent of applicants getting in to medical school these days, a spot at a prestigious school like McGill is a little like winning the lottery — hence the fierce debate surrounding the admissions process.

Not only has there been grumbling about francophones taking spots away from anglophones, but there was concern about how francophones who are not required to take any language testing (whereas anglophones applying to the Université de Montréal medical school need an 86 per cent on a difficult French test) can fare in a demanding English academic milieu.

That problem may be becoming more material than ever, judging by a letter sent to faculty recently by the medicine class of 2017 president, Nebras Warsi, outlining problems with the program’s new curriculum. It suggests that “high-stakes testing” can “unfairly penalize students for certain skills that they do not possess,” and then points to the diversity of the class, which has “many students whose first language is not English.” It then suggests that testing should focus on competence, not “English comprehension” (along with other “confounding variables”).

David Eidelman, the dean of medicine, said it may have been expressed in terms of language, but Warsi was really getting at a problem that had to do with the timing afforded on an exam, and he believes it’s “a misrepresentation” to characterize it differently.