AGPA  stands for Adjusted Grade Point Average.

MCAT  stands for Medical College Admissions Test.
The MCAT is a North America wide standard test which compares
a student's knowldege in physics, chemistry, and biology, to all
other students in North America, and which compares a student's
verbal reasoning ability and writing ability to all other students
in North America.

PAS  stands for Personal Assessment Score

The Faculty of Medicine's Application Information Bulletin clearly stated
that applicants from Manitoba (who were not special admission applicants)
would have their admissions score calculated as follows:
AGPA 15%   MCAT 40%   PAS 45%.

It also stated that the PAS would be calculated based on: (1) information
provided by the applicants, (2) the applicant's referee scores and
(3) an interview score.

Information provided by the applicant meant information about what the
applicant had done and achieved before applying to medicine.

Referee reports was a fancy way of saying the applicant's letters of reference.

The interview score meant what they received on their interview.

The Application Information Bulletin indicated no difference in
value between those three factors. Therefore, as those three factors
together were worth 45%, each of them was worth one-third of 45% = 15%.

(Relevant excerpts from the Faculty of Medicine's bulletin are shown
below, and the entire bulletin is available at the end of this page.)


The Faculty of Medicine's letter of December 7, 2010 (which is shown below)
states that Henya earned an AGPA of 4.12 and an adjusted MCAT of 10.8

Henya's actual MCAT was 11, but they adjusted it down to 10.8.

Using the Faculty of Medicine's own listed scores for Henya,
she achieved a total AGPA + MCAT score of:

(4.12 x 15%) + (10.8 x 40%) = 49.38

                   ...........................................................................................................................................

Based on the Faculty of Medicine's Application Information Bulletin
scoring formula Henya achieved a higher score than at least two-thirds
of the applicants they admitted instead of Henya.

Once the Faculty of Medicine accepted Henya's application fee and
application form they were legally and morally bound to determine
Henya's admission based on their own published scoring formula.

In its December 7, 2010 letter, which is shown below, the Faculty of
Medicine admitted that they did not use their own published
scoring formula to determine Heny'a admission; therefore they
admited that they illegally refused to admit Henya.

The Faculty of Medicine claims to have instead used something
it called standardized scoring of the component parts.

When I asked them to show me the formula they used, the Faculty
of Medicine REFUSED. Why would they refuse to show me how they
calculated Henya's score if they had done so in an honest and legal
fashion ?

In my seven years of university I never once had a professor tell me
that they would not show me how my grade was determined. Why would
anyone refuse to show you how they legally and honestly determined
your score ?

                   ...........................................................................................................................................

What scores did the students receive that the Faculty of Medicine
let in instead of Henya ?

A median score means the score that is in the middle of all of the scores.
In other words, there were just as many people who received a score
LOWER than the median as there were people who received a score
HIGHER than the median.

Therefore, as the Faculty of Medicine let in about 99 regular
Manitoba applicants, there were 49 regular Manitoba applicants
whose score was lower than the median score and
49 whose score was higher than the median score.

Hence, if Henya had achieved the median score, then by the Faculty
of Medicine's own admission, 49 regular Manitoba applicants who
they let in had a lower score than Henya.

HOWEVER, Henya achieved a higher score than the median score
of all regular Manitoba applicants that they let in instead of Henya.

The median score of all regular Manitoba applicants let in was:
(4.17 x 15%) + (10.55 x 40%) = 48.45

Henya also achieved a higher score than the mean score
of all regular Manitoba applicants that they let in instead of Henya.

The mean score of all regular Manitoba applicants let in was:
(4.15 x 15%) + (10.61 x 40%) = 48.78

Therefore, whether you use the mean score or the median score,
in the AGPA and MCAT portions, Henya's score of 49.38
placed her in about the TOP 33 of all 99 regular Manitoba
applicants that they let in instead of Henya.

Regarding Henya's personal information, she won the U of M's own Chown Scholarship
for being the best all-round student who graduated from her high school.
Henya had excellent work evaluations from her responsible job as a life-guard and
swimming instructor, and she had excellent letters of reference.

The Faculty of Medicine refused to release information on how Henya's interview
score was calculated. However, the fact that Henya would have received a very
high interview score can be determined
from the words of the inventor of the MMI
interview system that was used by the Faculty of Medicine.

The interview used was called the Multi Mini Interview ("MMI").
It was invented by McMaster University. McMaster claims that the MMI
and the Verbal Reasoning portion of the MCAT predict the same thing.
McMaster claims that they both predict how well an applicant will do
many years later on a test called the MCCQE Part II.

Therefore, according to McMaster, it is NOT possible to score
exceptionally high on the Verbal Reasoning portion of the MCAT, which
would predict that you would do well on MCCQE Part II, and
simultaneously do poorly on the MMI, because that would predict the
opposite (ie. that you would do poorly on the MCCQE Part II).

Consequently, as Henya did better on the Verbal Reasoning Portion of the MCAT
than 99% of the applicants the Faculty of Medicine admitted, she would have
also done better on the MMI than 99% of the applicants the Faculty of
Medicine admitted, because according to McMaster, both the MMI and Verbal
Reasoning of the MCAT predict the same thing.

All of the above scores and calcualtions are verified in the
the below Faculty of Medicine documents and letter.

I have gone on record as stating that the MMI is invalid as it cannot predict
anything, and that the MMI is illegal as it clearly violates the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms
portion of the Canadian Constitution, and clearly
violates the United States Constitution, and clearly violates the U.N.'s
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Therefore, the MMI should be abolished as being useless and illegal.
However, as useless and illegal as it is, according to its inventor, it must
provide the approximate same result as does the Verbal Reasoning portion of
the MCAT. Therefore, Henya's real MMI score must be very high as her MCAT
Verbal Reasoning score placed her in the top 1% in all of North America .

Out of all of North America Henya scored in the 99th percentile (ie. the
top 1%) in the Verbal Reasoning portion of the MCAT. In other words,
99% of all medical school applicants in Manitoba and in all of North
America were BELOW Henya in the Verbal Reasoning. Therefore, based
on McMaster's own words, if the U of M ever provides full disclosure it
will be seen that Henya's MMI score was at the very top of the MMI
scores of the applicants let into medicine.

Henya's academic scores put her in the top 33% of all regular Manitoba
applicants who were let in, her personal character information, winning the
U of M's own award for best all-round student graduating from her high school,
and her stellar Verbal Reasoning score which equals a great MMI score, placed
her overall medical admission score at least in the top 33%. However, they
illegally refused to offer her admission by ignoring their own published
admission score formula.

When a public universtiy is convinced that it can IGNORE its on published scoring formula, and ignore the constitution, to refuse entry to whomever it chooses to refuse, and to allow entry to whomever it pleases; THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP UP AND PASS LAWS REQUIRING public universities and colleges to follow the constitution in their admissions practice.

In my (ie. Shawn David Olfman's) letter to Dr. Martin I calculated Henya's
composite score using the scoring formula published in the Faculty of
Medicine's own Application Information Bulletin, which is that the adjusted
MCAT and AGPA are 40% and 15% respectively, as stated in paragraph D
of Dr. Martin's letter.

In paragraph E of his letter, Dr. Martin clearly states that they used
"a process of standardized scoring of the component parts" in
contradistinction to how I calculated Henya's score, which
was by using the Faculty of Medicine's own PUBLISHED scoring formula.

"contradistinction" means that the Faculty of Medicine did NOT use the
scoring formula which I used (ie. they did not use their own published
scoring formula), but instead used a secret formula which they refuse
to reveal.

"Standardized" is a word that is intended to imply that an equal
standard was applied; however, until you know what that "standard"
is, you don't know if it is toward equality or toward discrimination.
The Private Club that has "standards" for membership is usually the
Private Club that discriminates. When you are treating everyone
equally and fairly you don't have to use words like "standardized",
which has an uncertain meaning.

Calling a stink weed a rose does not turn the stink weed into a rose.
Similarly, using a respected or legitimate name for something which
is dishonest and unfair does NOT make that thing honest and fair.

It is also true that applying a legitimate method to dishonestly determined
component parts does NOT cleanse the dishonesty. Once you start with
dishonesty, unfairness and discrimination, that is all you will end up
with, no matter how you sing and dance around what you started with.

Standardized scoring is simply a fancy way of saying that a formula
or more than one formula was applied to certain parts of the score.
It tells you nothing about what was done to the component parts, it
only tells you that something was done to them. It also does NOT
tell you if the component parts were honestly or dishonestly
determined; and it does not tell you if the component parts were
dishonestly manipulated to achieve an unfair result.

The only thing that the Faculty of Medicine's letter does tell you
is that they dishonestly, in breach of their own Information Bulletin,
did NOT use the scoring formula which they stated they would use in
their own Information Bulletin.

That is a clear admission by the Faculty of Medicine that their refusal
to offer admission to Henya was ILLEGALLY based on their NOT following
their own published scoring formula; and instead using a secret score
which cannot be known or verified, or checked in any way for accuracy,
error, honesty or discrimination.

I repeat what I wrote above. When a public universtiy is convinced that it can IGNORE its on published scoring formula, and ignore the constitution, to refuse entry to whomever it chooses to refuse, and to allow entry to whomever it pleases; THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP UP AND PASS LAWS REQUIRING public universities and colleges to follow the constitution in their admissions practice.

Some people have said that to be a good doctor you also
have to have a good people personality.  Henya's work
record of teaching children, adults, and special needs, and
of being a requested instructor, and Henya's selection as
best all-round student, PROVES her great people personality.
There was Constitution Violating Discrimination used to keep
Henya from entering The U of M's Faculty of Medicine.

What is happening now ?

The same universities that are breaching the Constitution,
began lobbying the governments in the States and Canada
to prevent the Congressional Investigative Hearing and the
Parliamentary Inquiry being called for by this website.

A Congressional Investigative Hearing in the United States
is simply an official fact finding inquiry; why would American
universities, receiving (in total) billions of tax dollars
EVERY YEAR, not want the Congress and the Senate to
know whether their admissions practices are violating the
American Constitution ?

A Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry is also simply an official
fact finding inquiry; why would Canadian universities,
receiving (in total) close to a billion tax dollars EVERY
YEAR, not want Parliament to know whether their admissions
practices are violating the Canadian Constitution ?

Click here to return to the Constitution-Breaches.Com main page.
Click here to see the entire Faculty of Medicine Application Information Bulletin.