RO Home> BEd &Tech Admissions> Application Sent> Info for Refused: BEd

RO> BEd &Tech Admissions> Application Sent> Info..Refused BEd 

Consecutive Bachelor of Education Admissions

Application Sent 

EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS

Admission to the University of Toronto's Consecutive Bachelor of Education/Initial Teacher Education Program is based on an examination of the academic background of the applicants as well as an examination of the applicant's teaching-related experience and other non-academic credentials. This year, as in past years, many more well-qualified people applied than we were able to accept. As a result, the admissions process to OISE was very competitive. The following considerations were used in assessing applications for the Consecutive Bachelor of Education Program for 2013-14.

 General

• Successful applicants were those with the strongest combination of academic standing and evidence of an understanding of teaching and learning as expressed in the Online Applicant Profile.
   
• Selection was informed by recruitment priorities articulated by OISE and the Ontario Ministry of Education.
   
• All applicants were required to satisfy the OISE English Language Proficiency Requirement. Detailed information about this requirement was included on pages 18-20 of the OISE Application Handbook.
   
• Written communication skills were considered in the rating of the Applicant Profile. Profiles were read from a holistic point of view, and it was expected that applicants would use the opportunity to present themselves in the best light possible, as potential teachers.

[Top]

Academic Background

• An overall "B" range average in 15 full-year (or equivalent) undergraduate courses completed at the time of application was required in order to be considered for admission. Applicants with an academic average in the "A" range had a competitive advantage for admission. Applicants with an academic average in the "C" range were not eligible for admission to the Bachelor of Education Program in 2011-12, and thus their Profiles were not assessed.

» 32.7% of assessed applicants had an "A" range average.
» 59.2% of assessed applicants had a "B" range average.
»   8.1% of assessed applicants had a "C" range average.

• The majority of applicants had a 4-year undergraduate degree, completed or in progress at the time of application. Applicants with a graduate degree had a competitive advantage for admission; applicants with a 3-year degree were at a competitive disadvantage. Applicants who had not yet completed 15 full-year (or equivalent) undergraduate courses at the time of application were not eligible for admission to the Bachelor of Education Program in 2013-14, and thus their Profiles were not assessed.
   
• Strong academic standing did not compensate for a weak Applicant Profile.

[Top]

Applicant Profile

• Each eligible Applicant Profile was read at least twice and then checked for consistency in grading.
   
• The Applicant Profile is read with a view to understanding the education-related experience of the applicant, and the insights derived from this experience relevant to the particular division for which the applicant applied. As well, evidence of applicants' understanding of their responsibilities to learn about and support a diverse population of students and to address equity and social justice in their work with students and families is considered.
   

• Profiles were evaluated on the basis of a rubric developed in relation to the specific points that applicants were advised to address when completing their Profile. These are described on pages 15-17 of the OISE Application Handbook.
  
  CLICK HERE to see the rubric. (This link is disabled after July 15.)
   

• Each of Part One and Part Two of the Profile was rated as "High Pass", "Pass" "Low Pass" or "Insufficient Evidence".

» The "High Pass" rating was assigned to a response that provided exceptionally strong evidence of readiness to enter the program. Applicants who received this rating in any or all of Part One, Part Two or Part Three of the Profile were given priority in final selection, so long as all other minimum requirements were satisfied. 2.6% of assessed Profiles received a "High Pass" rating in one or more parts of the Profile.

» The "Pass" rating was assigned to a response that provided evidence of an acceptable level of readiness to enter the program. Applicants who received this rating on all three Parts of the Profile could be considered for admission. Final selection would be determined by other factors in the application. 83.3% of assessed Profiles received an overall "Pass" rating.

» The "Low Pass" rating was assigned to a response that provided evidence of a limited level of readiness to enter the program. The "Low Pass" rating is still considered a technically acceptable rating, however, applicants who received 1 or more "Low Pass" ratings in sections of the Profile were less likely to receive an Offer. 32.8% of assessed Profiles received a “Low Pass” rating in 1 or more sections of the Profile and 10.0% of assessed Profiles received an overall "Low Pass" rating.

» The "Insufficient Evidence" rating was assigned to a response that did not provide evidence of an acceptable level of readiness to enter the program. Applicants who received this rating in any part of the Profile were not considered for admission. (If you received this rating, then your refusal letter will have indicated that your Profile did not satisfy our minimum requirements.) 4.2%  of assessed Profiles received an "Insufficient Evidence" rating in one or more parts of the Profile.

» Starting on April 2 (4:30 p.m.), you can log into your own Profile to see the ratings for your Profile by visiting the log-in page for the Online Applicant Profile.

• Overall, Profiles which displayed that the applicant had a keen understanding of the teaching profession and of young children or adolescents as learners were highly rated. Applicants were expected to clearly and coherently link these understandings to their experiences.
   
• A strong Applicant Profile did not compensate for weak academic standing. Profiles were not read if they were incomplete or if any part of our academic requirement or English proficiency requirement was not satisfied.

[Top]
 

SERVICES FOR REFUSED APPLICANTS

Review Process

Great care has been taken in our application evaluation process to ensure that we have applied our criteria consistently and correctly. As a result of the large number of applications we received this year, there were many more well-qualified applicants than we are able to accept. Nevertheless, we offer a review process to allow applicants to bring to our attention information in their application which they believe we may have overlooked when we made our original evaluation. The purpose of this review process is to ensure that we have correctly applied our published criteria to the specifics of your application.  The review process is not an opportunity to introduce new information or to request an exemption from our normal selection criteria.

In deciding whether or not to request a review, you should be aware of the following:

• If your decision letter states that "...while you have met our basic requirements we regret that because of limited space in the program we are unable to offer you admission to the 2013-14 academic year at this time," then it is not necessary to request a review in order to be considered for second round admission (should a second round be necessary). You may wish instead to use the feature within our Profile site to indicate that you remain interested in being considered if any additional Offers can be made.  (Note that if your letter states that you failed to satisfy an admission requirement or if your application was deemed incomplete, then you will not have this option available to you.)
• A successful review does not necessarily lead to admission on a second round if the resulting change is not of a magnitude to make your application competitive for second round consideration.
• Based on our experience, not many changes to our evaluation are made as a result of the review process.
• In rare instances it is possible that the outcome of the review process could be a downgrading of some aspect of our evaluation.
• Our response to your request for review will be a letter which indicates whether or not a change has been made.  If you are interested in receiving feedback about your application, you should take advantage of our counselling service described below, rather than request a review.

Review Forms may be obtained via this website (see below).

You are advised to read carefully the information regarding our evaluation of applications in the first section of this web-page and also the information in our Application Handbook before submitting a request for a review.

The deadline for submission of Review Forms is Friday, April 26 2013. The Admissions Committee will be considering all requests for review during the month of May, and we plan to have responses to applicants before the end of June, 2013.

[Top]

Downloading the Review Form

NOTE: You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader in order to view and print the forms. You can obtain the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader free from the Adobe website.

There are two versions of the review form; one for requesting a review of your Applicant Profile's assessment and another for requesting a review of any other aspect of your application's documentation. During the month of April these forms are available as pdf files for you to download. 
 

Individual Counselling

Individual counselling is intended to assist you in preparing for a future application; it is not part of the review process and will have no influence on admission selection for the 2013-14 session of our Bachelor of Education Program.

Beginning Monday, April 22, 2013  please call (416) 978-1848 if you wish to book an appointment with an admissions counsellor concerning a future application. If you have requested a review of your application, you should wait until after you have received our letter advising you of the outcome of the review before making an appointment with a counsellor. The application files of persons requesting a review may not be available to counselling staff until after the review process has been completed.
 

[Top]